General / Off-Topic The Physics is Dead. Long live the Physics.
- Thread starter Hydrino
- Start date
I think the word you're looking for is "obtuse" - "obsequious" means overly deferential and attentive," i.e. "Japanese service is generally very good, but can tend to the obsequious at times."
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
"All models are wrong but some are useful."
"Now it would be very remarkable if any system existing in the real world could be exactly represented by any simple model. However, cunningly chosen parsimonious models often do provide remarkably useful approximations. For example, the law PV = RT relating pressure P, volume V and temperature T of an "ideal" gas via a constant R is not exactly true for any real gas, but it frequently provides a useful approximation and furthermore its structure is informative since it springs from a physical view of the behavior of gas molecules.
For such a model there is no need to ask the question "Is the model true?". If "truth" is to be the "whole truth" the answer must be "No". The only question of interest is "Is the model illuminating and useful?"
George EP Box
"Now it would be very remarkable if any system existing in the real world could be exactly represented by any simple model. However, cunningly chosen parsimonious models often do provide remarkably useful approximations. For example, the law PV = RT relating pressure P, volume V and temperature T of an "ideal" gas via a constant R is not exactly true for any real gas, but it frequently provides a useful approximation and furthermore its structure is informative since it springs from a physical view of the behavior of gas molecules.
For such a model there is no need to ask the question "Is the model true?". If "truth" is to be the "whole truth" the answer must be "No". The only question of interest is "Is the model illuminating and useful?"
George EP Box
you make a great contradiction in your above statement.. suggesting
Reality is not metaphysical, nor is it wave equations on paper that collapse when observed.
Reality is based on classical physics of Newton and Maxwell.
perhaps im mis-interpreting??? but like all things explainable it has a Law attached to it..
If there is no Law in the foundation of a system.. then you have chaos,randomness
So if there is a law in place... one has to ask by whose authority does the Law come under?
This points to a creator
Should i elaborate further? lol
OP, no offence, but a lot of the basis of our arguments seems to be 'it doesn't make sense to me, therefore it must be wrong'. That's not really a very good argument. Are you genuinely under the impression that the universe can only work in ways that make sense to you personally? If so, then well.. wow. If not, then I hope you can appreciate the fallaciousness of any arguments based on such a premise.
So to get back to your points from the OP, is your issue with QM or with the Copenhagen Interpretation? It's the latter on the second line of your post, but by the fourth lin it seems to have become the former.
But anyway, going through point by point, with your points in black, and comments in red.
The Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics has derailed science and stifiled progress for far too long. How exactly?
Physics is struggling. A new and physical based, actual theory is needed. How exactly is physics struggling? What do you mean by 'physical based' and 'actual theory', and what gives you the impression that QM is not?
QM is bizarre, counter-intuitive, seems more like a religious cult.What's your point here? Being bizarre and counter-intuitive in no way means it isn't accurate.
Reality is not metaphysical, nor is it wave equations on paper that collapse when observed. This sounds like some things have been misunderstood. But as a serious question, what grounds do you have for saying what reality is and isn't?
Reality is based on classical physics of Newton and Maxwell.Ok, let's start from that principle, now using those principles explain how you would go about measuring a particle's position and momentum, and what the implications of that are. (I'm being partially rhetorical here and am happy to explain the point I'm making further, rather than literally asking you to do it.) Also, could you just explain the photo-electric effect?
The moon is real, and existed far before humans ever "observed" it and caused a "wave function collapse". And? QM doesn't claim the opposite of what you're saying, so what's your point here?
Get real physics. The reality of physics is not dependent on your opinion.
Solve what an electron really is. It isn't a statistical probability. We have much better equipment than 100 years ago. An electron is a real physical particle. Deal with it and move past your current choking paradigm. This again sounds like a whole raft of misunderstandings. What do you mean by 'Solve what an electron really is'? What principles do you think all that much better equipment is based on? What do you mean by a real physical particle? And how exactly is the current paradigm choking?
Looking forward to some young up-start totally dis-orienting QM priests and helping advance physics and bringing back experiment and real science to the top of the evolutionary heap. Is there anything to what you're saying here that isn't just rhetoric? Could you explain how exactly experiment is missing? And what on Earth do you mean by real science in the context of your sentence?
The aliens won't engage us until we have interstellar capability, and that will never happen without a proper and physical understanding of the universe. Again anything here that isn't just baseless rhetoric?
Ditch current QM basis sets and 100 years of statistical curve-fitting and define what an electron and atom "really" are. Then we will see amazing new progress. Again is there actually a real point you want to make here that's worth discussing and isn't just baseless rhetoric? The use of 'electron' and 'atom' as the two things to define really just suggests this is all just trolling.
Surprised no one has mentioned the simulation hypothesis
you have just mentioned it!!
Its a valid hypothesis definately, afterall the establishment of Laws in systems are universal, unless of course they oppose the established Laws.. then what you would inevitably have is the ongoing movement toward chaos.. or destruction.. or the second law of thermodynamics Entropy *shrugs*
Bull made up by presstitutes is no argument. None of your examples involves QM. Neither in engineering, nor in production. Neither in products, nor in machines they get made with. Zero, nada, nothing and nowhere at all.
The problem with a lot of science it is all opinion in the format of theories. We worked out that math problem so the universe must be this. Without actually knowing for sure. Then that theory maybe incorrect but because it is established the unbending science community won't push the boundary of convention because of fear of ridicule and reputation. Also the potential for funding to get cut. So we run the risk of reinforcing incorrect theories because many scientists are too scared to challenge them.
Last edited:
You raise a good point to a certain extent, but the counter to that in physics at least is that there are known problems and being the person that overcame them would be a very tempting prospect for many people.
One shouldn't mix up the mathematical framework of QM and it's physical interpretation. I don't know any physicist who really believes in Copenhagen interpretation. Most just don't care, they just apply it. You may find Bohmian Mechanics interesting.
[video=youtube;SczWCK08e9k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SczWCK08e9k[/video]