TTI Forums

Borysoff wrote:Most of current sciences were first born as theorys, not having practical application.

Hmm, which theories are that?

Borysoff wrote:Why are you so sceptic about quantum mechanics Olek?

Primarily, because most QMs (there is not a single theory called QM) I've seen reject the Law of Identity (or Law of Causality). If you wish I could provide some links I've seen and read on this.

Copernicus first had a theory that the Earth is turning round the Sun. At that time theory of sky spheres, or however it was called, was enough for practical needs.
I have just basic knowledge for quantum physics/mechanics, so links u mentioned would be interesting to read.
But i struggle to call smth yet theoretical "crazy". Anyway, noone asks you to believe in it, and it's not funded by taxes you pay.
Some guys built a HUGE toy. It should prove they are either right, or wrong. Both results i consider valuable experience.

Borysoff wrote:Copernicus first had a theory that the Earth is turning round the Sun. At that time theory of sky spheres, or however it was called, was enough for practical needs.

I'm not aware of Copernicus thinking that Earth was turning around the Sun. From what I know he read the idea from the ancient Greek source.

Also, what is the meaning of 'practical needs' ?

I mean knowledge, that can be applied to the achieve smth (build, create, change things). Taking idea from greeks and developing it doesn't make Copernicus less important in history of science.
And i still want to understand why you don't like quants.

Edit: saw your post in deep thoughts. Will look at it now.

Borysoff wrote:I mean knowledge, that can be applied to the achieve smth (build, create, change things). Taking idea from greeks and developing it doesn't make Copernicus less important in history of science.
And i still want to understand why you don't like quants.

Edit: saw your post in deep thoughts. Will look at it now.

Arbitrary mathematical construction without correct physical understanding of reality is nearly useless.

And QM simply reject cause and effect. They say that reality is uncertain, in principle. That particles as such don't exist at all, until we measure them.

Wow Oleks. I'm sorry to say this, but you really missed the point of Quantum Mechanics (perhaps bad readings?). First, quantum mechanics is not "Arbitrary mathematical construction without correct physical understanding of reality." This is not how science works. The theories that were originally presented in the 30s and 40s (as well as later) have since been shown to have important physical implications. Quantum mechanics is not an arbitrary mathematical construct, but rather the collection of explanations for how the universe works at a subatomic level.

More importantly, quantum mechanics does not reject cause and effect. That is one of the most important principles of science, not to be rejected should the math ever come across in that fashion (not that I've ever heard of such shennanigans).

Edit: In my modern physics class last semester, one of the most useful tools in understanding quantum mechanical phenomena was to test whether or not causality was maintained. If it wasn't, we needed to adjust the math (or take out the cases in which causality was not held).

Finally, quantum mechanics says that particles exist as a packet of probability waves. It is not that they don't exist until we measure them, it's that the particles collapse into a single wave state upon being measured.

No, Vel, I didn't miss anything.

Velocima Geminosa wrote:Finally, quantum mechanics says that particles exist as a packet of probability waves. It is not that they don't exist until we measure them, it's that the particles collapse into a single wave state upon being measured.

And just how is this not rejection of cause and effect?

A particle exists as a "packet of probability wave"? Err. Since when a probability can exist in physical world as a particle or a packet?

What is a 'collapse' of a physical entity that you call your 'probability packet' ?

How about this question: in a single double slit experiment - QM can't even answer through which slit the particle went through. Is this not a rejection of cause and effect I don't know what is.

In my modern physics class last semester, one of the most useful tools in understanding quantum mechanical phenomena was to test whether or not causality was maintained. If it wasn't, we needed to adjust the math (or take out the cases in which causality was not held).

Excuse me? Adjust math? This sounds like correcting math when people through Sun rotated around the Earth. They did a lot of adjusting, too. And if they had better math as we do, they might have come up with some form of String theory as well.

Wrong theories don't make science wrong. Can effect be observed? Yes. Can it be explained to not break causality? Not yet.
Does it make Quantum Mechanics wrong? No. Call it "under construction" if you wish.
To say now that it's completely wrong and stop exploring it further will leave it as a fairy tail forever.

Borysoff wrote:Wrong theories don't make science wrong. Can effect be observed? Yes. Can it be explained to not break causality? Not yet.

Actually, the answer is yes.

See Theory of Elementary Waves.

http://physics.prodos.org/