Does anybody believe in Physics?

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Brans-Dicke theory was abandonned, for empirical equivalency was just that (no one cared to fund further research).

[/ QUOTE ]
I think Bohmian mechanics has suffered or is suffering a similar fate, though I'm not certain about it. If so, it's a shame, since Bohm's interpretation really is fascinating. Thanks for the examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or possibly because it has serious conceptual flaws.

However, Bohm's rewriting of Schrödinger's equation in terms of variables that seem interpretable in classical terms does not come without a cost. The most obvious is increased complexity: Schrödinger's equation is rather simple, not to mention linear, whereas the modified Hamilton-Jacobi equation is somewhat complicated, and highly nonlinear -- and still requires the continuity equation for its closure. The quantum potential itself is neither simple nor natural. Even to Bohm it has seemed "rather strange and arbitrary" (Bohm 1980, p. 80). And it is not very satisfying to think of the quantum revolution as amounting to the insight that nature is classical after all, except that there is in nature what appears to be a rather ad hoc additional force term, the one arising from the quantum potential. The artificiality suggested by the quantum potential is the price one pays if one insists on casting a highly nonclassical theory into a classical mold.

Moreover, the connection between classical mechanics and Bohmian mechanics that is suggested by the quantum potential is rather misleading. Bohmian mechanics is not simply classical mechanics with an additional force term. In Bohmian mechanics the velocities are not independent of positions, as they are classically, but are constrained by the guiding equation. In classical Hamilton-Jacobi theory we also have this equation for the velocity, but there the Hamilton-Jacobi function S can be entirely eliminated and the description in terms of S simplified and reduced to a finite-dimensional description, with basic variables the positions and the (unconstrained) momenta of all the particles, given by Hamilton's or Newton's equations.

It can be argued that the most serious flaw in the quantum potential formulation of Bohmian mechanics is that it gives a completely false impression of the lengths to which we must go in order to convert orthodox quantum theory into something more rational. The quantum potential suggests, and indeed it has often been stated, that in order to transform Schrödinger's equation into a theory that can, in what are often called "realistic" terms, account for quantum phenomena, many of which are dramatically nonlocal, we must add to the theory a complicated quantum potential of a grossly nonlocal character. It should be clear that such sentiments are inappropriate, since the quantum potential need not be mentioned in the formulation of Bohmian mechanics and in any case is merely a reflection of the wave function, which Bohmian mechanics does not add to but shares with orthodox quantum theory.

quoted from a google search. First link.

Greg

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]

At any rate, I hope you can now see that when a Scientist once told his students that Light is a Wave, it was a metaphor for light not the reality.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

What the [censored] does this mean? This is just a nonsensical statement. This is like saying, well there is an godlike being out there pulling all the strings. What is the "Reality?" I'll tell you.

Energy makes up matter. The universe is essentially full of energy. Matter moves around due to energy. Fields of it. It is totally governed by laws that as Scientists we are stuggling to find mathematical models for. In doing so we can gain basic insight into the fundemental innerworkings of the Universe, ie How energy evolves.

We make theory's. We test them. IF they hold up we refine them. We gain insight. We do not claim to test philosophical things.

However if you insist on exploring epistomoligical issues (and there is nothing wrong with doing so) do not confuse it with science. It seems that you somehow think that becaue we can't know everything, that somehow what we do know is not valid. In that you are simply wrong.

Greg

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You take yourself to be the spokesman for science

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't.

[ QUOTE ]
...and you use "proveability" as a criterion for it? I can't take you seriously. I'm sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey it's alright - someday I'll realize that all "real" scientists don't consider proveability as a requisite criterion for what they study. I guess all those scientific papers titled "Does God Exist?" must have been kept under wraps by The Man. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (and no, philosophical missives about the nature of the universe don't qualify as "scientific papers").

Proveability is the first thing you need when you're talking about something in a scientific manner. If a hypothesis cannot be proven or disproved, then it's simply unfit for scientific inquiry (again, these are questions like "Is there a God?" or "are we in the Matrix?" Since these both involve assumptions that there's no way we could see/touch/in any way test God and/or "the matrix", they aren't proveable or disproveable, and having a "scientific" discussion about them is worthless).

I, personally, can't take the opinions of someone who insists that something does not have to be able to be proven or disproven to be a scientifically valid issue seriously. I'm sorry. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Edit: in case you still don't believe me on this matter, here's a bit from a cute little webpage designed to introduce children to science: "A hypothesis must be stated in a way that can be tested by the scientific method." Hey, what do you know? They teach the idea of proveability to kids! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Double-edit: Or better yet, maybe you could just show me one hypothesis that lacks proveability yet is scientifically valid instead of just saying you can't take me seriously? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well said sir!

[Bodhi]

I didn't mean to retort your statement verbatim. What I was suggesting is that epistemology is important enough to physcists that they still practice it themselves and sometimes consult 'specialists,' i.e. philosophers of science, on the topic. All you care about is your science/philosophy distinction and how clever you think it is (yes, most of us do remember it from 5th grade, but learned many new and interesting things that go beyond your platitudes). The irony of this whole story is that your criterion for science must be philosophical, as no possible experiment could ever prove that a question must be proveable in order to be scientific.

I am refraining from personal attacks here because my better judgement tells me it would only weaken my own arguments (though my worse half really wants to dish them out!) [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

I'm sure you're a reasonable fellow and that we might even get along in regular life. If you read more about the history of knowledge and science, you will learn a lot of fascinating things that go way beyond the point you insist on and are convinced no one else understands.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
The irony of this whole story is that your criterion for science must be philosophical, as no possible experiment could ever prove that a question must be proveable in order to be scientific

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it can; given the assumption of the algorithm of the scientific method (create a scientific hypothesis->test it->refactor hypothesis), a question which is not proveable cannot be tested, thus the scientific method cannot be applied to it, thus the question (however interesting or clever it may be) isn't science.

As far as proving the assumption in the realm of science in the first place, you can't - it's an assumption. I don't want to bring Godel into this, seeing as how you still haven't chosen whether you wanted your retort to be wrong or just meaningless. Read this.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

At any rate, I hope you can now see that when a Scientist once told his students that Light is a Wave, it was a metaphor for light not the reality.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

What the [censored] does this mean? This is just a nonsensical statement. This is like saying, well there is an godlike being out there pulling all the strings. What is the "Reality?" I'll tell you.

Energy makes up matter. The universe is essentially full of energy. Matter moves around due to energy. Fields of it. It is totally governed by laws that as Scientists we are stuggling to find mathematical models for. In doing so we can gain basic insight into the fundemental innerworkings of the Universe, ie How energy evolves.

We make theory's. We test them. IF they hold up we refine them. We gain insight. We do not claim to test philosophical things.

However if you insist on exploring epistomoligical issues (and there is nothing wrong with doing so) do not confuse it with science. It seems that you somehow think that becaue we can't know everything, that somehow what we do know is not valid. In that you are simply wrong.

Greg

[/ QUOTE ]

First you claim my statement is nonsense. Then you put a lot words in my mouth that I didn't say and claim I am wrong.

This is partly psychological and partly philosophical. One week you teach students how Light behaves Like a Wave and give the ElectroMagnetic equations for it. The next week you teach them how Light behaves like a Particle and give examples of experiments that fit this model. You will invariably be met by a number of befudled and nearly distraught people saying things like, "First you tell us Light is a Wave. Then you tell us Light is a Particle. Well which is it? That can't be right."

My point is that we conceptually internalize scientific models metaphorically and come to think of them as the reality rather than the model. In this example it's easy to see how that is a mistake. But the tendency is ubiquitous and less obvious cases get argued by smart people much like the distraght students above. For example, David insists that the Mathematical Construct of "Dimension" is Not acting as a metaphor when used in scientific models.

PairTheBoard

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure it can; given the assumption of the algorithm of the scientific method (create a scientific hypothesis->test it->refactor hypothesis), a question which is not proveable cannot be tested, thus the scientific method cannot be applied to it, thus the question (however interesting or clever it may be) isn't science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me restate this just to make sure you're not being intentionally dense. If your criterion for science is provability, then there is the question as to whether the criterion of science itself is proveable, whether it is scientific. But you admit it is not scientific, and henceforth, as provability is the only criterion you accept for any statement to count as knowledge (rather than gum chewing), your criterion for science is self-referentially incoherent.

[ QUOTE ]
as how you still haven't chosen whether you wanted your retort to be wrong or just meaningless

[/ QUOTE ]

But you haven't even bothered to respond to my response:

I am arguing with a character from monty python. Shame on me. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Seriously, we can go on and on and on, but whatever you say still sounds like cheap sloganeering.

[Shakezula]

I still am somewhat wondering about the implications of what I saw in my first and only year of Calculus. In the textbook, as I tried to fight the boredom of the slow pace with which it was being taught, I browsed through some later sections as usual and saw a small proof, about a page and a half, that caught my attention. It began with some simple statement, maybe something like 1=1, and with supposedly valid mathematical substitutions and some formulas that I didn't understand, the page and a half proof, it ended up being shown that 1=2. Maybe this is inaccurate work, or maybe it is so basic that it is not even worthy of consideration. If it was a valid proof, to me the implications (if 1 can be shown to equal 2) when applied to other areas of thought can be far-reaching indeed...

Anyone well-educated in higher mathematics please feel free to response.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me restate this just to make sure you're not being intentionally dense. If your criterion for science is provability, then there is the question as to whether the criterion of science itself is proveable, whether it is scientific. But you admit it is not scientific, and henceforth, as provability is the only criterion you accept for any statement to count as knowledge (rather than gum chewing), your criterion for science is self-referentially incoherent.

[/ QUOTE ]

No axiomatic system is self-consistent and "self-referentially coherent". Again, read Godel.

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone well-educated in higher mathematics please feel free to response.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen many "proofs" that 1=2 or 1=-1 (or whatever) and they have all been flawed in some way. The most common one involes a square then a then (incorrectly) ignores the negative solution to a subsequent square root. Post one if you want, I'm sure there plenty of people here can show you where is flaw lies.