What are the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics?: Video

Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 7 months ago to Science
129 comments | Share | Flag

This is an excellent video that discusses four theories on the foundations of quantum mechanics and it is some of the best explanations I have seen and it is not a dry video. I have pointed out that there are a number of problems with the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, see http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/37.... The video presents four alternatives to the Copenhagen Interpretation. They are the De Broglie–Bohm theory (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%...), the many-worlds theory also known as the Everett interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds...), the spontaneous collapse theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2...), and the QBism theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bay...). These ideas were presented with respect to the famous double slit experiment. The video mentions that Einstein was unhappy with the CI, but so was Schrodenger. Here are my thoughts on them, what are yours?

1) De Broglie–Bohm theory
I think this is better than the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI). However, it does not appear to provide any significantly different predictions and requires an additional equation, which makes it problematic.

2) Many-Worlds theory
The other panelists point out a number of problems with this interpretation, but my problem is that it violates conservation of matter and energy, because it requires an infinite number of universes and each event requires infinitely more universes.

3) Spontaneous collapse theory
I did not think this was very well explained. It does appear to solve the measurement problem however, but other than that I do not think it is promising.

4) QBism
I think this may actually be worse than the CI.


Other Thoughts:
In the double slit experiment when we are shooting one electron at a time, we do not consider that the detector is made up of atoms that also have a wave function and therefor a probability of interacting with the free electron. I am not exactly sure how this would change the interpretation of the double slit experiment with single electrons at a time, but it would suggest that the position of the electron may not be as localized as the experiment suggests. Another problem with the single electron double slit experiment is how do we know we are shooting a single electron at a time? If we know this for sure, then we must be measuring it in some way which would affect the experiment. If we don’t know this then we don’t know that one of the free electrons does not make two dots on the screen or no dots on the screen. Again going back to the limits of our detector. In order for a dot to occur, the free electron has to cause an electron in an atom to change state. If the free electron is truly a wave then it might cause a single dot, because of the atomic nature of our detector. However, you would also expect that a single electron might cause two, three, or more dots if it were a wave or no dots at all.
Personally I think we will eventually find that all matter is really waves. We will find that the probabilistic side of QM is a result of these waves being spread out. Point particles of charge cause all sorts of problems, including infinitely intense electrical fields.
Feynman did some work on the wave nature of matter. Carver Mead has done some work in this area as have many others and I am not talking about string theory, but as yet there is no comprehensive ideas in this area.
SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdqC2bVLesQ


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by LionelHutz 9 years, 7 months ago
    The idea that the location of a small particle becomes definite BECAUSE of an "observation" is troubling to the extreme.
    I read a book a decade ago - it's in my library now packed into boxes so I'm afraid I don't have the title at the ready.
    It was on the subject of the nature of planet orbits and explained how we had a VERY GOOD theory that described the motion of the planets back in the era of a "earth centered" solar system. It was a very good theory because one could predict the future positions of the planets with it.
    The sun-centered theory was a SIMPLER theory that gave the same results.
    The difference between them basically came down to the earth-centered theory had planet orbits reversing direction at times for unknown reasons, and the sun-centered theory kept them going in the same direction.
    The subject of the book was basically wrestling with the issue about what to do when you've got a theory that is predictive of reality but still may not actually be DESCRIBING reality, and how you can tell the difference.
    I'm afraid we're in the same situation with Quantum Mechanics on the matter of "behaves like a wave". Just because the mathematics WORK OUT the right answer, it doesn't mean that's REALLY WHAT HAPPENS.
    That's all I can say on the subject - this is way beyond my pay grade.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
      i think the CI of QM has set back physics in this regard and I believe most scientist have just treated it as a pragmatic issue. But I think the problems with QM are beginning to pile up.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago
        As one of the commentors said in the video, the truly serious discussions of QM have really only happened in the last 20 years. As you say, the problems with really understanding QM and it's implications on our understanding of the universe and our total reality have piled up. I think it's probable that we're going to have to add something more or look at a deeper level.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
          Adding something more has been the problem of theoretical physics. They run into a problem and come up with dark matter, or dark energy, or renormalizing fields - they make the math work, but provide no understanding. What is needed according to Carver Mead and I agree is physicists who think conceptually, not just mathematically.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 6 months ago
            I agree completely. What I intended in the comment about adding something, is a new or different approach to (which may very well be a conceptual insight) the study of QM. Although using Schoedenger's Probability gives an (not necessarily the) explanation for the observed, it's a tool-not the answer, IMO. It's obvious that there's something, at a deeper or different level, going on which conceptually hasn't been recognized yet.

            So much of sub-atomic and particle physics (as well as cosmology) is math and model driven today, that I'm not sure it really helps the thinkers, and so much of the money is controlled today by the math and model crowd. It's kind of like losing sight of the forest through total concentration on a tree.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 6 months ago
      Hello LionelHutz,
      Excellent commentary on the nature of observation. To be objective, is to be open to new information and when our instrumentality is always evolving so too must our theories. I too am fascinated by this subject matter, but it is also beyond my pay grade. Still, one day I hope to gain understanding.
      Regards,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 7 months ago
    I sort of like what Nils Bohr said when asked to describe the atom. Paraphrasing: "It is something, we don't know what, doing something, we don't know what, in a place that we don't know where."
    What we do know is that when quantum mechanics is applied to real world situations it works. Doors open automatically and the nature of circuitry has become infinitely tiny, and etc.,etc. For me, learning about quantum physics is an amusing hobby so long as you don't lay the math on me. For most folks it's quantum, schmantum, as long as the thing I'm using works.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
      Yes, I think this pragmatic attitude is beginning to catch up to physics and is causing big problems. See my post of Farewell to Reality.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 4 months ago
        I realize that many current quantum theories are pie-in-the-sky, but it's interesting (fun a better word?) to observe brilliant minds bending and twisting convoluted math and ideas in order to fit a pet theory. One has to develop a very sophisticated attitude (again - not sure it's the right word) to compare the new ideas in physics. Back to my strong point, music. Sorta like appreciating the Beatles while trying to understand Frank Zappa.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
          But it is not without dangers. Most importantly it undermines the very basis of science.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 4 months ago
            Whoa...I guess I didn't get the full implications of your post a month ago. Could you elucidate how it does that. If you have the time and inclination. That's a very bold and intense thing to say.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
              Because it undermines the very basis of science, which makes things like global warming and intelligent design fit the new definition of science.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 4 months ago
                So...I now discount Bohr, Copenhagen never made sense to me, but it seemed so accepted that I thought it was my flawed perception.

                Have you read "Quantum Enigma" by Rosenblum and Kuttner? It is sub titled, Physics Encounters Consciousness. Fred Kuttner is my cousin-in-law, but I don't have the confidence to give a qualified opinion of it. It seems to start off at a beginner's level then moves along toward some pretty sophisticated ideas. I would appreciate your input that helps me to greater understanding of the quantum world as presented in this book.. I'm sure your time is valuable, but if you could give me your take on the book at whatever time you may have available I would be very appreciative. I must assure you that this is a request to which you should feel no qualms about turning down and I would completely understand.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
      Bohr's model of the atom was flawed. He was part of the group that put physics on the wrong path.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
        Bohr was the leader of the group that helped put physics on the wrong path and had enormous influence. But his early formula for discrete energy levels of the atom was at a time when classical physics was hoped to apply with some modifications. He conceived of classical orbits with quantum assumptions without explanation other than he knew he had to get discrete energy levels. The construction only got the spectrum right for the simple Hydrogen atom. It was an early clever and simple attempt grasping for some kind of breakthrough, which caused some excitement during the quandry, but the attempt to use a fudged classical mechanics, with or without explanation, was doomed. The worst of his influence was yet to come.

        Heisenberg was more successful in his more generalized attempts to find a principle for the spectrum. Through tedious algebraic calculations he came up with what others converted to simpler matrix equations which turned out later to be the discrete basis equivalent of the later independently formulated Schrodinger equation with the same spectrum. It was a legitimate accomplishment, but lacked conceptual explanation, even in the form of Bohr's modified classical orbit approach. Attempts like deBroglie to formulate sensible explanations failed, and then they turned to the gibberish of the Copenhagen interpretation making things perpetually worse than a lack of understanding. That was related to the paraphrase above, but it sure wasn't what made doors open automatically and circuits smaller.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 6 months ago
        Dare I ask what is the right path?
        From what I can tell, for every solution, five more problems appear. I am very, very, far from being a physicist but I started my quantum "hobby" because I couldn't feel comfortable living in the 21st century without knowing something about it. I had the same feeling 50 years ago when I felt that living in the 20th century, I should know how to fly a plane. I learned, I solo'd but that didn't make me a pilot.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
          The right path includes better methods of forming abstract concepts and principles, and getting rid of the influence of philosophy since Kant. But it's a very hard problem even with that.

          The best you could do is to try to understand some of the experiments that show how different the quantum world is.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
          Right so don't use Euclidean when you build a house and ignore Newtonian mechanics when you build a car and ignore Maxwell when you build a radio. Knowledge is about understanding the world we live in, but perfect knowledge is the about the world of sophistry.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
      There are fundamental problems still to be solved, but a lot more is understood than the Bohr paraphrase indicates. In particular, solid state devices are very well understood, not just things that happen "to work".

      But you'll have a hard time getting anywhere with what you think is learning about quantum mechanics without the mathematics. In particular, pawing through speculative debates over the speculative 'interpretations' competing for the bizarre is not helping you to understand quantum mechanics!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 6 months ago
        I read the books by respected physicists who try to reveal the quantum world to musicians and shopkeepers. When the math is illustrated along with the explanations I fully understand it. But, If I were called upon to create an expression in equation form to back up what I've learned, all I would be able to do would be to write out the work already supplied to me. You cannot expect more of me, any more that I would expect you to write a scherzo using modern harmony at least four modulations. I am aware of the conflicting theories of everything from parallel universes too string theory, to chaos. But of course, I cannot appreciate it on the same level as an advanced physicist.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
          Popularized accounts trying to simplify, even when written by prominent physicists, leave a lot to be desired for accuracy of meaning. You can realize that without anyone expecting more of you, there is only so much you have time to learn (or want to in your priorities). When they get to "parallel universes" and the like posing as legitimate physical theories, the "advanced physicists" don't understand it either. They understand the mathematical manipulations they use to rationalize it, but that's it.

          As for the modern scherzo harmonies, I prefer the simpler harmonies of New Orleans jazz improvization and know what to stay away from :-)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 6 months ago
            Good choice. But the difference between jazz and a Beethoven symphony might well be compared to my knowledge of math and yours. Also, you might enjoy the Chicago style of jazz with it's same harmonies and progressions but bigger sound. Duke Ellington comes to mind.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by pcaswani 9 years, 6 months ago
    Imagine there's an aether with particles matter at a level we are or have not yet been able to detect or perceive, but subject to interference by sub atomic particles that we have been able to detect, measure or control. Compare that with the interference effects of pellets on water surface and a cannon ball shot into the same body of water.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
      I think waves make a better framework.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by pcaswani 9 years, 6 months ago
        Waves do not provide a complete explanation. What are waves if not matter in motion? I take as my starting point that if something exists it must exist as something material. I can live with the mystery of yet unknown facts of reality.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
          Well we know that free space has electrical and magnetic properties. So are present understanding of light is not of a wave with matter in motion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by pcaswani 9 years, 6 months ago
            I do not believe we have a complete understanding of electromagnetism, magnetism and gravity. Eventually, they will need to be explained taking into account matter and its interactions. For now, I'll hold on to existence of matter and matter in motion. I am almost certain their is an aether yet to be discovered. Do some people call it 'dark matter'?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
              The 19th century conception of an ether as a mechanical medium for electromagnetic waves was thoroughly refuted as self-contradictory and contrary to experimental fact in many ways. But that does not refute the general idea of an 'ether' meaning something exists everywhere, with no literal vacuums of metaphysical nothingness (which cannot be). (But it's not the meaning of "dark matter".)

              Einstein himself noted the distinction and advocated for some kind of ether whose characteristics are presently not known. In his "Ether and the Theory of Relativity" address at the University of Leden on May 5, 1920, he stated:

              ".. the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitational potentials g_mu_nu), has, I think finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events."
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
              What would a "complete" understanding mean? Understanding something new is always a conceptual integration relying on what you already know. It's never an all encompassing insight into some ultimate intrinsic cause that could only be known by some kind of mystic insight.

              We understand gravitation but not why the masses attract. We understand electricity and magnetism through Maxwell's equations and material properties, but not what gives rise to the waves and fields at a deeper level. 19th century attempts to concoct mechanical explanations of electromagnetic waves all failed, but they aren't needed.

              We know things by their attributes, and only the attributes we know of. A thing is the totality of it's attributes, not an identity-less blob to which attributes are attached. 'Existence is identity". Existence and identity are th same thing from different perspectives. Our expanding knowledge is knowledge of more and more attributes and their relations which make things what they are.

              Matter consists of atoms and molecules. As long as you hold onto "matter" and "matter in motion" as the basis of conceptual explanation you are precluding understanding of subatomic phenomena, which is understood through its observable attributes obtained by indirect measurement. The only measurement equipment we have is based on macroscopic entities, and in that sense our entire hierarchy of knowledge depends on macroscopic entities we directly perceive, but that does not mean that higher levels of abstraction inferring non-perceivable entities and attributes must conclude that they are based on "matter".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by pcaswani 9 years, 6 months ago
                My conception of matter is not limited to atoms. Even sub-atomic particles are included in the material universe. By complete understanding I mean we do not yet know or understand the mechanism of attraction between entities. We have good understanding of their properties or attributes, but one must still wonder about these things.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
                  By definition of the concept of matter it is composed of atoms. Subatomic particles are part of the 'material universe' and are studied as such by physics, but that philosophic meaning of 'material universe' is much broader than the 'material' things made of 'matter' we experience directly through perception when we touch and feel it at the macroscopic level.

                  In addition to subatomic particles like electrons, there are also subatomic forces within the nucleus as well as electric fields. An explanation of the mechanism of gravitational, electric, and magnetic attraction, let alone nuclear forces, would necessarily be very abstract and mathematical, not something you can grasp directly in terms of matter at the macroscopic level which we experience directly.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by pcaswani 9 years, 6 months ago
                    I am quite aware of the conventional understanding. I think there are serious epistemological issues with how science/physics came to be practiced by early 20th century. Perhaps, that's the best they could do or they just threw up their hands. Einstein's contribution about mass to energy,and his redefinition or reinvention of 'time' and 'space' has been very unsatisfactory. Just call things 'energy', 'force', 'fields', 'waves' and be done with it. At present, to imagine existence beyond material existence is to step into the realm of mysticism, and that's what modern physics looks like.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
                      How does any of that invalidate the commonly used concept of matter? The macroscopic material we can perceive directly was in fact discovered in the late 19th century to be composed of 'building blocks' of atoms, and individual atoms and subatomic particles do in fact behave differently in fundamental ways than the matter we are accustomed to. But that doesn't make them mystical entities (or justify the philosophically corrupted 'interpretations'). Energy, force, fields, and waves are all valid and crucial concepts, but you can't stop there and "be done with it" -- new concepts and theories were required.

                      The physicists were very smart people who were doing the best they could, and made remarkable progress. To some extent they did "throw up their hands" when the established concepts and theories could not be directly applied (which they of course tried first). Fundamentally new ideas were required in a realm where existing theory and concepts were shown to be inadequate, observation could only be by indirect measurement, and theory formation and new concepts involving ever higher levels of abstraction from abstraction were without philosophical guidance and under the influence of Mach and the positivists, which had permeated physics. That was all on top of very difficult problems in the physics and mathematics which took a great deal of intelligence and creativity to solve.

                      Many of the 'interpretations' they came up with have given them a bad name, not that they weren't mistakenly serious about them but that they succeeded as much as they did in formulating general mathematical and somewhat conceptual accounts of the new physics confirmed by experiment to high accuracy is remarkable -- and look at some of the technology today that came from it.

                      Especially in the last few decades there have been some really excellent scientific biographies of some of the major scientists. They provide enormous insight into their backgrounds, interests, and motives, along with what problems they faced and how they dealt with them -- and the strange 'interpretations' they cooked up and promoted and how they came about. But the biographies are not philosophical and strive to report the technical events accurately without getting into the epistemology. It's hard to find good fiction as interesting as this, but they also require varying degrees of prior technical understanding to follow.

                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
              I agree. Feynman and Wheeler among others have postulated that all matter is waves. They specifically came up with a standing wave for the electron. There may yet be a aether, but any theory of the aether would have to explain the Michelson Morley experiment
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
          The "material" is at the macroscopic, mostly perceivable, level, and known to be made of atoms. Matter is composed of atoms and does not exist at the atomic and subatomic levels. Material properties are a consequence of different atomic and molecular structures, as shown in condensed matter physics and elementary chemistry accounts of the role of electronic structure in chemical behavior. At the subatomic level characteristics are inferred indirectly through measurement that show both "particle" and "wave" attributes under different circumstances. It does not mean that subatomic entities are "waves and particles" or "waves or particles" as we perceive particles and waves of particles in motion at our macroscopic level, only that they have different combinations of mathematical attributes that do not correspond to what we experience macroscopically.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by pcaswani 9 years, 6 months ago
            I am not sure if at the most fundamental level matter is a ball like structure. The waves as entities is beyond my imagination.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
              Think of it in terms of behavior with some _attributes_ that are like waves and particles in their effects, not the kinds of entities that you are familiar with at the perceptual, macroscopic level that we recognize as objects or as waves of matter or energy in motion. Entities -- of whatever kind -- are known in terms of their measurable attributes and behavior, and at this level that is necessarily very abstract and based on indirect measurements. You can't just look to see what they are like so it has to be done this way. The same goes for the electromagnetic waves discovered in the 19th century. You know them by their behavior and measured attributes using complex equipment, not by looking to see a traditional kind of object moving in some form such as wave motion.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by pcaswani 9 years, 6 months ago
                To me waves correspond to compression and expansion of a medium, imagine sound waves. The wiggly thing is a mere symbolic representation of that phenomenon. There can't be a stand alone wiggly thing. It is beyond comprehension. Hence my conclusion of existence of a medium, call it ether or what you will.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
                  The equations of diffraction patterns and similar ideas representing measurements, not wiggly things as entities, are the experimental basis of the wave aspects of the theory. Those are the facts that give rise to the concepts and theory. What it is physically that operates in such a motion is not known. Also not known is the nature of subatomic particles in a way that would account for what is between them when they are measured doing something. There is always something; metaphysical nothingness does not exist and is not the basis of the universe.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by pcaswani 9 years, 6 months ago
                    'Not known' and no attempt to know is exactly my point. I do not have a problem with measurement but getting lost in mathematics and taking that as final reality.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
                      What would you do to find out? At some stages of development problems are selected with some prospect of progress in the face of enormous difficulties, and that's what they did, with great success. But the lack of discussion of what would be a proper theory and what should be sought is discouraging. Instead, in the most extreme cases now we get manipulations of equations as floating abstractions used as a basis for nonsensical speculation. But most physicists seem to proceed in a practical manner without regard to the speculations and debates, making progress wherever they can.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • -1
                        Posted by pcaswani 9 years, 6 months ago
                        When it dawned on me that a good deal of what was being taught, was hearing and reading was just so much gobbledegook there was a sense of betrayal even outrage. The scientific culture today is less forthright and full of hubris and blind faith rattling off 'facts' and 'theories' without any qualifications. Besides I also see now they've gone off on the wrong track. No, there's not much I can do really except raise questions whereever I can. And , of course, try to figure things out by myself.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 6 months ago
                          Your expressed viewpoints seem to be mainly mechanistic and limited to human perception and seems to ignore that mathematics (that you don't understand) is to a large extent, the language of physics. While it's true that many mis-use the tool of mathematics and in attempting to explain the results of science to those of us that don't have a full grasp of something like physics, mis-analogize or over simplify--the repeatability of experiment and predictability of future results adequately substantiate the reality of what's being described and defined.
                          There may very well be further information yet to be determined or even conceptualized, but that in no way negates the present understanding or application of current knowledge.
                          It may very well be that science is just not your bailiwick or that you haven't yet developed the necessary level of conceptualization.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
                          Where were you seeing this and what kind of science are you referring to?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by pcaswani 9 years, 6 months ago
                            In all kinds of media: books, periodicals, classes,videos relating to astronomy, physics, astrophysics. My undergraduate major was Physics. My physics professor could not adequately explain how or why mass converts to energy at the speed of light. What exactly happens to mass? Later I began to have doubts about the Big Bang theory and Global Warming and weird pronouncements of Quantum Mechanics, and a host of other areas. I have been influenced by Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, David Harriman and several other contrarians. It will take a lot of words to explain the evolution of my views. Frankly, I am very puzzled by you folks stating that material is only at the perceptual or macro level. What is existence if not material?What do you think it is, if it is not to be something mystical? Either you say it is some form of matter or it is not. If not, what could it be? You must have some concept or visualization of what reality is. To claim they are waves appears totally absurd to me. Or are you saying you do not know and all you can do is define reality by what you claim you have been able to observe something and measure, mathematically, i.e. measurements of sub-atomic behavior? I admit I am not fully versed in modern physics as it relates to relativity, quantum mechanics. My approach is more philosophical, or common sensical, as I understand it. I have read Bohm on relativity and not been satisfied with his explanation. I'd rather not accept something that does not make sense to me or something that I do not understand as yet. I think I have said enough.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
                              Giving that background is helpful and confirms my initial impression. Your reaction as a physics major was not uncommon. You weren't helped by the prevalence of positivist philosophy (and "operationism") that pervaded physics and undermined concepts of physics and their explanation. I remember once being stunned by a very good professor in a very good graduate school (and also previously by another very practical engineer educated in the same era as the professor) insisting that the meaning of charge and electron are only what you read on an ammeter.

                              Much of what else you read in popularized accounts is hype and metaphor, and is not a good source to try to understand anything.

                              I didn't say that subatomic particles are not "material" in the philosophical sense, or in any way mystical. They are not "matter"; they are not materialS as we commonly know different substances as matter consisting of atomic building blocks in different configurations leading to different perceivable or directly measurable macroscopic properties. They are physical, but have fundamentally different attributes and do not follow the laws of classical physics. That is simply a brute fact determined by countless experiments and to be accepted for what it is.

                              How you determine what they are, unlike so much of elementary classical physics, can only be determined by inference and indirect measurements indicating their behavior and attributes. A thing is the totality of its attributes, not an identityless pin cushion with attributes stuck to it. All you know about anything is through those attributes you know about.

                              You can't "visualize" them either, it can only be understood through abstractions based on abstractions (in the sense of Ayn Rand's epistemology). The mental concretes are the words under which concepts are integrated, not visual images. This is not at all the same as the positivist approach of equating the meaning of a concept of physics with how it is measured (then followed by rampant speculation into fantasies) which is why we got such poor explanations in physics classes.

                              (Also the opposite of physical is not mystical; consciousness is an objective part of the universe, inherent in some living beings, but is not physical.)

                              Bohm gave one of the better explanations of special relativity, including the history of Lorentz's attempt to explain an actual physical contraction in terms of electric fields (which didn't work in the end). You didn't find the explanation you wanted because there is none. The primary fact that has not been further investigated and explained is the speed of light being the same in any reference frame, and what that means for a "speed", and why. That is the real physics of the theory in that one fact. Given that, special relativity is almost entirely the mathematics of the kinematics for what is observed from and for different moving reference frames. A lot of the confusion arises from the fact that Einstein at the time (but not later) was heavily influenced by Mach's positivism, so what things are were confused with measurement only, obfuscating the difference between an apparent contraction and a real one (which in Einstein's theory does not occur). Read it again from that perspective and you will see better what they were doing and how it fits together.

                              But your approach of not accepting what you don't understand is the correct one. If something in quantum mechanics doesn't make sense, then the proper approach is to say you don't understand it and try then or later to understand better the experiments on which it is based so see if the concepts are correct, rather than treating it as dogma to accept and then talk yourself into.

                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
                              mass is converted to energy photons all the time. It has been well explained and is used in PET scans and other positron electron devices. Why this occurs might be a very interesting question, but that it occurs is not.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by pcaswani 9 years, 6 months ago
                                What bothered me about this professor and what continues to bother me in popular or academic literature is treating energy as if it is some independent entity.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
                                  I haven't seen energy treated explicitly as an independent entity as in an object (except in the long gone 19th century 'energy physics' claiming everything is made of energy as the metaphysical constituents.) Energy is an abstraction involving action and attributes. As an abstract concept you refer to "the energy" which is implicitly or explicitly the energy of something or some collection of somethings in a system. It is regarded as an entity epistemologically in that context, but is not a metaphysical entity. See the section 'what is an entity' in the appendix on the workshops in Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. That is not to say that people don't improperly reify abstractions; they do.

                                  But there is no question that mass can be converted to energy: it means there is less mass and more energy at the end of some process than at the beginning in accordance with a known equivalence. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki witnessed it directly. The internal mechanism, beyond the production and annihilation of elementary 'particles' along with changes in atomic structure, is not known, which might have been what the professor did not explain to your satisfaction. Nuclear explosions are not the only examples.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • dbhalling replied 9 years, 6 months ago
                                  • pcaswani replied 9 years, 6 months ago
                                • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
                                  Perhaps you are reading someone who is not being exact. In general, energy is always associated with something, even it is without mass, or between things. I guess I would have to see your example.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago
    An interesting presentation by physicist that look also at the philosophical implications of the understandings reachable from a study of Quantum Mechanics. It may sound strange from an objectivist, but I'm strongly drawn to the Qbism approach, particularly to the point that reality and experience of the observer are tied together. The feeling that life and consciousness, in a universe of inanimate objects, interacting fields, and huge space that all interact in a deterministic manner has always troubled me. I find it extremely interesting that some of the largest questions in cosmology and in sub-atomics bring that interaction of reality and agents (acting consciousness) into question and study.

    Thanks for the posting.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
      You are right I find that strange. There are a lot of problems in theoretical physics right now and a number of proposed solutions or partial solutions. In cosmology a number of people are arguing that EM fields might explain a number of things that gravity does not explain well. These people argue that most of the Universe is made up of plasma mainly (like 90% of all matter), but I don't know if that is true.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 6 months ago
        Yes, I've found some of the EM field discussions interesting. I'm just not comfortable that much of what's being talked about is experimentally provable, at least today. But the search could very well and probably will lead to new avenues of physics study. It is, at least, a great time in physics.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 5 months ago
        Most of the universe does consist of ionized matter. Plasma is a hot ionized gas. Most matter is ionized, but is not hot enough for me to feel comfortable calling it plasma.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 5 months ago
          Hi J,

          Could you provide a link? I have tried to find this without any luck.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 5 months ago
            I don't have any links readily known, but this is not a hard point to establish. The pressure of space is nominally 10^(-18) Pa (101325 Pa = 760 mm Hg = 1 atm), and the temperature of space as far away from our sun as Earth is is nominally 3 or 4 Kelvin. The little bit of gas that yields that pressure is constantly being bombarded with UV- and higher-intensity radiation from the nearest sun. Anyone here knows what effects UV- and higher-intensity radiation can have on solids (sunburned skin and eventually skin cancer, for examples). That damage is without the protective layer of an atmosphere. The gas in outer space is thus definitely exposed to ionizing radiation. The pressure reference is out of David Halliday's Fundamentals of Physics, 6th Edition. This is my daughter's textbook for college Physics 1.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 7 months ago
    Scanning tunneling microscopy, arguably the greatest invention based on quantum mechanics, is based on the DeBroglie interpretation. That is the version I teach in my nanotechnology classes, which are predicated on the idea that when an electron is confined in a finite box that the resulting material's properties start to be dominated by the surface area of that box.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You had _better_ argue for morality without faith. A dominant cultural adherence to a morality of reason and individualism is required for political freedom, which had been the trend from the Enlightenment despite those who paid lip service to religion as a foundation. The monopolizing of morality as altruistic sacrifice based on faith as the very meaning of morality is killing us. Collectivism is for those who take altruism, which cannot be defended rationally as the standard of morality, seriously. The pursuit of life, liberty, property and happiness is antithetical to the moral dogma of human sacrifice as the good.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A photon or EM wave is just energy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
      A photon is a subatomic 'particle' with energy but no mass. The wave attributes and particle attributes in different circumstances have energy, but I wouldn't say they are '"just energy". They have momentum, too, but what else is not known. We know them by the principles we have so far like Maxwell's equations, quantum electrodynamics, and their consequences -- mathematically and in reality.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by johnmahler 9 years, 7 months ago
    Two facts can't be explained. Why is the Universe continuing to expand with no new matter? What is the Universe expanding into? Every equation leaves out the force religious people call God. Most present day physicists admit, based on the double slit experiment, that "will" had to be present at the big bang. I am not a mathematician or physicist. I am a believer in God as a force in nature like electric potential as well as a personality of my faith's teachings. I believe the Universe will continue to expand eternally as it will also create new matter out of nothing; just as at the big bang. I have no science to support my belief or faith this is so. When physicists and mathematicians include some expression in Greek letters to represent the God force (probably related to dark matter and gravity) they finally will write the Unified Field Theory. I realize Science doesn't fool around with imprecision and the only urgency solving this before one dies, the unsatisfactory death of Albert Einstein who died with a notepad and pencil in hand, died never having written the Holy Grail equation known as the Grand Unified Field Theory. Who knows, that may be the name such persons use to quantify God. Maybe GUFT is actually the equation for God. The God particle has been discovered. (ironic sarcasm)
    OK to all that, but I am a lot more centered on discovering how America can be saved and survive the worst president in history since WWII before the elections in 2016. What really has me anxious is wondering what largesse redistributing candidate the Democrats will tender in that election cycle. I only pray it is NOT Hillary Clinton.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
      Double slit diffraction has nothing to do with religious claims of animistic "will" and "most present day physicists" do not "admit" such nonsense. "Including some expression in Greek letters to represent the God force" is irrelevant to science. Sticking "Greek" symbols into equations to represent religion is the opposite of science and contradicts it in every way. This emphasis on "Greek" symbols to be added to otherwise established and meaningful equations of physics, as if the appearance of the shapes of symbols has anything to do with meaning of the science, is the laughable "cargo cult science" of primitives.

      There are many unexplained facts in science. There always are at any stage of knowledge. That is not a call for religion to 'fill in the gaps'. There are always puzzles to be solved in the frontiers of science, which is constantly expanding our knowledge and understanding through rational explanation. It does not do so by arbitrarily adding new "Greek" symbols to include faith, the opposite of reason and science.

      Primitive appeals to the supernatural in ethics and politics are just as irrelevant to understanding in those fields and only contradict and undermine the kind of rational philosophy needed to save the country.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by johnmahler 9 years, 6 months ago
        I used to believe as you seem to believe. Then I died. Then I was resuscitated. Our brains are not the seat of consciousness. You can't know this until you die and resuscitate to this life. I can't explain it in scientific terms, but one day humans will. The diffraction was my use of a term appropriate to light study which sort of parallels the double slit experiment except for the cause of diffraction being "observation" versus "non-observation". I am no physicist. Perhaps you are. I was amazed viewing "What the Bleep Do We Know. Down the Rabbit Hole" after having my NDE. Everything explained is just the sort of reality I experienced. Good luck to you. Trust in your learning and intellect will eventually fail you as it did me.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
          Double slit diffraction is the diffraction interference pattern of dark and light bands (and the transitions between them) due to light passing through two slits. The waves that propagate behind the two slits reinforce or cancel each other at different distances in accordance with whether the amplitudes are the same or opposite, with varying combinations in between. The same phenomenon occurs with electrons as with light because of their wave nature. Whether or not there are coherent waves to interfere depends on physical causes that are not fully understood, not conscious awareness. It has nothing to do with speculations about a supernatural "will".

          You did not describe what kind of abnormal mental images you experienced as your brain phased in and out. Whatever it was, you fortunately survived it, and it was what it was as fact, but it is not a substitute for rational understanding of the causes and not a reason to engage in mystic fantasies as a substitute for explanation. There is always much that it is not understood. Resorting to mystical speculation does not provide any more understanding, it remains mystical speculation of no cognitive value. Learning does not fail, it continues to grow as long as we live, but never becomes omniscience. A failing intellect is a physical breakdown, not a revelation to trust in.

          No variety of faith, which is the belief contrary to or in the absence of reason, provides understanding. It is arbitrary imagination.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by johnmahler 9 years, 6 months ago
            You're a winner! You I note, make no attempt to explain why observed patterns differ from random patterns, not monitored. Good luck with your brain and reason is all there is to the illusion of life. You may have a need to be "one up". I don't and you can have all the last words there are. I will not respond. I lose, I'm down, you win!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
              Look John this is a site devoted to reason. If you continue this anti-reason tirade you will be voted down and do it enough and you will be voted out of existence.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
                "Out of existence" on this site, because it's contrary to the purpose of the site and his proselytizing has nothing to offer it. Sadly, he seems to be voting himself out of existence in the world. He suffered a confusing dramatic and strange experience in a medical emergency he survived thanks to modern medical science, then confuses the sensations he experienced with a mystical account of the universe denying reason -- which is not the way to use one's mind to live, and without help from others will lead to his own non-existence.

                We have seen this over and over from a loud but small handful of proselytizing religious conservatives here on gg trying to cash in on Atlas Shrugged while denying it: The try to parlay religious testimonials about some strange experience (real or passed on as gossip) -- which no one has looked into to provide a rational explanation -- into "evidence" for a preposterous, sweeping fantasy about the entire universe, all life, an attack on reason, and a mystical duty ethics to serve the supernatural. 'Explain the testimonial or abandon reason and accept the supernatural' is an obvious fallacy.

                Compare that with the topic of this thread.

                There have been discoveries of facts in a realm of physics that appear strange in comparison with the more familiar facts we experience every day. New discoveries are always 'strange'. Some scientists go about trying to understand and explain them. When rational general principles are hard to formulate even though the details become understood very well mathematically, some resort to fantasies based on bad and destructive philosophical premises, promoted in the name of "science" and the authority and reputation of previous real accomplishments.

                The philosophical vacuum then permits others to engage in increasingly bizarre nonsensical speculations such as fantasized parallel universes framed in floating abstractions and rationalized in the name of equations in a modern version of numerology. The worst of it is sensationalized, and promoted in the name of "science", while the majority of quiet, hardworking scientists, who realize that there are some things they simply don't know, are ignored.

                The public sensationalizing, in the context of a continuing philosophical vacuum, then provides an opening for the worst charlatans and mystics, including some former scientists, to proclaim that modern science has validated ancient Eastern mysticism. Philosophical skeptics who never understood science proclaim that there is no difference while the overt mystics proclaim that reason has failed and we must succumb to their demands for faith and primitivist mythology.

                This is why a rational philosophy, and not just pursuit of science, is required to save the culture.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
              It's not about winning polemics. Observations can affect something by how you measure it physically, not consciousness controlling things by god's 'will'. My life is not an illusion. I leave that to the otherworldly mystics, which is not justified by unsolved problems here on earth -- like what happened to you that you fortunately survived. But yes, I unabashedly defend reason and reject all forms of the supernatural as claims to provide understanding or anything else.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by woodlema 9 years, 7 months ago
    Interesting:

    Global Warming, Not Global Warming
    Catholicism, Taoism, Shinto, Sunni Shia,
    Evolution, Creation, Intelligent Design, Big Bang


    Seems to me that all are faith based. The Scientists are even more faith based than people and their religions.

    Can't we all just get along and agree to disagree?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
      That was quite a package-deal. Science is NOT faith based. It is the opposite of religion, not a kind of religion. Reason and faith are intentional, explicit opposites. Faith is belief in the absence of or despite reason, evidence, proof. It is a deliberate distinction.

      No, we can't "just get along" with faith and force. Belief through faith is cognitively irrelevant at best, and in practice destructive in both thought and action. With no objective standards of truth, there is no way for people to interact without force and no way to "just get along".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 6 months ago
        I beg to differ:

        Let us examine the context of the Video. and several "Sciences":

        Global Warming/Climate Change. Scientists are split on their "OPINION" based on the "evidence" they believe and defend their belief with the same vigor as the Crusaders of old.

        Evolution vs. Creation: I can present to you just as much science for, as against., and again each side presents argues and defends their belief with similar zeal to the Jihadists in the middle east.

        Quantum Science. Again, the four here in the video present 4 views and 4 opinions based on the same equations and reported "science", and defend them with the same vigor as to religious zealots. If you paid close attention each of the "scientists: view and opinion was radically different from each other with vastly different implications. Yes this is belief. Belief is faith. Faith is religious in nature. Even if that religion is Science.

        I can go on and on within different "Scientific Disciplines" There is a MASSIVE amount of "science" that is every bit as religious as religion.

        Allow me to point out that the Biblical definition of faith is, "..The assured expectation of things hope for, and the evident demonstration of reality though not beheld." Gravity is an example. If I drop an apple from a 100 story building I have complete faith that:

        1) The apple will fall toward the earth, not up
        2) The apple will be smashed to pieces when it hits the ground

        Can I prove that without dropping the apple? No, however based on evidence and previous empirical data, I have faith and believe this is the case. Of course that makes the assumption that while the apple is falling an eagle does not swoop in and catch it, or some other unforeseen event interrupts the fall, but these things could happen, hence the differences in belief, especially when correlating this with the possibilities in Quantum Math given some of the "beliefs" in parallel universes and so on all based on the MATH of quantum mechanics.

        Objective standards are also given and established by the subjective nature of those setting the standards. Global warming using results based "Bayesian" analysis vs. other forms and calling those standards conclusive.

        The only thing I know is 1+1=2 until proven otherwise.



        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
          There are a lot of people speaking in the name of science who are a long way from it in their beliefs and speculations. This includes viro climate hysterics and nonsense like parallel universes speculated and rationalized from equations treated as floating abstractions behind the pretense of science and mathematical precision. The viros are an ideology of nature worshiping misanthropic nihilists posing as scientists while they exploit a combination of ideology and abuse of good climate science or biology strained to rationalize their beliefs and agenda. And no, they do not sound like scientists in their political agitation and demands to suppress opposition.

          Anyone can call himself a "scientist" bu these pseudo scientists are doing a good deal of damage dishonestly exploiting the reputation of science for their own ends -- which they do because they realize that science is good and the reputation is worth their while to steal. Science does not claim mystic insights to boost its reputation. To equate defense of science with jihad is obscene.

          If you want to understand science learn the science and look to see how it rationally follows from and confirms observation instead of watching videos on bizarre speculation for an audience not expected to know anything -- which only feeds and cashes in on ignorance, philosophical skepticism, a turn to faith and mysticism, and ultimately a lot of brute force and collapse of advanced civilization.

          Evolutionary biology, quantum physics and Newtonian gravitation are science based on experiment and observation, resulting in rational inductive principles for understanding of the real world and a successful technology. Creationism, mystic sects, and sacred texts are not, and result in the Dark Ages. The culture will be in a terrible state when people are so ignorant they can't tell the difference (and don't know any more than 1+1=2).
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by woodlema 9 years, 6 months ago
            Anyone can call himself a "scientist."? Not really.

            In the context of this interchange, I am specifically referring to the folks that ARE educated as scientists, who all have recognized PhD's, all whom have different "opinions"/theories" while observing the SAME empirical data, and reported facts., all with different interpretations of the data based on their perception of reality.

            Your defense of science is admirable, but even you must recognize that much of science, in fact the VAST majority is based on "theories." Theories are defined specifically as:
            1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
            2: abstract thought : speculation
            3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
            4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
            4b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
            5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
            6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation.

            The "scientific method" suggests to CHAGE your theory based on facts and re-run experiments, however this is predicated on the "scientists themselves" being willing to easily give up their prized belief or theory in favor of how the facts play out. Too often this is not the case, and scientists use results based experiments in stead of experiments that are repeatable, provable, and consistent,.

            Again this is FAITH and Religion, you just call it science, and try to make a distinction between biblical and science books.

            I personally believe, "opinion" that science asks the wrong questions when trying to prove theories. Instead of asking how did this evolve, or how did this come into being through a random explosion, they should be asking, how was this made, and work on reverse engineering it like you would any mechanical device.

            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
              Wood what a bunch on nonsense. This is a site about reason. Minus 1
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by woodlema 9 years, 6 months ago
                Please elaborate....Ambiguous response with no reasonable explanation +10.

                The irony of it all.

                Also please refer to the definition of "Religion", in particular the third definition.

                re·li·gion noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

                1: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
                2: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
                3:an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
                  First of all you put down science because it is based on theories. Do you know what a theory is in science? It is not a guess. If you don't know that you should not be commenting on science.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 6 months ago
                    I did not put down anything at all. I simply made a comparison. If in your view comparing "Theory" to a Religious Belief" is putting down science, then I put it to you that you are putting down religion.

                    I have great respect for both and find a solid place for both in our lives. I to not believe that Science disproves religion or Religion disproves Science. Both have many exceptional qualities.

                    I am presenting my debate using the actual definitions in the English language and in specific context of said definitions. This is reasonable, and logical.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
                      There is no such comparison possible. You are being very troll like.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • -3
                        Posted by woodlema 9 years, 6 months ago
                        Is that dogma I hear from you? I know many religions who preach NEVER read any literature from other religions fear the discussion because perhaps they are actually wrong.

                        Psalms 139:16. talks about The embryo and all parts down in writing.

                        DNA is what Science calls it now. DNA was only discovered by Science and Friedrich Miescher in 1953, over 2 thousand years after mentioned in the Bible.


                        I am sorry you feel this discuss is troll like, however; the dogma and fervent attitude toward science vs. religion, I find very closed minded.

                        There is a great deal of FACT in the Bible and other religious materials that predate "Science" that Science has only recently "discovered" or should I say validated, since it is hard to "discover" something that had already been written about.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
                          The Bible did not discover DNA. The primitives from thousands of years ago had no idea what DNA is and neither do you.

                          Rejecting the irrational is not dogma. Rational minds are in fact "closed" to mysticism, sacred texts, and the supernatural for good reason. This is a thread about science on a site for those who like the pro-reason philosophy of Atlas Shrugged. Take your nonsense harassment somewhere else. DB is right to characterize it as trolling.

                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
                  "3:an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group"

                  That is not the definition of the concept religion and rational people do not misuse the word that way. You know very well that the supernaturalism you are promoting is essentially something other than an "interest, belief, or activity". You are dishonest. Science is not a kind of religion and you know it. You are desperate to con people into taking your mysticism seriously -- just like the creationists tried to con the world by attempting to have it accepted as "creation science". Get lost.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • -2
                    Posted by woodlema 9 years, 6 months ago
                    Ok, you are for whatever reason displaying the same exact tolerance as the left wing liberals. What happened to this country?

                    What happened to Individual freedom of belief without being excoriated. I guess the left has truly won the battle and the war.

                    We are most certainly lost.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 5 months ago
              The definitions that you listed are correct, as is the suggestion to change a theory in the presence of conflicting observations. However, you are intentionally confusing the difference between facts and either theories or hypotheses. Al Gore has also done that with regard to global warming. Real scientists are asking the questions you ask. Newton and Galileo asked these questions. Though I am not in their league, I do as well.

              The relationship between ozone depletion and chlorofluorocarbon emission was clear and easily demonstrated in a lab environment using free radical chemistry. We curtailed CFC emissions, and because CFC's have quite a long persistence in the atmosphere, it took quite a long time (25-30 years) before their concentrations started coming down enough to . Most CFC's have lifetimes in the upper atmosphere of 25-100 years. Concerns over NO (nitric oxide) and CFC's (refrigerants) are based on science. CO2 and H2O have very low dissociation constants to generate free radicals, but are in very high concentrations, so there was at least cause for concern. This concern was grossly overblown by those looters who found it to be an effective weapon against do-gooder, touchy-feely types, who then attempt to shame us into agreeing with them.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
                However, the ozone has a half life of about 3-4 hours in the upper atmosphere and is created by some part of the spectrum of sunlight. Thus the ozone hole at the south pole during the southern hemisphere's winter is not surprising or evidence of CFC hurting the ozone layer.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 4 months ago
                  The free radical former, the CFC's in this case, is the limiting reagent. Global warming cries in the 1970s would have been reasonable given the CFC's. If you burn a hole in your atmosphere, then of course, the planet will heat up. However, the alarmists were then screaming of global cooling and were about 20 years too behind the curve in the global warming situation. Unbeknownst to them, we had largely fixed the problem.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
                    J, I am skeptical to say this least. The hysterics failed to explain how such a heavy gas would get into the upper atmosphere, lied that the ozone holes were naturally occurring events, and the ban happened as a result of a crony capitalist deal.

                    I am not saying I agree with everything in these articles below, but they make the basic point. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/t... and file:///C:/Users/Dale/Downloads/EIR_CFCs%20are%20not%20depleting%20the%20ozone%20layer_Maduro.pdf
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 4 months ago
                      I don't disagree with you on those points, db. Free radical chemistry, and ozone reacting with CFC's has been quite well established for at least 40 years. Gas phase molecules mix readily. The difference between four different sites (one mainland US, one in Hawaii, and two abroad) have had the same concentrations of CFC-11 (freon) as each other within about 10% for the last 40 years. The mixing time for gas phase molecules in the Earth's atmosphere is < 1 year, which means on the time scale for depletion of CFC's that the atmosphere can be approximated as a continuosly stirred tank reactor. The only way that freon is depleted naturally that I know of is via reaction with ozone. It is quite possible to react CFC's over modified zeolite catalysts to hydrodechlorinate them.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
                        Another article pointed out that many other ozone depleting chemicals are spewed by volcanoes and other sources in much greater quantity. This book I think has a chapter the ozone scare - I have not read it, but she has very strong credentials. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060975...
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 4 months ago
                          Volcanic activity indeed does produce lots of ozone-depleting molecules. There is no question about that. Man-related "global warming potential" is dwarfed by a volcanic eruption. Given our current chemical production, global warming is no longer a serious concern.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
                            hear hear
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 4 months ago
                              In fact, I do a comparison of the global warming potential associated with the Mt. Saint Helens eruption from the 1980s with the impact of "manmade" global warming. Most of the students come in thinking that global warming is way overhyped. That comparison is the clincher.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
                                One of the problems in the AGW debate is that the prophets are so willing to lie. Many of them have said that volcano's do not spew out that much CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 4 months ago
                                  One can argue reasonably against the second half of John Adams' statement, "Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith." However, you can't reasonably argue with the first half. The liars have succeeded in undermining our liberty, as is their goal.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • ewv replied 9 years, 4 months ago
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 6 months ago
              "Again this is FAITH and Religion, you just call it science, and try to make a distinction between biblical and science books. "
              Are you saying b/c people's values invariably affect the hypotheses they test and the models they construct, we should just give up on science, give up on constructing models based on testing hypotheses?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
              Anyone can call himself a scientist and all kinds of quacks do it. In defending science I obviously do not defend whatever is said in the name of science or by a "PhD". That includes Scientology, Christian Science, Marx's "scientific socialism", Kant, Hegel, Comte, and many more, including present day viro ideologues, and purveyors of "parallel universes". You are the primitive crackpot cashing in at the end of a long chain of abuse.

              You don't know what a scientific theory is or how it is established. You are the cargo cult "scientist", the primitive witchdoctor who doesn't know how scientists think and accomplish what they do, but fears the 'miracles' that come to them from "opinions" you don't understand. You are no supporter of Atlas Shrugged.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -3
                Posted by woodlema 9 years, 6 months ago
                Unbelievable Venom here. Name calling, ascribing motives and name calling. More left wing liberal Saul tactics.

                I have not mentioned what I personally believe, only presented some logical arguments based on the 4 scientists with vastly different opinions or theories on the same exact field.

                I presented definitions according to the English language using the exact definitions from Miriam Webster's dictionary. something I guess some here lack the comprehension of.

                Name calling is not a valid argument. sorry to disappoint.

                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
                  You haven't given logical arguments based on scientists. You have explicitly tried to reduce the nature of science to faith and religion. Manipulating words through alternate usage found in a dictionary does not address the concepts employed here and is not logical. It's more like medieval scholastics pretending to reason. Names are for identification. It is not 'name calling' that you object to, but your arguments being identified for what they are.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -1
          Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 6 months ago
          If you drop the apple from a little higher up, it'll never hit the ground.

          "The only thing I know is 1+1=2 until proven otherwise. "

          Actually, 1+1=10. You use the number base you like, I'll use the number base I like.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -3
      Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 6 months ago
      Not with some here. Some are emotionally invested... not just in opposing religion or mysticism, but Christianity specifically.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 9 years, 6 months ago
        This is a thread about science, not an excuse to introduce religious proselytizing. Rejecting the supernatural in defense of science is not based on "emotional investment". Take it somewhere else.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo