Following that our previously established hiatus has ended...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Science is not a demonstration of what we don't know. Science is about figuring out what we do know. It's about facts and truths and how they work. I see no implication in it at all about what we don't know. I see what we don't know as the problem and science as the solution.
|
I said that what we don't know is implicit in all science. The fact that you don't see it doesn't meant that it isn't there.
Quote:
|
As I said above, science is about what we know, not about what we don't know. The reason you're citing Heisenberg is because it's about what we don't know, in a manner of speaking, but it's not that simple. Heisenberg is a demonstration of what isn't the answer. It's saying, "We've applied what we know to test this, but it's not panning out. Stand by." That standing by, or the moment in which we don't have a solution, is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I can't say if it will be solved or not, but the interpretation that Heisenberg suggests there is no solution is a misunderstanding.
|
No, you're misunderstanding it.
See
http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/Heisenbe...inty+Principle
Specifically
Quote:
|
Einstein assumed that there are similar hidden variables in quantum mechanics which underlie the observed probabilities and that these variables, if known, would show that there was what Einstein termed "local realism", a description opposite to the uncertainty principle, being that all objects must already have their properties before they are observed or measured. For the greater part of the twentieth century, there were many such hidden variable theories proposed, but in 1964 John Bell theorized the Bell inequality to counter them, which postulated that although the behavior of an individual particle is random, it is also correlated with the behavior of other particles. Therefore, if the uncertainty principle is the result of some deterministic process in which a particle has local realism, it must be the case that particles at great distances instantly transmit information to each other to ensure that the correlations in behavior between particles occur. The interpretation of Bell's theorem explicitly prevents any local hidden variable theory from holding true because it shows the necessity of a system to describe correlations between objects. The implication is, if a hidden local variable is the cause of particle 1 being at a position, then a second hidden local variable would be responsible for particle 2 being in its own position — and there is no system to correlate the behavior between them. Experiments have demonstrated that there is correlation. In the years following, Bell's theorem was tested and has held up experimentally time and time again, and these experiments are in a sense the clearest experimental confirmation of quantum mechanics. It is worth noting that Bell's theorem only applies to local hidden variable theories; non-local hidden variable theories can still exist (which some, including Bell, think is what can bridge the conceptual gap between quantum mechanics and the observable world).
|
Heisenberg isn't an ellipses, it's a period. Unless new information comes to light, that won't change.
Quote:
|
Whoa, wait just a second... who said the Heisenberg uncertainty principle was a theory? You know that a principle is very different from a theory, right? If it were a theory or law, this would be a completely different conversation. It's neither. It's a principle.
|
I wasn't talking about heisenberg, i was talking about quantum theory, of which the heisenberg is apparently an essential member. By rejecting heisenberg you are rejecting quantum mechanics, which you have every right to do. It kind of takes the wind out of your sails as a man of science, though.
Incidentally,
If i am ever an intellectual of note, i hope that there is a washed up child actor who disagrees with me who is willing to debate me. I'm thinking frankie muniz.