I'm confused...

[Mr. Astrophysicist]

It may baffle to some extent for those of you who know me may recognise me as a possible philosopher. But seriously, I just need to ask these questions:

 

-What do you call a theory that cannot be proven, sounds illogical, neither can it be disproven?

-Is everything phenomenal due to the limitation of science?

-Due to the limitation of science, and the infinite possibilities to the universe, are our experiments, theories, conjectures, assumptions, so on, so forth, wrong; because of the undiscovered portions of the possible infinite universe?

[Strange]

 

-What do you call a theory that cannot be proven, sounds illogical, neither can it be disproven?

 

Not-a-theory. Or wild guess.

 

 

-Due to the limitation of science, and the infinite possibilities to the universe, are our experiments, theories, conjectures, assumptions, so on, so forth, wrong; because of the undiscovered portions of the possible infinite universe?

 

All theories are considered provisional, liable to be falsified at any time. So neither right nor wrong, just the best we have at the meoment.

[Phi for All]

-What do you call a theory that cannot be proven, sounds illogical, neither can it be disproven?

Unfalsifiable. In order to work within the scientific method, an explanation has to be capable of being shown false. An example would be the existence of god(s). If, by their very nature, nobody can observe them directly or get them to react to stimuli in a predictable manner, there's no way to test to see if they're real or not. Not capable of being falsified, unfalsifiable. Not science.

 

-Is everything phenomenal due to the limitation of science?

What definition of phenomenal are you using: remarkable, or perceptible through the senses or immediate experience? And with either definition, how does it relate to the limitations of science? And you might as well let us know how you think science is limited.

 

-Due to the limitation of science, and the infinite possibilities to the universe, are our experiments, theories, conjectures, assumptions, so on, so forth, wrong; because of the undiscovered portions of the possible infinite universe?

Science relies on theory to keep it always in hot pursuit of the best explanations for various phenomena. Theories are the best it gets in science, tried and tested rigorously in as many environments as possible.

 

But a theory is never considered proof, because we can't test everything everywhere. We always look for ways to refute any theory, but mostly we find more supportive evidence, and that gives us confidence that our explanations are trustworthy. And we know our theories aren't wrong; they're definitely the best explanations we have in the portions of our universe where they're being tested.

[imatfaal]

It may baffle to some extent for those of you who know me may recognise me as a possible philosopher. But seriously, I just need to ask these questions:

 

-What do you call a theory that cannot be proven, sounds illogical, neither can it be disproven?

...

 

 

Not-a-theory. Or wild guess.

 

Unfalsifiable. In order to work within the scientific method, an explanation has to be capable of being shown false. An example would be the existence of god(s). If, by their very nature, nobody can observe them directly or get them to react to stimuli in a predictable manner, there's no way to test to see if they're real or not. Not capable of being falsified, unfalsifiable. Not science...

 

I think my two colleagues are too harsh - lots of notions (especially those you find here) that would fit your criteria "cannot be proven, sounds illogical, neither can it be disproven" would correctly be described as a wild guess or Not science; but I am mindful of some of the rival interpretations of quantum mechanics which would also fit the bill. They are definitely not a testable theory and they are completely contrary to notions of common sense - but they are also a long way from being guesswork. They are not completed science but they are the process of science.

 

It is a terrible thing to say but to an extent it depends on who is doing the opining. If Ed Witten tells you about this mad idea he has - with no links to the datum universe but the structure is beautiful and the maths is just awesome then you listen; if imatfaal tells you the same thing then you nicely tell him to go away and try to learn the basics. This isn't an argument from authority - just a realisation that some people's guess work has the foundation of years of study, a first rate mind, the intimate understanding of the subject, and probably the first level of peer review through similarly brilliant and learned close colleagues.

[Phi for All]

It is a terrible thing to say but to an extent it depends on who is doing the opining. If Ed Witten tells you about this mad idea he has - with no links to the datum universe but the structure is beautiful and the maths is just awesome then you listen; if imatfaal tells you the same thing then you nicely tell him to go away and try to learn the basics. This isn't an argument from authority - just a realisation that some people's guess work has the foundation of years of study, a first rate mind, the intimate understanding of the subject, and probably the first level of peer review through similarly brilliant and learned close colleagues.

 

Perhaps I took the "can't be proven or disproven" caveat too seriously. There is that aspect of scientific knowledge that takes a Witten to glance at and know it's more than just a wild guess.

 

I only get to know what that feels like when the statements are obviously wrong. We had someone post yesterday something along the lines of "How do you expect to travel at the speed of light squared if you don't understand simple physics?!" I've gotten to where I can spot an Argument from WTF a mile away.

[J.C.MacSwell]

 

Perhaps I took the "can't be proven or disproven" caveat too seriously. There is that aspect of scientific knowledge that takes a Witten to glance at and know it's more than just a wild guess.

 

I only get to know what that feels like when the statements are obviously wrong. We had someone post yesterday something along the lines of "How do you expect to travel at the speed of light squared if you don't understand simple physics?!" I've gotten to where I can spot an Argument from WTF a mile away.

"Be a cubical photon" for the win!

[CasualKilla]

 

Not-a-theory. Or wild guess.

 

 

All theories are considered provisional, liable to be falsified at any time. So neither right nor wrong, just the best we have at the meoment.

 

This ^. Although a theory is not free from being disproved, since a theory does not always describe reality, but rather a model to understand reality. A theory can therefore be used to make predictions about reality. An accepted theory will make accurate predictions about reality and will not contradict itself, or it would be immediately thrown out, since this type of theory is not useful. So what you described in the OP is not a theory for starters. Theory's often evolve by becoming more complicated to account for newly observed phenomenon, but very rarely is a theory completely abolished by some new finding since it was used to make predictions about reality, it will always retain some element of truth about the reality it describes.

 

You may ask yourself, what is the purpose of a teaching a theory that may not be 100% true to reality, well the answer is very simple; theories are amazing useful tools to that we can use to make decisions and design amazing contraptions.

Edited March 18, 2015 by CasualKilla

[Mr. Astrophysicist]

 

 

 

 

I think my two colleagues are too harsh - lots of notions (especially those you find here) that would fit your criteria "cannot be proven, sounds illogical, neither can it be disproven" would correctly be described as a wild guess or Not science; but I am mindful of some of the rival interpretations of quantum mechanics which would also fit the bill. They are definitely not a testable theory and they are completely contrary to notions of common sense - but they are also a long way from being guesswork. They are not completed science but they are the process of science.

 

It is a terrible thing to say but to an extent it depends on who is doing the opining. If Ed Witten tells you about this mad idea he has - with no links to the datum universe but the structure is beautiful and the maths is just awesome then you listen; if imatfaal tells you the same thing then you nicely tell him to go away and try to learn the basics. This isn't an argument from authority - just a realisation that some people's guess work has the foundation of years of study, a first rate mind, the intimate understanding of the subject, and probably the first level of peer review through similarly brilliant and learned close colleagues.

Authorise me to elucidate: In simple terms, Quantum Physics or Quantum Mechanics are, and from a general outlook, a scientific subject or a branch of physics to explain phenomena that the world - No, the universe that can offer: such as super luminous supernovas (Hypernovas, in layman's terms), supernovas, gravitons and String Theory, or in academic language, M-Theory, so on, so forth. But from Quantum Computers, and the Quantum Realm (Where evidently everything is pixelated beyond macroscopic level) etcetera, but going to my question, is everything quantum physics? I know science can be an estimation or a approximation; such as Newton's Laws and such, but then again, Quantum Physics is an attempt to explain phenomena. So, asking a question such as "Is friction real?" or "Is energy real" will be a paradox. Because a phenomena beyond the distant galaxies could mean that friction would be zero, because of some special atom or gas that cancels the effect. Everything confuses me.

[pavelcherepan]

 

 

Quantum Physics or Quantum Mechanics are, and from a general outlook, a scientific subject or a branch of physics to explain phenomena that the world - No, the universe that can offer: such as super luminous supernovas (Hypernovas, in layman's terms), supernovas, gravitons and String Theory, or in academic language, M-Theory, so on, so forth.

 

I think the prediction of gravitons comes from GR, not the quantum mechanics. Also, Quantum theory doesn't explain String theory, they are in my understanding, competing theories, attempting to explain the Universe in different ways and M-Theory and String theory are not the same. They are an evolution of the same way of thinking but different in a lot of ways. It goes String Theory -> Superstring theory (more dimensions) -> M-Theory (no more strings, branes instead).

 

 

 

is everything quantum physics?

 

Gravity and macroscopic interactions in Universe are not explained from QM perspective.

 

 

 

So, asking a question such as "Is friction real?" or "Is energy real" will be a paradox.

 

In my understanding both of those are real and I don't really see a paradox.

Edited March 19, 2015 by pavelcherepan

[imatfaal]

Authorise me to elucidate:..

 

That was clearer?

 

I think the prediction of gravitons comes from GR, not the quantum mechanics. Also, Quantum theory doesn't explain String theory, they are in my understanding, competing theories, attempting to explain the Universe in different ways and M-Theory and String theory are not the same. They are an evolution of the same way of thinking but different in a lot of ways. It goes String Theory -> Superstring theory (more dimensions) -> M-Theory (no more strings, branes instead).

The graviton is the hypothetical mediator of the gravitational field in the quantum field theory of gravity - which doesn't really exist yet. But there is a great search for one - the power of Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Chromodynamics and ability to unify these theories means the quest for a quantum theory of gravity is a big and important one.

[Strange]

but going to my question, is everything quantum physics?

 

No. For example, gravity is described using Newton's laws or general relativity. Neither of these can be derived from (or requires) quantum physics.

 

So, asking a question such as "Is friction real?" or "Is energy real" will be a paradox.

 

I also don't see why this would be a paradox.

 

Because a phenomena beyond the distant galaxies could mean that friction would be zero, because of some special atom or gas that cancels the effect.

 

Friction is a real thing (otherwise the world would be a very different place). There are materials with very low friction, and we might find something with zero friction. But that doesn't mean friction doesn't exist.

[pavelcherepan]

 

The graviton is the hypothetical mediator of the gravitational field in the quantum field theory of gravity - which doesn't really exist yet.

 

Thanks for the correction. Apparently, I was a bit confused with this one.

[imatfaal]

 

Thanks for the correction. Apparently, I was a bit confused with this one.

 

No worries - anyone who claims not to be confused about Quantum Gravity is either completely uninterested, a raving liar, or about to take a trip to Stockholm to pick up their Nobel.

[Mr. Astrophysicist]

 

No. For example, gravity is described using Newton's laws or general relativity. Neither of these can be derived from (or requires) quantum physics.

 

 

I also don't see why this would be a paradox.

 

 

Friction is a real thing (otherwise the world would be a very different place). There are materials with very low friction, and we might find something with zero friction. But that doesn't mean friction doesn't exist.

A paradox is a unsolvable problem that confuses people to some extent; it confuses me to think, that asking every question would be a paradox until discoveries or the advancement of technology. Why: we may interpret the existence of forces such as friction, when it may be something else or something phenomenal. Though conducted by experimental physicists or scientists to prove their existence, their work are only dedicated to designing protocols to find the accuracy of such theories. And as me know, some substance or hypothetical planets beyond the cosmos or in a distant galaxy may have a substance in a planet that cancels friction. Or possibly, asking a question such as; how many states of matter would be vague as to the 4 types of matter, plasma, solid, liquid and gas, there may be another type of matter out there. So one limitation of science would be theories. Correct?

[pavelcherepan]

 

A paradox is a unsolvable problem that confuses people to some extent; it confuses me to think, that asking every question would be a paradox until discoveries or the advancement of technology.

 

So let's look at the other definition of paradox:

 

 

A paradox is a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true.

 

So what part of the questions "Is friction real?" and "Is energy real?" contradicts itself? They are both real in a sense that they can be observed in the real world using instruments and technology we currently possess.

 

 

Why: we may interpret the existence of forces such as friction, when it may be something else or something phenomenal. Though conducted by experimental physicists or scientists to prove their existence, their work are only dedicated to designing protocols to find the accuracy of such theories.

 

Friction currently is explained as arising from interatomic or intermolecular forces between contacting surfaces. So far, the theory seems to work, but it's not correct to assume that the work of scientists is only to find accuracy of current theories. Should a phenomenon be observed that completely contradicts the current views a new theory will be developed based on these observations and accounting for all previous empirical data as well.

 

 

Or possibly, asking a question such as; how many states of matter would be vague as to the 4 types of matter, plasma, solid, liquid and gas, there may be another type of matter out there.

 

There's actually many other known states of matter in addition to the 4 classical ones you named.

 

 

So one limitation of science would be theories. Correct?

 

A theory is not a limitation. In fact, it's the highest stage of approval that a scientific idea can ever achieve. And yes, any theory is a work-in-progress so as I said before, should any new evidence arise that contradicts current theory, the theory should be modified accordingly.

[Strange]

 

So one limitation of science would be theories. Correct?

 

If you mean (and it isn't at all clear what you mean) that theories are never "true" or final, and are only ever based on the current best information we have, then yes. But that is not a limitation of science; it is what science is.

 

What is the point of worrying about things we don't know, may never know, and may never be able to know. That is not science.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Strange

[Delta1212]

Authorise me to elucidate:

Are you using a thesaurus? Because authorise really doesn't work as a synonym for "allow" in that phrase...