Are All of The Mathematical Implications of Quantum Physics Science?
 

Huh? Quantum Physics IS science. :confused:

What untestable implications do you have in mind?

Does it matter? Suppose it can be argued logically that quantum mechanics necessarily implies a strange and untestable mathematical result. Should that unusual, far-reaching, untestable result be classified as a scientific theory?

If it is untestable, then it is unfalsifiable, and thus not science by definition. Are there "strange and untestable mathematical" results necessarily implied by quantum mechanics? If so, what?

What untestable result of QM?

QM is one of the most tested theories in the history of science...

Many modern devices rely on it....

He's been arguing in favor of creationism on another forum using the "everything is possible" and hence everything "suddenly life popped into existence" (il)logic.

Can you prove that? Please state a precise mathematical definition of unfalsifiable.

any hypothesis that can be tested is science

In order for something to be falsified, it must be able to be tested. It's a true statement by definition and as such does not necessitate proof. Now, if you would be so kind, please answer my questions.

There are interesting untestable mathematical implications of the equations of general relativity. For example, it is believed that matter that falls into a black hole will arrive at a spacetime singularity. It's impossible to test that, so is the belief in a singularity at the center of every black hole an example of physicists believing in a non-scientific theory?

Singularities imply a breakdown of a theory, they're infinities, which are not liked by physicists, it implies that GR is a incomplete theory.

And, to clarify this, it means the theory doesn't hold at r=0. No need to test a theory where one doesn't claim it to be valid.

I'll ask again, do you have any untestable implications of quantum physics in mind?

Two words,

Big Bang

Need I say more? :rolleyes:

Thank you traveler; that's certainly a great, untestable, implied quantum physics theory.

Why is the "big bang" untestable? One does not need to recreate the earth to test the forces that act in its development. In fact I thought that was what the Large Hadron Collider was all about. The test for the "big bang" is to look to see if the universe is behaving today in the manner the theory predicts it should.

The big bang is testable.

The singularity that drops out of it is NOT testable, this is one of those breakdowns we were talking about were the theory does not hold and we know that.

BBT is NOT a consequence of quantum mechanics though.

So please answer Swansont's question.

Well yes, considering this thread is questioning the validity of QM, at least I think that's what the OP is suggesting, and that the big bang is a consequence of astronomy and cosmology, then you need to explain why you brought this up.

The only point QM comes into play is when we're dealing with singularities in this instance, but this area of physics is way beyond my scope. However, this certainly doesn't retract from the observations and predictions that the universe was once much denser.

I personally don't follow the first post, it stinks of a lack of understanding of QM.

Please define testable.

Here is a lecture by Stephen Hawking where the professor says, "The universe can spontaneously create itself out of nothing."

How can we test that popular pseudo-scientific belief without creating nothingness?

Testable means one can devise experiments that can be confirmed, or not. The theory must make predictions for this to be the case. The background radiation is an example of one of those predictions that was confirmed.

I think Hawking was referring to the Hawking-Turok Instanton Theory. I'm not a cosmologist; I don't know what predictions it makes and how they could be confirmed. "Popular pseudo-scientific belief," however, would not be an accurate description.

You started this thread asking about quantum theory. I'll ask one last time, do you have any untestable implications of quantum physics in mind? (Related to this, please review the forum rules, especially rule 2.5)

The aspect of QM you are talking about I think actually falls into the interpretations category in which if you want science has already I think as a community if not really for individuals directly involved in such have as I already have pointed out keep such with the label interpretation. See QM has I don’t know about a half dozen or more alive interpretations all with differing aspects which are little more they hypothetical builds really onto the existing theory. QM itself though in regards to mathematical apparatus has been and continues to be tested by very precise means and methods empirically which produces nothing but results that agree with it. Most everything in physics is based ultimately on math, so I don’t know how you can say this particular physics theory based on math is any better then another theory that is tested highly which is also based on math, I also do not think anyone who has influence on the issue such as people working at the LHC state that our current physics is the end all of required understanding…

Are All of The Mathematical Implications of Quantum Physics Science?
 

So if a theory T is a related set of multiple physical propositions {P1, P2, P3, ... PN}, then T is testable and is therefore a scientific theory if there is just one part of the theory Pj that is testable? So you're saying that we really don't need to be able to create a state of universal nothingness to see if a universe can spontaneously pop itself into existence? You're saying that the entire big bang theory T is a scientific theory by virtue of just some of the Pj being confirmed empirically?

Let's being with your definition of science. It follows then that quantum mechanics, together with all its untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications, is a scientific theory.

Recall that the underpinnings of statistical thermodynamics is based on the collective motion of microscopic particles, which is governed by quantum mechanics:

Quantum physics then is the fundamental physical law upon which all the laws of physical interactions and chemistry may be derived:

Since the point I'm making exploits the fact that all the fundamental laws of physics are time-reversible, including quantum theory, let's ignore for the moment the imprecision of classical thermodynamics because, "From a [classical] thermodynamics perspective, all natural processes are irreversible." --Irreversibility.

The truth is irreversibility is just a statistical property:

What does this imply?

Theoretically, a conceivable number of nuclear weapons strategically placed around the world could end all life on Earth almost simultaneously. If all the fundamental laws of physics are time-reversible, I believe it follows that it is mathematically possible for random atoms to rapidly assemble themselves into a great variety of living things in a single day.

The probability of such an event happening is so infinitesimal that it is clearly untestable but it must be a scientific theory. It follows from the definition of science and the laws of physics. It would be a far-reaching mathematical consequence of quantum physics.

I fail to see upon what you base the "belief" that the nuclear scenario you suggest is possible under any circumstance. I can also believe that a golden dragon will appear if I think about it hard enough but that does not make it a possibility worth considering for others. Now if I suggest a plausible mechanism for my dragon to appear (and can explain why it has never happened in the past) it then begins to become science. If you wish to say that one of the most studied areas of science is wrong, you have to have a better explanation than the current one or at least show very good proof that the thousnds of other people who devoted their life to this study, somehow were mistaken. IMO the real problem with your thinking is that you are a linear being (i.e. live your life in a unidirectional manner with respect to time.....born and die) and cannot concieve of a universe that may not be.

...and all the particles to make up a watch could never assemble to become a watch, right?

A watch is a reality, regardless of how it happened, it happened.

Evolution created a watch.

Let stick to physics. Of course it's possible. There is no limit to improbability in quantum theory.

Lets not.

It's your OP which we're here to discuse, so answer the question swansont put to you.

I strongly suggest before you start saying things like what you've said above about BBT, you should look at the predictions and observations that have been made using it, it is not simply a case of saying well if everything popped into being then there should be CMBRm it makes precise and accurate predictions of the timeline from the big bang until now, and currently it with expansion theory make teh BEST model of the observable universe that we have.

What makes this discussion so interesting to me is the obvious disagreement between Klaynos and swansont on the fundamental meaning of science.

swansont obviously exercised administrative and/or moderator privileges at this forum when he edited my opening post on page 1, thinking that my choice of the Arial font in size 3 was too loud. The edit there says that.

To my opening question, which is a request for a definition of science in a quantum mechanical context, swansont kept asking me, "do you have any untestable implications of quantum physics in mind?"

After then getting a definition of science from swansont and exploring its meaning, I then proved with absolute mathematical perfection that quantum creationism is science. The whole discussion thread was then quickly moved from Quantum Theory to another section of the forum called Pseudoscience and Speculations.

Apparently, there exists a mathematically correct application of quantum theory that is pseudoscience and speculation after all. And apparently, according to some, even asking about the meaning of science is pseudoscience, it seems.

You did? Hrmmm how odd... I don't see any maths...

I moved your thread. The reasons for this is you made a bold statement and when asked to clarify this you avoid the question repeatedly.

Please answer swansonts question.

There is every chance that if you stick to the scientific method as required by the rules of the forum your thread might get moved back into physics.

My crackpottery
 

think I can understand where you are coming from somewhat though I am a complete laymen of QM. As far as I know I think an instaton is a product of say a quantum vacuum, or metastable in a quantum vacuum. Beyond this I think a big push if I am not behind the times is trying to relate concepts like zero point energy and thermodynamics into some empirical understanding that matches what we see in regards to expansion of the universe.

I think also at as close as we can get to absolute zero effects like quantum tunneling still persist, so I have no idea what that means.

In regards to origin of life which you brought up I again think QM can be useful. In relation to such I like decoherence and einselection really more then any other directions people have taken QM. Now I don’t really grasp a harmonic oscillator now do I fully grasp thermodynamics but if a system is by natural forces, laws, etc, as a constant moves towards equilibrium my quantum leap is to suggest that primordial life is a product of this, as such it was a chemical formation that favored moving the system towards equilibrium. That in regards to geologic cycles on the earth the environment or the composition of such in regards to say carbon or water in time came to form say primordial life really as something that moved such towards equilibrium.

I think decoherence and einselection become useful here in regards to trying to deduce how such a chemical reaction or series or constant state of such would come about in regards to say thermodynamics or how energy behaves in regards to matter as it pertains to a system moving towards equilibrium.

Though overall beyond QM I think the biggest question in my mind is if conservation of energy will always truly hold. Simply put if that is the case then you deal with something infinite truly, being it can never be destroyed.

Two great, untestable, far-reaching, quantum physics theories
 

That was one great, untestable, implied quantum physics theory, which answered the question. The second example I gave, which is another great, untestable, implied quantum physics theory, is thoroughly explained in post #22, dated today at 04:44 AM.

I had already answered the question twice. What other bold statement did I make where I didn't answer a question?

That's the beauty of it. I drew a picture.

No you have not, you have not addressed the question at all but avoided it, we're looking for specific results of QM here not some handwaiving avoiding of the question.

Mathematical trickery is in knowing how to avoid computations
 

The opening post says:

This is all a surprise to me. Why should you be mad at me for being clever enough to know how to formulate the untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics in my head?

"It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a smart-ass." — The Inventor of the Infinite Improbability Drive, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979).

That is shockingly vague and effectively meaningless... And impossible to comment on...

It's like making a prediction along the lines of "It will rain" it is useless... "It will read in newcastle tomorrow afternoon" is actually testable and specific...

What definition of "obvious" are you using here?

Yes, I did. There is no legitimate reason to use a large font for an entire post. It, along with ALLCAPS is considered rude — tantamount to shouting.


I asked for context, because your question was too open-ended without it. I feared you might tread into some nonsense. Silly me.

Ok, given that context, the answer is no. Parts of a theory that are not testable are not scientific. That's why, for example, people are working on ways to get around singularities that pop up in theories. The theory fails to hold under those conditions.

However, the "random assembly" hypothesis is testable. You could test it on a smaller scale and see if it holds.

No, that wasn't what I was saying. Perhaps that's part of your confusion.

You haven't really defined what you mean by a proposition (I'll be very disappointed if any equivocation appears later on) but either the proposition has to be testable or it has to depend on another one that's testable. If it's independent then it can be tossed from the theory, so there's no reason to include it if it isn't somehow testable.


I'm still not seeing where you have discussed untestable predictions of quantum theory, as you stated in your first post. You can either do that and continue discussion, or not and the thread will be locked. Trolling is a behavior that grows tiresome.