I thought this is where the math comes in (and advanced calculus is NOT one of my strengths!); Isn't part of the problem that the math at least provides support, if not proof (I know better!) to the theory? And I thought what separated quantum from, say, string theory...
-
-
En réponse à @Yohannon @ChrisWarcraft
...is that experiments have been created to check the predictions the math and quantum theory present, but that string theory has no such support? I mean, once you've reproduced "spooky action at a distance", how can you argue against quantum theory?
2 réponses 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @Yohannon
I think there is also something about how other than raw math, we may not even possess the tools to detect some of the more esoteric interactions (which can make it seem like 'phlogiston'). If something interacts at a resolution finer than the Planck length, would we even know?
1 réponse 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
Urg. For those who don't know, the Planck length is, ostensibly, the answer to what some would think would be a child's question; "How small can anything BE?" Only it doesn't explain what that small bit would be made OF; observing anything that small would be a black box.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @Yohannon @ChrisWarcraft
So while there are particles that can't get any smaller, it doesn't mean there's no there there. But that's the kind of thing that makes ordinary people scratch their heads at this subject and scientists crazy to the lack of concrete experimentation. At least, so far.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @Yohannon @ChrisWarcraft
Not me. My answer is: “we simply lack the technology to know that yet — maybe you’ll discover it!” Sticking within factual, demonstrable, provable, repeatable science. To me, everything else is phlogiston until we know otherwise. Less fun, for sure, but necessary IMO.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
And I would VERY much like to see a purge from science of ALL theory that can’t be repeated and/or proven and have it moved into esoterica until we know otherwise. I think this “wheeeee” attitude is lazy, shiftless and profiteering. I hold DEEP contempt for quantum hucksters.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @viragoergosum @Yohannon
But here's the thing - based on what we know of quantum theory (and the parts we have proved), it's highly likely there will be parts of it we *cannot* empirically prove, because we will never have the senses to comprehend how to do so.
3 réponses 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft @Yohannon
The math is there, and seems to make sense, but unless we figure out a way to step outside the universe, we simply cannot use the tools within the universe to prove it in a traditional way. I don't think that invalidates the ideas at all.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft @Yohannon
Now I'll grant you that certain models very much are a "let's throw stuff at the chalkboard and maybe some of it sticks," but there are very concrete models of what we currently know within the quantum realm that don't invalidate some of the stranger aspects.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 2 j'aime
And I think to dismiss the entirety of quantum mechanics simply because parts are not traditionally provable via empirical testing is an incredibly egotistical view that assumes if we can't sense something, then it can't exist.
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.