There`s a ghost in the room

[Izzywizzy]

and its name is quantum....quantum has no evidence but talks a good show..aether is not a ghost in any room but however its evidence is still being denied. why is this?

[Mike Strand]

Hi, Izzy, you might be interested in my latest post under "Opinions on Physics -- Puzzles, Mysteries, that sort". It provides links to statements from Einstein, Dirac and others on the concept of "aether" -- not the old concept, debunked by the Michelson-Morely experiment, but newer concepts.

[converge]

Hi Izzy, I asked this same thing of Cerevny so I'll ask you too.

You, personally, don't have your own particle accelerator, and probably don't have any sort of real physics equipment at all, so you can not personally verify any of the evidence reported by QM experiments, or by aether experiments. Correct?

Since you have no way of personally verifying any of it, you can only rely on second-hand information. Correct? Yet still, you seem certain that the entire scientific community over the last eighty years has been involved in a vast conspiracy of lies as part of some obscure plan to ruin physics, but that a few random people on the internet who you've never met are most definitely telling the truth.

Since you will never have the opportunity to verify anything yourself, and you refuse to believe any results reported for any experiments that you don't like, is there anything at all that could possibly be shown to you that would get you to change your mind? It seems to me that if you are dead set on believing that all of the physicists in the world are lying to you, but you don't have any interest in trying to personally verify your own beliefs, then there's really not much point in talking about it.

[Izzywizzy]

Converge I think you will find I have already addressed the question you placed elswhere even before you asked me it now. I said anything we read and don`t do ourselves is just anecdote and theory. That doesn`t mean we can`t discuss it or scrutinize it ourselves. If the best you can contribute to this thread is off topic questioning well, pass! If you dispute my claim about QM then please show you have some evidence to dispute with. You might sway me on it, I haven`t said at any point that my mind is made up. I have said it proves nothing to me that I have read and studied on it thus far. Its another word for Aether and the fifth dimension.

Mike Strand wrote

Hi, Izzy, you might be interested in my latest post under "Opinions on Physics -- Puzzles, Mysteries, that sort". It provides links to statements from Einstein, Dirac and others on the concept of "aether" -- not the old concept, debunked by the Michelson-Morely experiment, but newer concepts.

Will do and thanks Mike seems you are up on the current science data about aether, seems most on here aren`t or choose not to be for whatever reason.

[i blame blame]

and its name is quantum....quantum has no evidence but talks a good show..aether is not a ghost in any room but however its evidence is still being denied. why is this?

Are you using a mechanical or electromechanical computer to post on this forum? Or perhaps an electronic computer based on vacuum tubes? If not, the evidence for quantum mechanics is right in front of you.

[FrankGSterleJr]

Many Canadians are refusing to place faith in God or religion while they’re willing to place faith in secularism and science (e.g., evolution).
Are not science and secularism somewhat like faiths in themselves -- i.e., faiths in humanity and in ‘knowledge’?
We ardently teach science in our public schools because it’s a ‘fact’ of contemporary times. For, we’ll usually believe in some ‘study findings’ or in some people in long, white lab coats that claim their scientific ‘fact(s)’ to be true; then, when we read or hear that some scientific ‘fact’ is indeed outdated or faulty, we’ll consume the new ‘fact(s)’ as gospel truth.
After all, it’s science, right?

[converge]

Converge I think you will find I have already addressed the question you placed elswhere even before you asked me it now. I said anything we read and don`t do ourselves is just anecdote and theory. That doesn`t mean we can`t discuss it or scrutinize it ourselves. If the best you can contribute to this thread is off topic questioning well, pass!

It's not off-topic at all. You're saying "I refuse to believe all of the published evidence of QM", so I think the single most important thing is asking what you expect anyone to show you if you are stating up front that you will refuse to believe it anyway.

If you dispute my claim about QM then please show you have some evidence to dispute with. You might sway me on it, I haven`t said at any point that my mind is made up. I have said it proves nothing to me that I have read and studied on it thus far. Its another word for Aether and the fifth dimension.

There are tons of articles out there about QM, and plenty of solid evidence, and technologies built on that evidence. Lots of things we have, like superconductors, fiber optics, lasers, particle accelerators, etc., all are based on quantum technology. On the flip side, there is absolutely zero evidence for aether, and nothing has ever been invented that actually makes use of this alleged magical substance. So again, I'm not sure if you're actually claiming to not believe that particle accelerators even exist, or if you're just trying to believe that somehow they just happen to work despite the fact that aether states none of these technologies should work. If you won't believe any evidence at all, what exactly can I, or anyone, show you that would make you change your mind? If you won't accept experiments or books or technology or web pages or explanations or anything like that, then what else IS there that could possibly change your mind?

[converge]

Many Canadians are refusing to place faith in God or religion while they’re willing to place faith in secularism and science (e.g., evolution).
Are not science and secularism somewhat like faiths in themselves -- i.e., faiths in humanity and in ‘knowledge’?
We ardently teach science in our public schools because it’s a ‘fact’ of contemporary times. For, we’ll usually believe in some ‘study findings’ or in some people in long, white lab coats that claim their scientific ‘fact(s)’ to be true; then, when we read or hear that some scientific ‘fact’ is indeed outdated or faulty, we’ll consume the new ‘fact(s)’ as gospel truth.
After all, it’s science, right?

No, science is a process; the "scientific method", and it's the only process that's actually worked well in figuring out how things work in our universe. The point of science is to constantly question and seek out new evidence; the point of faith is to refuse to question and insist that evidence does not matter. I'd say there is a big difference between a scientist's acceptance of reasonable peer-reviewed results that coincide with overwhelming evidence in a journal vs a zealot's faith in a gospel that is unreasonable and has direct contradictory evidence everywhere but zero evidence of its claims. If one questions a finding put forth by science or secularism, one has an easy method of verifying it... he can use the scientific method and see the evidence himself firsthand. If one questions a finding put forth by faith, there is never a way to verify it; there is no evidence and no process to see anything firsthand; the entirety of the belief rests in simply trusting the person insisting you have faith.

[John]

I think I might have linked to this before but it seems apt so I'll post it again...



http://xkcd.com/836/

[Izzywizzy]

um John what works? not all science says does...as pointed out by FrankG.Searle until the next theory comes along after they got the last one wrong..science is great, it has a way to explore our universe, only so far..this far..is the point, once science becomes maths we might aswell ask what is infinity as maths uses this fictional theme to explain quantum..the same science see`s no logic in theisms infinity but why not?..it pretty much asks us to believe in their theism.the scientific theory of quantum without aether is akin to literalist religiouns? infinity is a word called not real..unless you know of the 5th dimension

Q) How many atheists would it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A)God wouldn`t know

God doesn`t think he is an atheist, why do atheists think they are god?

It is easy to say science works and it does, mostly ..but on deeper things it fails badly..always being told to follow the established idea of what science means..is tatamount to biblical brainwashing from a fanatical priest..in other words, science has its fanatics aswell handing down generation to generation what MISLEADING science means. I prefer simple like occams razor and simple works in science not complex mathematical infinity which leads us logicians nowhere.

[converge]

You know, some interpretations of QM, like M-theory, have up to ELEVEN dimensions, seven more than usual! Does that mean sting theorists are seven times as enlightened as you with your pithy single extra dimension? They might have seven times as many gods watching their backs too. Maybe you should start picking up a few more dimensions.

[John]

um John what works? not all science says does...as pointed out by FrankG.Searle until the next theory comes along after they got the last one wrong..

What is it some people around here don't get? The next theory is still science. The first theory offers an explanation but its waiting on the next theory to refine or refute it. Just because sound scientific theories are superseded doesn't means all science is bunk. Why do people keep thinking scientists are claiming that their current theories are the absolute truths?

But the point of the link was that science gets results. Say what you want but you're debating on a machine that is the product of science.

[converge]

I'll add to what John's saying... Newtonian physics (which you're alluding to) wasn't proved "wrong" when relativity and QM were discovered. Newtonian physics still works great in all kinds of applications that deal with things of typical size and speed that we usually deal with. Newton's equations are still widely used in tons of technology. All of those equations aren't really "wrong" now; most of the time they still work just as well as they used to before we discovered relativity and QM. The only places Newtonian physics becomes unusable are at very small scales, where we use QM, and at very large scales, where we use relativity. Now, QM and relativity are used when dealing with technology at those scales. And the equations for QM and relativity will continue to be used from now on in many applications, because, like the Newtonian ones, they just work (bitches). When we discover more layers and equations, QM and relativity are not going to be proven "wrong" and disappear, just like Newtonian physics isn't considered "wrong" and it never disappeared. Anything we discover will add to what we already know, and will just give us more detail at various scales. QM and Relativity are here to stay. The cat is out of the bag, and it's both alive and dead. No matter how much deeper we look and what new physics we discover, the physics we currently have are still going to be useful and used in all sorts of applications.

[thalarch]

and its name is quantum....quantum has no evidence but talks a good show..

Has "no evidence" in regard to what? That quantum (physics, mechanics?) has no evidence of being a branch of physics, or as a set of scientific principles and abstract descriptions, or as a study of sub-atomic reality? That it has no evidence for being effective or useful? Could you be referring to scientific realism, which is applicable in a forum like this but is just that: A philosophical doctrine? Scientists as individuals can have their chosen metaphysical stances, but it's not a requirement to reify theories and models in the methodological practices of physics. How could new experiments/inferences then modify or even junk such in the future (paradigm-shift) if they're treated as yet another immutable "gospel Truth"?

aether is not a ghost in any room but however its evidence is still being denied. why is this?

Huh? It was Einstein's relativity, at least as considered by others, to have replaced LET or made the latter superfluous. Quantum physics, OTOH, might even revive the term "aether" from the standpoint of some arguing that the foaming virtual particles pervading space are some kind of "particulate aether", but that of course would be a much broader conception of it than the traditional idea of a smooth, non-grainy pervading substance or medium.

[i blame blame]

There are tons of articles out there about QM, and plenty of solid evidence, and technologies built on that evidence. Lots of things we have, like superconductors, fiber optics, lasers, particle accelerators, etc., all are based on quantum technology. On the flip side, there is absolutely zero evidence for aether, and nothing has ever been invented that actually makes use of this alleged magical substance. So again, I'm not sure if you're actually claiming to not believe that particle accelerators even exist, or if you're just trying to believe that somehow they just happen to work despite the fact that aether states none of these technologies should work. If you won't believe any evidence at all, what exactly can I, or anyone, show you that would make you change your mind? If you won't accept experiments or books or technology or web pages or explanations or anything like that, then what else IS there that could possibly change your mind?

More hilariously, the very fact that these quantum mechanics deniers and science bashers ingeneral can make their idiotic claims heard around the world on this medium is evidence for the wrongness of their claims.
The semiconductor technology that computers are based on wouldn't be possible without an understanding of quantum mechanics.

I think I might have linked to this before but it seems apt so I'll post it again...



http://xkcd.com/836/

Fuck yeah!