Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Double Slit Experiment: the actual science.


Joshpantera

Recommended Posts

I'm over on this thread too:

 

 

Walter, what collapses the wave function in the double slit? Measurement apparatus? An observer? What? I think mainstream science disagrees with Pantheory, but it seems more woo than simple physical explanation. Is mainstream interpretation woo, compared to Pantheory's explanation? If it is woo, do you believe in mainstream woo? 

 

Or is mainstream science just a simple physical explanation?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

I asked you a question. Are you going to answer it? Or just deflect? 

 

The question again: Walter, if you were alive in the 1500s watching the spectacle of Galileo unfold, would you be for or against the heretical non-mainstream heliocentric model? 

 

Your question is a calculated trap that I won't be stepping into, Midniterider.

 

https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/false-dilemma/

 

But if your question weren't one designed to trap me and I dodged it, then I would be deflecting.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, midniterider said:

I'm over on this thread too:

 

 

Walter, what collapses the wave function in the double slit? Measurement apparatus? An observer? What? I think mainstream science disagrees with Pantheory, but it seems more woo than simple physical explanation. Is mainstream interpretation woo, compared to Pantheory's explanation? If it is woo, do you believe in mainstream woo? 

 

Or is mainstream science just a simple physical explanation?

 

 

You're making the same mistake as Pantheory has often made about me, midniterider.

 

He thinks that because I question him about his alternative theory, I must therefore support mainstream theories.

 

But here's what I wrote on Tuesday, to remind him of the neutrality of my position.

 

That's quite a hefty post, Pantheory.

But it's a bit wide of the mark, for at least two reasons.

Firstly, as you will no doubt recall, my avowed position when it comes to supporting any particular theory is one of strict noncommittal.  I try to hold to a wait-and-see policy.  Therefore, I cannot hold anything amounting to a dogma or belief when it comes to science matters.  

Secondly, the immediate issue under discussion between us is the Bell test.  So far in this thread I haven't written anything either for or against the existence of background fields of any kind.  But if you are so minded Pantheory, we can go on to do so.

Thank you.

Walter.

 

I hope that clears up your misunderstanding of my position re mainstream vs alternative.

 

The only time I've said anything in support of mainstream science in this thread was this.

 

Also, have you applied Occam's Razor to the situation between you and mainstream science?

All things being equal, all humans are fallible.

But when humans rigorously test and check each others work, errors not seen by an individual are often discovered by others.

Therefore, since mainstream science rigorously checks and tests itself collectively, the Razor suggests that you (the individual) are more likely to be in error.

In the same way, since mainstream science has performed the actual experiments and you have not, the Razor once again says that you are more likely to be in error.

 

Which is not a statement of support for the mainstream explanation of quantum mechanics.

 

Its a statement of support of the way mainstream science rigorously checks itself.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

You're making the same mistake as Pantheory has often made about me, midniterider.

 

He thinks that because I question him about his alternative theory, I must therefore support mainstream theories.

 

But here's what I wrote on Tuesday, to remind him of the neutrality of my position.

 

That's quite a hefty post, Pantheory.

But it's a bit wide of the mark, for at least two reasons.

Firstly, as you will no doubt recall, my avowed position when it comes to supporting any particular theory is one of strict noncommittal.  I try to hold to a wait-and-see policy.  Therefore, I cannot hold anything amounting to a dogma or belief when it comes to science matters.  

Secondly, the immediate issue under discussion between us is the Bell test.  So far in this thread I haven't written anything either for or against the existence of background fields of any kind.  But if you are so minded Pantheory, we can go on to do so.

Thank you.

Walter.

 

I hope that clears up your misunderstanding of my position re mainstream vs alternative.

 

The only time I've said anything in support of mainstream science in this thread was this.

 

Also, have you applied Occam's Razor to the situation between you and mainstream science?

All things being equal, all humans are fallible.

But when humans rigorously test and check each others work, errors not seen by an individual are often discovered by others.

Therefore, since mainstream science rigorously checks and tests itself collectively, the Razor suggests that you (the individual) are more likely to be in error.

In the same way, since mainstream science has performed the actual experiments and you have not, the Razor once again says that you are more likely to be in error.

 

Which is not a statement of support for the mainstream explanation of quantum mechanics.

 

Its a statement of support of the way mainstream science rigorously checks itself.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Ok, sounds good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

Your question is a calculated trap that I won't be stepping into, Midniterider.

 

https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/false-dilemma/

 

But if your question weren't one designed to trap me and I dodged it, then I would be deflecting.

 

 

 

In your other reply you say you aren't supporting mainstream explanation of QM so that voids my question about Walter of the 1500s. You arent just following mainstream thought because it's mainstream thought. I can appreciate that. 

 

So what do you think collapses the wave function in the double slit experiment? If you already answered that also I apologize for asking again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your other reply you say you aren't supporting mainstream explanation of QM so that voids my question about Walter of the 1500s. You arent just following mainstream thought because it's mainstream thought. I can appreciate that. 

 

So what do you think collapses the wave function in the double slit experiment? If you already answered that also I apologize for asking again. 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I really don't know, midniterider.

 

That's the honest answer.

 

However, last September I was in a discussion with Disillusioned and I made this speculation.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/82674-truth-knowledge-and-belief-an-exploration/page/4/

 

From my second post of Sept 29.

 

have another idea. 

Confession!  This is just pure speculation on my part.  Woo!

What if the true potential for interaction is infinite and eternal, somehow pre-dating the beginning of our universe and somehow outlasting it too?  Via Heat Death our universe will one day become ‘worn out’ and unable to interact with anything.  But in an infinite and eternal multiverse, while other universes are born in the same way and die in the same way, the infinite and eternal whole carries on.

So, how does such an eternal multiverse explain the emergence of complexity in our universe?

To tackle that question we will need to look at an aspect of Quantum Mechanics.

We agree that all theories and models are mathematical constructs used to describe reality.  They are not reality itself, whatever that is.  But problems arise when two theories or models appear to be saying radically things about reality.  The tension between QM and GR is a classic example.  Both appear to be highly accurate on their own scales, but they stubbornly refuse to ‘talk to each other’.

I submit that within QM itself there are similar tensions, as I will now describe.

Mathematical Model A: The Planck Scale

The quantum realm itself is not a smooth and continuous domain but is instead made up of discrete and separated parts, with ‘nothing’ between them.

Mathematical Model B: The Cosmic Scale

The wave function of a quantum system (e.g., a photon) is not confined to discrete location but is spread across the entire universe.

On the face of it A and B seem to be describing things that are simultaneously incredibly small and infinitely large.  The scale of A is so small that we can only investigate it indirectly. Conversely, the scale of B is so large that we can never investigate it.   For the sake of clarity its worth mentioning that the wave function of B is considered to be spread out, not just across the observable universe, but across the entire universe – however large that is. So, A and B appear to be saying radically different things, at least in terms of scale.

One solution to this quandary is to redefine what we mean by the words Location, Size, Scale, Time and Space.  Steps have already been taken in this direction.  Please see the link to Local Realistic Theory on this page. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality

But there is another (purely speculative) way of proceeding that is hinted at by the Many Worlds interpretation of QM.

In the multiverse I posited earlier the number of interactions taking place is always infinite.  This means that at any given moment an infinite number of identical copies of the same physicist are performing double-slit experiments.  They all appear to see a single photon divide itself and pass through both slits.  To explain this behaviour, they all posit that that the wave function of that individual photon is spread across the entire universe, allowing it to behave in this way.

But in theorizing this they all run up against the quandary I described in A and B.  For all of them this single photon is both a discrete quantum entity, yet it is also spread across the entire universe.  Model A and Model B appear to be saying radically different things!

However, this quandary can disappear if we posit that such quantum phenomenon as tunnelling, super-position and entanglement are not caused by quanta in this universe interacting with themselves or only with other quanta within this universe.

What if the realm of the Planck scale is ‘leaky’ and quanta from one universe can hop over into another?  Virtual particles are posited to ‘appear’ from nowhere and to go back there again.  Could it be that there is no such thing as ‘nowhere’?  That there is a constant exchange of quanta between universes?

If so, this is where our infinitely multiplied physicist comes into play. 

They are not witnessing photons from only their own universes behaving strangely.  Instead they are seeing photons from other universes ‘hopping’ over and causing their photons to appear to be in two places at once, to pass through solid barriers or to be instantaneously connected with other photons many kilometres away. 

Even if they ‘tag’ individual photons, giving them opposite spins, because there are an infinite number of identical physicists doing the same thing in other universes, their instruments will always appear to detect the correctly tagged photons.   

Now to bring this back to complexity and interactions.

If complexity emerges from interactions at the Planck scale and the level of interactions is always infinite in a multiverse, then the question of how complexity emerged in our universe is answered by referring to the multiversal whole. 

Our universe gained its complexity as the quanta in the Big Bang fireball interacted with quanta in other universes.  The complexity came from ‘outside’ not from ‘within’.  The complexity is not a ‘local’ phenomenon but a ‘global’ one.

Thank you.

Walter.

 

Midniterider, this is pure speculation on my part and is more metaphysics than physics, for two important reasons.

 

The first is that we could never investigate if particles were moving between our universe and others. 

 

The second is that if we can't gather any evidence about it, then my speculation cannot qualify as science.

 

 Something that cannot be falsified by evidence doesn't qualify as bona fide science.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WalterP said:

In your other reply you say you aren't supporting mainstream explanation of QM so that voids my question about Walter of the 1500s. You arent just following mainstream thought because it's mainstream thought. I can appreciate that. 

 

So what do you think collapses the wave function in the double slit experiment? If you already answered that also I apologize for asking again. 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I really don't know, midniterider.

 

That's the honest answer.

 

However, last September I was in a discussion with Disillusioned and I made this speculation.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/82674-truth-knowledge-and-belief-an-exploration/page/4/

 

From my second post of Sept 29.

 

have another idea. 

Confession!  This is just pure speculation on my part.  Woo!

What if the true potential for interaction is infinite and eternal, somehow pre-dating the beginning of our universe and somehow outlasting it too?  Via Heat Death our universe will one day become ‘worn out’ and unable to interact with anything.  But in an infinite and eternal multiverse, while other universes are born in the same way and die in the same way, the infinite and eternal whole carries on.

So, how does such an eternal multiverse explain the emergence of complexity in our universe?

To tackle that question we will need to look at an aspect of Quantum Mechanics.

We agree that all theories and models are mathematical constructs used to describe reality.  They are not reality itself, whatever that is.  But problems arise when two theories or models appear to be saying radically things about reality.  The tension between QM and GR is a classic example.  Both appear to be highly accurate on their own scales, but they stubbornly refuse to ‘talk to each other’.

I submit that within QM itself there are similar tensions, as I will now describe.

Mathematical Model A: The Planck Scale

The quantum realm itself is not a smooth and continuous domain but is instead made up of discrete and separated parts, with ‘nothing’ between them.

Mathematical Model B: The Cosmic Scale

The wave function of a quantum system (e.g., a photon) is not confined to discrete location but is spread across the entire universe.

On the face of it A and B seem to be describing things that are simultaneously incredibly small and infinitely large.  The scale of A is so small that we can only investigate it indirectly. Conversely, the scale of B is so large that we can never investigate it.   For the sake of clarity its worth mentioning that the wave function of B is considered to be spread out, not just across the observable universe, but across the entire universe – however large that is. So, A and B appear to be saying radically different things, at least in terms of scale.

One solution to this quandary is to redefine what we mean by the words Location, Size, Scale, Time and Space.  Steps have already been taken in this direction.  Please see the link to Local Realistic Theory on this page. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality

But there is another (purely speculative) way of proceeding that is hinted at by the Many Worlds interpretation of QM.

In the multiverse I posited earlier the number of interactions taking place is always infinite.  This means that at any given moment an infinite number of identical copies of the same physicist are performing double-slit experiments.  They all appear to see a single photon divide itself and pass through both slits.  To explain this behaviour, they all posit that that the wave function of that individual photon is spread across the entire universe, allowing it to behave in this way.

But in theorizing this they all run up against the quandary I described in A and B.  For all of them this single photon is both a discrete quantum entity, yet it is also spread across the entire universe.  Model A and Model B appear to be saying radically different things!

However, this quandary can disappear if we posit that such quantum phenomenon as tunnelling, super-position and entanglement are not caused by quanta in this universe interacting with themselves or only with other quanta within this universe.

What if the realm of the Planck scale is ‘leaky’ and quanta from one universe can hop over into another?  Virtual particles are posited to ‘appear’ from nowhere and to go back there again.  Could it be that there is no such thing as ‘nowhere’?  That there is a constant exchange of quanta between universes?

If so, this is where our infinitely multiplied physicist comes into play. 

They are not witnessing photons from only their own universes behaving strangely.  Instead they are seeing photons from other universes ‘hopping’ over and causing their photons to appear to be in two places at once, to pass through solid barriers or to be instantaneously connected with other photons many kilometres away. 

Even if they ‘tag’ individual photons, giving them opposite spins, because there are an infinite number of identical physicists doing the same thing in other universes, their instruments will always appear to detect the correctly tagged photons.   

Now to bring this back to complexity and interactions.

If complexity emerges from interactions at the Planck scale and the level of interactions is always infinite in a multiverse, then the question of how complexity emerged in our universe is answered by referring to the multiversal whole. 

Our universe gained its complexity as the quanta in the Big Bang fireball interacted with quanta in other universes.  The complexity came from ‘outside’ not from ‘within’.  The complexity is not a ‘local’ phenomenon but a ‘global’ one.

Thank you.

Walter.

 

Midniterider, this is pure speculation on my part and is more metaphysics than physics, for two important reasons.

 

The first is that we could never investigate if particles were moving between our universe and others. 

 

The second is that if we can't gather any evidence about it, then my speculation cannot qualify as science.

 

 Something that cannot be falsified by evidence doesn't qualify as bona fide science.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

I'm glad you speculate about stuff like this. Whether it's science or not, it's interesting to consider. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

What I was getting at earlier on in the thread is sort of described here in this video about Pilate Wave theory: 

 

Real waves: 

 

 

I keep coming back to the general idea that the waves could be real waves operating within a real wave medium. And that reality could be entirely based on an interconnected wave medium type substance which would be essentially endless. 

 

But of course these things need to be worked out and established as factual before anyone can approach these kinds of ideas as facts. They are speculation as it stands. I just enjoy looking to the forefront of trying to discover new things about space and matter. And then follow through to the philosophy of physics that accompanies new discovery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 2/26/2021 at 11:56 AM, WalterP said:

Midniterider, this is pure speculation on my part and is more metaphysics than physics, for two important reasons.

 

The first is that we could never investigate if particles were moving between our universe and others. 

 

The second is that if we can't gather any evidence about it, then my speculation cannot qualify as science.

 

 Something that cannot be falsified by evidence doesn't qualify as bona fide science.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

These are fair points. 

 

And @pantheory if you have theories that are not falsifiable, it seems fair enough to just admit that the theory therefore exist outside of the scope of bona fide science as Walter put it. 

 

But that's what I was saying before. Speculation is speculation. We're all free to speculate. But if we try going beyond that and making positive assertions then any one of us is subject to scrutiny for it. It's just the way the cookie crumbles. I have always been sympathetic to alternative thinking. But I do keep it in context. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

These are fair points. 

 

And @pantheory if you have theories that are not falsifiable, it seems fair enough to just admit that the theory therefore exist outside of the scope of bonahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory  bona fide science as Walter put it. 

 

But that's what I was saying before. Speculation is speculation. We're all free to speculate. But if we try going beyond that and making positive assertions then any one of us is subject to scrutiny for it. It's just the way the cookie crumbles. I have always been sympathetic to alternative thinking. But I do keep it in context. 

 

 

 

If a theory is not falsifiable, it's not a theory at all.  At best it's speculation. Every theory of mine is falsifiable, but many mainstream theories are not falsifiable. The same thing goes for hypothesis. If they are not falsifiable they are simply speculation, not a hypothesis or theory. Good examples of pure speculation IMO are "expanding space," "string theory," Inflation," Quantum Theory," "dark energy," Multiverses, "quantum theory, etc Even if a hypothesis or theory can be falsified does not mean that such falsification can easily be done. If it could, then that hypothesis or theory wouldn't last long.

 

Speculation can also be science. One must first speculate before you can form a hypothesis. If you can't figure out how to falsify your speculation it could never become a hypothesis or theory using the standard definitions of them. In time a hypothesis can become a theory when acceptably tested many times for an accepted period of time.  Many things that many believe are scientific theories today are no more than speculation if they cannot be tested or falsified IMO; they are pure speculation. Anybody can speculate since it requires no education. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

What I was getting at earlier on in the thread is sort of described here in this video about Pilate Wave theory: 

 

Real waves: 

 

 

I keep coming back to the general idea that the waves could be real waves operating within a real wave medium. And that reality could be entirely based on an interconnected wave medium type substance which would be essentially endless. 

 

But of course these things need to be worked out and established as factual before anyone can approach these kinds of ideas as facts. They are speculation as it stands. I just enjoy looking to the forefront of trying to discover new things about space and matter. And then follow through to the philosophy of physics that accompanies new discovery. 

 

Yes, Pilot Wave theory is very interesting. Its invention is accredited to Louis De Broglie who is also accredited with the discovery of matter waves.  I don't use pilot waves in my own theories but it could be true, and is far better than the more widely accepted ideas of quantum theory IMO.

 

For the double slit experiment one does not need pilot waves for explanations IMO, just simple, everyday, mundane light waves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

If a theory is not falsifiable, it's not a theory at all.  At best it's speculation. Every theory of mine is falsifiable, but many mainstream theories are not falsifiable. The same thing goes for hypothesis. If they are not falsifiable they are simply speculation, not a hypothesis or theory. Good examples of pure speculation IMO are "expanding space," "string theory," Inflation," Quantum Theory," "dark energy," Multiverses, "quantum theory, etc Even if a hypothesis or theory can be falsified does not mean that such falsification can easily be done. If it could, then that hypothesis or theory wouldn't last long.

 

Speculation can also be science. One must first speculate before you can form a hypothesis. If you can't figure out how to falsify your speculation it could never become a hypothesis or theory using the standard definitions of them. In time a hypothesis can become a theory when acceptably tested many times for an accepted period of time.  Many things that many believe are scientific theories today are no more than speculation if they cannot be tested or falsified IMO; they are pure speculation. Anybody can speculate since it requires no education. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

 

I stand by what I said earlier.

 

If a theory is only falsifiable on terms chosen by the theory's originator and that person reserves the right to interpret all data, evidence, models, hypotheses, etc.  in their own way, then we have a closed circle.

 

Their theory can only be falsified on their terms.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

I stand by what I said earlier.

 

If a theory is only falsifiable on terms chosen by the theory's originator and that person reserves the right to interpret all data, evidence, models, hypotheses, etc.  in their own way, then we have a closed circle.

 

Their theory can only be falsified on their terms.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

The subject here is the double-slit experiment and directly related science. It seems that one of your favorite pastimes is arguing. As for me, I don't like to argue and never did. My purpose here in this science subforum  is education since I was once a teacher of college students. Maybe the main meaning of falsifiability of theories is that that they make predictions that can be falsified. If you have a desire to learn about my theories,  theory and hypotheses falsifiability in general etc., then argue about it,  I can explain the meaning of all of it in the Lion's Den if you want.

 

If not, you must stay on topic for me to answer your postings, questions, assumed statements, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pantheory,

 

15 hours ago JoshPantera raised the issue of falsifiability, citing my name.

 

You responded to his query one hour later, tackling the issue of falsifiability.

 

Therefore, discussion of a theory's falsifiability is not off-topic.

 

It is on the table and you helped put it there.

 

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

infinitycircles.png

 

Here's the problem when it comes to falsifying your theories, Pantheory.

 

You reject modern physics and have your own, alternative physics.

 

Which means that there's no overlap between you and mainstream science.

 

Just like these two circles.

 

So, you will only accept falsification of your theories within your own terms.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, WalterP said:

infinitycircles.png

 

Here's the problem when it comes to falsifying your theories, Pantheory.

 

You reject modern physics and have your own, alternative physics.

 

Which means that there's no overlap between you and mainstream science.

 

Just like these two circles.

 

So, you will only accept falsification of your theories within your own terms.

 

 

 

 

I think it is simply that you don't understand how theories should be falsifiable. If you wish to learn about this further, argue about it,  theories etc., I've opened a thread in the Den for arguing problems in mainstream or alternative physics and science in general entitled: "mainstream/ alternative science." Such arguments are off-topic in this thread, and I think in the science forum in general. Disagreements and are one thing, arguments another.

 

Off-topic simply means not directly related to the thread's topic. Comments can go off-topic but should not continue for long off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

I think it is simply that you don't understand how theories should be falsifiable. If you wish to learn about this further, argue about it,  theories etc., I've opened a thread in the Den for arguing problems in mainstream or alternative physics and science in general entitled: "mainstream/ alternative science." Such arguments are off-topic in this thread, and I think in the science forum in general. Disagreements and are one thing, arguments another.

 

Off-topic simply means not directly related to the thread's topic. Comments can go off-topic but should not continue for long off topic.

 

Pantheory,

 

JoshPantera created this thread, introduced the issue of falsification, cited you and I by name and, as a Moderator, has overall say as to what constitutes off-topic and on-topic.

 

Therefore, it's not your call, its his.

 

You don't get to exercise any authority over me as to how long something strays off topic.

 

Nor do you have the authority to tell me which arguments are off-topic and which aren't.

 

You can express your OPINIONS about these things.

 

But that's as far as it goes.

 

I'll meet you elsewhere on Josh's say so, not yours.

 

 

Walter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

The subject here is the double-slit experiment and directly related science. It seems that one of your favorite pastimes is arguing. As for me, I don't like to argue and never did. My purpose here in this science subforum  is education since I was once a teacher of college students. Maybe the main meaning of falsifiability of theories is that that they make predictions that can be falsified. If you have a desire to learn about my theories,  theory and hypotheses falsifiability in general etc., then argue about it,  I can explain the meaning of all of it in the Lion's Den if you want.

 

If not, you must stay on topic for me to answer your postings, questions, assumed statements, etc.

 

Speaking of authority Pantheory, where did you acquire the authority to educate anyone in this forum?

 

We are all equals in this forum and there is no teacher/pupil hierarchy here.

 

If one member wants to learn from another then they do so as equals.

 

So, in Ex-C, where does your authority to teach come from?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

Speaking of authority Pantheory, where did you acquire the authority to educate anyone in this forum?

 

We are all equals in this forum and there is no teacher/pupil hierarchy here.

 

If one member wants to learn from another then they do so as equals.

 

So, in Ex-C, where does your authority to teach come from?

 

 

 

Ask TheRedneckProfessor. He was the moderator that closed this discussion in "Rants and Replies" and requested that arguments belong in the Lion's Den. And I am the one that says that falsification-of-theory belongs in another thread since it is too far from this topic. Arguments are not the same as disagreements. Disagreements involve a few statements by those involved, then they end. Arguments (unacceptable in the science forum) are continuing disagreements with discussions involving close to hostile statements.

 

Note: if you do not want to continue concerning falsification-of-theory in the above thread then I'm giving you the last word on it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

I stand by what I said earlier.

 

If a theory is only falsifiable on terms chosen by the theory's originator and that person reserves the right to interpret all data, evidence, models, hypotheses, etc.  in their own way, then we have a closed circle.

 

Their theory can only be falsified on their terms.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

No one can decide how a scientific theory can be falsified. It is either obvious how to do it, or it is decided by the scientific community whether it is falsifiable or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

Ask TheRedneckProfessor. He was the moderator that closed this discussion in "Rants and Replies" and requested that arguments belong in the Lion's Den.

 

 

But this is neither Rants & Replies, nor the Lion's Den.

 

This is Science vs Religion section and this is Josh's thread, so he has jurisdiction here.

 

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

And I am the one that says that falsification-of-theory belongs in another thread since it is too far from this topic.

 

 

That is not for you, as an ordinary member, to say.

 

You do not have any authority to make that decision.

 

Nor do you have any authority to impose that decision on any other member.

 

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

Arguments are not the same as disagreements. Disagreements involve a few statements by those involved, then they end. Arguments (unacceptable in the science forum) are continuing disagreements with discussions involving close to hostile statements.

 

There has been no hostility from me.

 

You are the one overstepping the mark.

 

I am simply pointing out that you are an ordinary member and my equal.

 

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

Note: if you do not want to continue concerning falsification-of-theory in the above thread then I'm giving you the last word on it here.

 

You do not have the authority to tell me or any other member what they can or cannot do.

 

The last word in all things in this forum belongs to the Moderators.

 

Not you.

 

Please stop trying to exert authority that you do not have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

But this is neither Rants & Replies, nor the Lion's Den.

 

This is Science vs Religion section and this is Josh's thread, so he has jurisdiction here.

 

 

That is not for you, as an ordinary member, to say.

 

You do not have any authority to make that decision.

 

Nor do you have any authority to impose that decision on any other member.

 

 

There has been no hostility from me.

 

You are the one overstepping the mark.

 

I am simply pointing out that you are an ordinary member and my equal.

 

 

You do not have the authority to tell me or any other member what they can or cannot do.

 

The last word in all things in this forum belongs to the Moderators.

 

Not you.

 

Please stop trying to exert authority that you do not have.

The last word that I was talking about is my not responding further to your aggressive or off-topic comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pantheory said:

The last word that I was talking about is not responding further to your aggressive comments.

 

If you think I'm being aggressive Pantheory, then please ask the Moderators to reprimand me.

 

They have authority over me and I will gladly accept what they say.

 

You have no authority over me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, pantheory said:

No one can decide how a scientific theory can be falsified. It is either obvious how to do it, or it is decided by the scientific community whether it is falsifiable or not.

 

Then, if it is obvious, please explain how it is done.

 

So that nobody will be left in any doubt.

 

Please take note of what I'm doing here, Pantheory.

 

I'm politely asking you to explain yourself.

 

Nothing hostile or aggressive in that.

 

I'm not exceeding my authority by telling another member what they can or cannot do.

 

Instead I'm courteously requesting your cooperation.

 

That's how two equals should conduct themselves.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

Then, if it is obvious, please explain how it is done.

 

So that nobody will be left in any doubt.

 

Please take note of what I'm doing here, Pantheory.

 

I'm politely asking you to explain yourself.

 

Nothing hostile or aggressive in that.

 

I'm not exceeding my authority by telling another member what they can or cannot do.

 

Instead I'm courteously requesting your cooperation.

 

That's how two equals should conduct themselves.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

I've explained it before concerning this topic. The hypotheses that I have presented for the double-slit experiment involves two different proposals. One, is that light is both a particle and and a wave at the same time. The first such proposal was by Louis De Broglie. Joshpantera mentioned his pilot-wave proposal in this thread.

 

The second proposal that I made in this thread suggests that the Zero-Point-Field, the Higgs field, or another background field IMO probably interferes in some quantum experiments which is the reason for the required statistics of quantum mechanics. This is somewhat related to the double-slit experiment interpretations of the delayed choice experiment has some woo interpretations IMO -- such as the affect precedes the cause, and human observation affects the experimental results.

 

For this interpretation (for other experiments) of quantum mechanics, the mainstream must assume that there are no background-field hidden variables. My contention is that the mainstream must make this assumption, and for my proposal to be valid, their assumption must be wrong.

 

So if you look above, nowhere do I call this proposal a scientific theory since untested hypothesis remain hypotheses until  tested and more widely accepted, whereby at that time it might meet some definitions of theory. When I referred to falsification of  "scientific theories" I provided the link to the LIon's Den thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.