[blueshifty]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

That's cool but if you could answer the points I brought up, I'd appreciate it.

I already have multiple times. You just aren't acknowledging it. I have presented multiple cases where I believe science has overstepped it's bounds.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by blueshifty

Lol, didn't mean to, but much of that and the interpretations derived from it are pseudoscience. People build on these uncertainties and continue to make theories built upon them and these things are just mathematical models that don't always work. Not to say that these things wont later be proven

The mathematical models work under the regions which they're being used to describe things.

The interpretations of the math conveyed in popular settings are often pseudoscience - you have all these interpretations of quantum mechanics for example, but regardless of the interpretation the math is the same for each one of them. And it works better than anything else. Quantum mechanics is often recognized to be more accurate than newtonian mechanics in it's descriptive and predictive power.

When it's done right the math is correct, to whatever degree of certainty and under the constraints which existed in the data it's based on. And quantum is based on a lot of data.

[blueshifty]

Originally Posted by Umami

The mathematical models work under the regions which they're being used to describe things.

The interpretations of the math conveyed in popular settings are often pseudoscience - you have all these interpretations of quantum mechanics for example, but regardless of the interpretation the math is the same for each one of them. And it works better than anything else. Quantum mechanics is often recognized to be more accurate than newtonian mechanics in it's descriptive and predictive power.

When it's done right the math is correct, to whatever degree of certainty and under the constraints which existed in the data it's based on. And quantum is based on a lot of data.

A little beyond what I've really dug into, but aren't most of these based on an euclidean space model? That said, isn't one of the assumptions a finite space? So far as I know we have no indication space is finite. Not only that, but we observe the assumptions made about space time in this model can't be verified with real observation because we observe the 2 associatively. (Reference: Minkowski space) I also though your statement that it is "more accurate" is only true near black holes and the approach to the event horizon. For predicting natural events (on earth) I can almost guarantee Newtonian physics is the basis. I know you use fluid mechanics, inertia, etc. You also say "a lot of data" which is a little hard to swallow too. The big bang happened what 13-14 billion years ago? Our measurement devices needed to gather the data have existed conservatively 100years? Are we ready to make the statement that our data is a fair representative sample? Maybe it seems like a lot of data points, but the things we are trying to explain span billions (or more) years so our data set relative to the field is quite small. Again, the stock market analogy is the easiest to relate for me... It's like taking a week worth of data and making predictions on that. The algorithms grow exponentially (and variables must be added) as the data set expands.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by blueshifty

I already have multiple times. You just aren't acknowledging it. I have presented multiple cases where I believe science has overstepped it's bounds.

A refresher to what you stated earlier.

Originally Posted by blueshifty

And to what extent do you accept physics as a science? Many parts of quantum mechanics/ physics are accepted as scientific fact and they aren't demonstrable either.

Which is it? Science overstepping its bounds or facts that aren't demonstrable?

Also the reason I ask you to clarify is because your knowledge of QM seems a little shaky.

[blueshifty]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

A refresher to what you stated earlier.



Which is it? Science overstepping its bounds or facts that aren't demonstrable?

Also the reason I ask you to clarify is because your knowledge of QM seems a little shaky.

My knowledge of QM seems shaky? How about you tell me where you think I'm wrong, specifically, and we'll go from there?

You also asked me a loaded question. One demonstrable evidence science is overstepping it's bounds because many of it's "facts" aren't demonstrable.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by blueshifty

A little beyond what I've really dug into, but aren't most of these based on an euclidean space model?

Well, since you brought it up later a more complete description of QM requires minkowski space, not euclidian. This is the basis of Quantum Field Theory, the foundation for modern high energy physics - which as we've seen, is incredibly good at making predictions.

On a side note, this is largely thanks to an amazing female mathematician, Emmy Noether.

Originally Posted by blueshifty

That said, isn't one of the assumptions a finite space?

No.

Originally Posted by blueshifty

Not only that, but we observe the assumptions made about space time in this model can't be verified with real observation because we observe the 2 associatively. (Reference: Minkowski space) I also though your statement that it is "more accurate" is only true near black holes and the approach to the event horizon.

Newtonian physics has a lot of difficulty accounting for everything in a system. Quantum systems can be made much cleaner, and therefore the theory is much stronger.

Originally Posted by blueshifty

For predicting natural events (on earth) I can almost guarantee Newtonian physics is the basis. I know you use fluid mechanics, inertia, etc. You also say "a lot of data" which is a little hard to swallow too.

Over the course of the last 100 years, we have taken far more data relevant to quantum theory than newtonian theories.

Originally Posted by blueshifty

The big bang happened what 13-14 billion years ago? Our measurement devices needed to gather the data have existed conservatively 100years? Are we ready to make the statement that our data is a fair representative sample? Maybe it seems like a lot of data points, but the things we are trying to explain span billions (or more) years so our data set relative to the field is quite small. Again, the stock market analogy is the easiest to relate for me... It's like taking a week worth of data and making predictions on that. The algorithms grow exponentially (and variables must be added) as the data set expands.

I'm not sure what your point is. People are still working on this.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by blueshifty

My knowledge of QM seems shaky? How about you tell me where you think I'm wrong, specifically, and we'll go from there?

You also asked me a loaded question. One demonstrable evidence science is overstepping it's bounds because many of it's "facts" aren't demonstrable.

I was asking you to clarify your points and you avoided it. Loaded question? You made the assertion.

[blueshifty]

Originally Posted by Umami

Well, since you brought it up later a more complete description of QM requires minkowski space, not euclidian. This is the basis of Quantum Field Theory, the foundation for modern high energy physics - which as we've seen, is incredibly good at making predictions.

On a side note, this is largely thanks to an amazing female mathematician, Emmy Noether.

So, are you saying that anything that uses a euclidean space model is not considered QM? How do you classify things such as string theory (by field)? I have no issues with the physics that is feeding the hadron colliders, sensors, etc.

Originally Posted by Umami

No.

Euclidian spaces have finite dimension.

Taken from here: http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tm...ean_space.html

Please explain. A sphere has a finite area.

Originally Posted by Umami

Newtonian physics has a lot of difficulty accounting for everything in a system. Quantum systems can be made much cleaner, and therefore the theory is much stronger.



Over the course of the last 100 years, we have taken far more data relevant to quantum theory than newtonian theories.

I suppose I should reiterate that I actually don't have a problem with the mathematical model that lies under most of these theories WITH the caveat that it is the most accurate explanation of natural phenomenon to date. The problem is some of the inferences made OUTSIDE of the verifiable aspects of the data/ theory. I'm not sure exactly how to explain the line of reasoning, but some branches/ theories in modern physics (that I believe fall under the QM umbrella) make some awfully bolt assertions. Perhaps a poor analogy, but it's like a person that's been limited in their exposure saying... well, I know this is a sheep (observable), and I know it's white (observable), so all sheep are white (a poor hypothesis based on limited exposure). This is how I view the people who keep making exclusionary statements based on "science."

That is the essence of what spurred the conversation. Not to debate the double slot experiment, QM as a whole, or the validity of the mathematical models. I have no issue with the statement that "research shows ____, but my personal belief as to why this is happening is ______." To circle the point, I believe that science oversteps it's bounds when it makes any assertions about the implications of a supernatural being, especially considering that that would be a premature conclusion based on the small amount of data they're basing it off.

That is why I keep referring to Steven Hawkings as a prophet, that is declaring physics as his doctrine and implies agnosticism/ atheism as his religion.

Originally Posted by Umami

I'm not sure what your point is. People are still working on this.

People can work on it all we want, but at best modern human's observation range dates back only ~100k years (based on evolution). So we're capable of observing AT maximum .0003% of the timeline we're basing our models on. Again, to beat the stocks analogy to death... that would be like viewing the stock market by less than a 10th of a day. Writing an algorithm that predicts the entire 110year events on a 1/10th of a days worth of data. More probably our observation range is much, much smaller. We can't even establish proper correlation with the observed data sets, let alone consider it fact. Is it useful? In many cases, yes, but some scientists are carrying it too far IMO.



Anyway, we can continue this discussion, but I'd really prefer to try and get back to the original point. Science/ religion are not and should never take an exclusionary position because both of them are based on an awfully loose interpretation of the data. In Christianity the bible would obviously be the "data."

[blueshifty]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

I was asking you to clarify your points and you avoided it. Loaded question? You made the assertion.

Lol, just tell me where you think I'm shaky. What points...? I don't know how to answer your question the way you're expecting obviously, so be specific and I'll try. Physics is a body of knowledge. Under physics lies specializations, one of which being QM. Several theories I've discussed appear to roll under QM. I dispute the merits of some of the theories being touted as fact and the inferences some scientists make from them (also touting those as fact).

It absolutely was loaded because I never made an either/ or assertion. I haven't wavered from my point that science is overstepping it's bounds. I also believe that many of it's "facts" aren't demonstrable.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by blueshifty

Lol, just tell me where you think I'm shaky.

For starters, you don't do quantum mechanics in euclidean space. It's done in something called a Hilbert space. I wasn't referring to the nature of euclidean space above when I said no, I was saying we don't assume the universe is finite because we don't use euclidean space. A finite universe is not a necessary assumption for quantum mechanics.

Furthermore, you need to be more careful when using "infinite". There is more than one kind of infinity, and the one you're using is not the same one used to describe whether or not the universe is infinite. There's a lot here I'm botching and glossing over because I can't really describe it well on the internet.

I may or may not return to this conversation, I've got some things I need to get done today. You understand. Have a good one!

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Mr.Familiar

Picking me apart, lol. What I'm trying to say is, that if someone claims that God is talking to them or through them, or claims something is right in the name of God, I think they are full of crap. But don't worry, I realize I've overstayed my welcome and spewed enough.

Lol, I can assure you that no one here is intending to make you feel bad. Don't sweat it. We learn from our mistakes, so to say. Asserting what you believe and having it challenged can only either confirm a true belief or alert you of a potentially bad one. Iron sharpens iron and all.

[blueshifty]

Originally Posted by Umami

For starters, you don't do quantum mechanics in euclidean space. It's done in something called a Hilbert space.

I may or may not return to this conversation, but I've got some things I need to get done today. You understand. Have a good one!

Then I am improperly characterizing where the works of Hawking and some others fit in. I understand the individual theories fair enough, but I don't know a definitive way of classifying the individual theories. That's not a lack of understanding theories, but rather the classification of them. Is this just called theoretical physics or does it fit somewhere else? Fair enough... my mistake.

I know you're smarter than me when it comes to physics, so just tell me that science disproves religion, or is exclusionary of, and why. I got more in the weeds than I wanted, but the main point is NONE of the assertions that science in anyway dispels the existence of a divine creature and such statements are conjecture at best.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by blueshifty

I know you're smarter than me when it comes to physics, so just tell me that science disproves religion, or is exclusionary of, and why. I got more in the weeds than I wanted, but the main point is NONE of the assertions that science in anyway dispels the existence of a divine creature and such statements are conjecture at best.

I never have. I only took issue when you started saying the math isn't always right, whatever that means.

I think the notion of God as a bearded gentleman in the sky - or even a coherent consciousness with its own will - is archaic. Science can't disprove it, but in light of what we know it doesn't seem plausible to me.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by blueshifty

Lol, just tell me where you think I'm shaky. What points...? I don't know how to answer your question the way you're expecting obviously, so be specific and I'll try. Physics is a body of knowledge. Under physics lies specializations, one of which being QM. Several theories I've discussed appear to roll under QM. I dispute the merits of some of the theories being touted as fact and the inferences some scientists make from them (also touting those as fact).

It absolutely was loaded because I never made an either/ or assertion. I haven't wavered from my point that science is overstepping it's bounds. I also believe that many of it's "facts" aren't demonstrable.

Which facts?

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

You can observe a particle and see its wave nature, e.g. the double-slit experiment. What do you mean by, "all points of the wave"? Also what do you mean by, "waves of probability"? The wave function? Also why would anyone care about, "the particle's location relative to the oscillation"?

[blueshifty]

BTW, here:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

Hawking was the first to set forth a cosmology explained by a union of the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. He is a vocal supporter of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction and denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse. Many-worlds implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe").

[Umami]

You need to be very careful basing opinions on colloquial descriptions of very complex mathematics without understanding the math itself. Words only go so far in conveying mathematical ideas.

[blueshifty]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Which facts?

I've already explained it as best I can.

Originally Posted by blueshifty

The "wave of probability" is nothing more than the places that particle should be in a point in time if measured. The problem is that the measurement affects the outcome. If we look forensically at the pattern when this process isn't observed then it shows entirely different behavior. That said the "wave of probability" is backed into rather than measured. Since a particle can exist anywhere in that range of probability, some postulate that it exists everywhere in that range. This is the easiest I can explain it.

The double slot experiment the test. There are several explanations of it...

[blueshifty]

Originally Posted by Umami

You need to be very careful basing opinions on colloquial descriptions of very complex mathematics without understanding the math itself. Words only go so far in conveying mathematical ideas.

I don't follow? I posted just a quick source as to how I came to my classification. The interpretations of the double slot experiment shape other theories that are built on the mathematical models used to explain it. None of this is MY explanation, so your argument is against the leading physicists in the world and THEY'RE the ones making the claims that science disproved God. It was never my assertion. They're the ones that made the assessment that one interpretation was more accurate and built on that.

[Umami]

He knows what the double slit is, and you're restricting the wavefunction to the Copenhagen interpretation in that description. A quantum information theory approach is much more illuminating.

Originally Posted by blueshifty

None of this is MY explanation, so your argument is against the leading physicists in the world and THEY'RE the ones making the claims that science disproved God. It was never my assertion. They're the ones that made the assessment that one interpretation was more accurate and built on that.

I assure you most "leading physicists" make no such claims.

And again, the Copenhagen interpretation is only one colloquial understanding of the math behind quantum mechanics. The math works, we just don't have a good way of reconciling it with our classical intuition.

[blueshifty]

Originally Posted by Umami

He knows what the double slit is, and you're restricting the wavefunction to the Copenhagen interpretation in that description. A quantum information theory approach is much more illuminating.

In the section right below where I pulled my previous quote, I already said that I pulled it primarily from the copenhagen interpretation:

Originally Posted by blueshifty

Yes, it is a superposition. Yes, an observer will collapse the function (to a vector). The position is falls somewhat under the copenhagen interpretation. Not exactly something that's easy to describe, but the gist is that things exist as a duality. Born and Bohr's work both feed into it.

Originally Posted by Umami

I assure you most "leading physicists" make no such claims.

So you don't consider Hawkings a leading physicist?

Originally Posted by Umami

And again, the Copenhagen interpretation is only one colloquial understanding of the math behind quantum mechanics. The math works, we just don't have a good way of reconciling it with our classical intuition.

So, now my regurgitation of the best theories out there to explain a phenomenon is incorrect? I said I understand the theories and that I don't like that the interpretations are passed off as fact. The ideas that build on them are even less valid. You are agreeing with me? Again, these aren't my interpretations... they're physicists'. It's not a debate with me...

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by blueshifty

My knowledge of QM seems shaky? How about you tell me where you think I'm wrong, specifically, and we'll go from there?

You also asked me a loaded question. One demonstrable evidence science is overstepping it's bounds because many of it's "facts" aren't demonstrable.

You said earlier that the mathematical models have predictive power, but they may or may not correlate to actual particles. This is contradictory. We can calculate with a great degree of accuracy, the probability that the wave function will collapse into a particular eigenstate. Therefore the models correlate to the actual models therefore the models have predictive power. The "facts" being demonstrated in te process.