Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
By making predictions and seeing that the experimental results match leading to the "most accurately tested theory of physics ever"How was it tested?
The agreement found this way is to within ten parts in a billion (10−8), based on the comparison of the electron anomalous magnetic dipole moment and the Rydberg constant from atom recoil measurements as described below. This makes QED one of the most accurate physical theories constructed thus far.
In reality we do not have to drill through the crust of the Earth to have a good idea what is inside the Earth.In reality.. I don't even think that they know for sure what the inside of the earth is like..
Also, you are again correct that I was in error mentioning deductive reasoning when clearly I should have said inductive reasoning.
Our general logic would assume that the object is either wave-like or particle-like by its very nature, and our measurements will have nothing to do with the answer. But quantum theory predicts that the result all depends on how the object is measured at the end of its journey. And that's exactly what a team from the Australian National University has now found.
Wheeler's delayed choice experiment is actually several thought experiments in quantum physics, proposed by John Archibald Wheeler, with the most prominent among them appearing in 1978 and 1984.[1] These experiments are attempts to decide whether light somehow "senses" the experimental apparatus in the double-slit experiment it will travel through and adjusts its behavior to fit by assuming the appropriate determinate state for it, or whether light remains in an indeterminate state, neither wave nor particle until measured.[2]
In physics, complementarity is both a theoretical and an experimental result[1][2][3] of quantum mechanics, also referred to as principle of complementarity. It holds that objects have certain pairs of complementary properties which cannot all be observed or measured simultaneously.
I've heard it said that objects don't really have the precise complementary properties attributed to them; they're, in a sense, artefacts of the measuring process...This is a fundamental property of QM: Complementarity (physics) - Wikipedia
In physics, complementarity is both a theoretical and an experimental result[1][2][3] of quantum mechanics, also referred to as principle of complementarity. It holds that objects have certain pairs of complementary properties which cannot all be observed or measured simultaneously.
How was it tested?
This is emphatically wrong given the Copenhagen Interpretation is still the preferred option in both Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theories.
Deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning are not calculations using physics.
Mainstream physicists are the people who came up with the QM interpretations. The Copenhagen Interpretation is named after a conference of mainstream physicists in Copenhagen.
There are no "theories to discredit the Copenhagen Interpretation". There are alternative interpretations.
The Copenhagen Interpretation is not QFT.
Scientific experiments on natural phenomena are not evidence for supernatural phenomena. Supernatural means cannot explained by the laws of nature, i.e. physics.
The real world fact is that the evidence for dark matter is physics calculations: Observational evidence for dark matter. Thus your statement that they are not physics calculations is wrong.I never indicated these were based on Physics calculations.
You were referring to a so far not sourced "Observation Principle". As I asked before "A source or two would be appreciated" for the Observation Principle.I was referring to the Observation Principle...
I assume that when you say 'the Observation Principle', you're referring to the observer effect, the concept that the process of observation or measurement necessarily influences the system being measured.Sjastro, I have no dispute with science's validity for Quantum Field Theory. I was referring to the Observation Principle and properties associated with matter in an observation as being a problem for quantum science. As you know Heisenberg and others amended their findings to exclude a human observer from the implications of this principle and specified observation instruments and lab criteria to avoid any suggestion on nonexistence, conceding only to some state of reduction instead.
My own view is that conscious observation is the only way properties associated with matter can exist as real physical identity, and that view comes from the original implications of the Observation Principle, and other QM findings, not the least of which include Complimentarity and Entanglement.
It's all still assumptions. Yes, there is lava underground. Water, minerals.. but beyond that.. how far can we send sounds and radio waves under ground.... Do you know how massive this planet is?In reality we do not have to drill through the crust of the Earth to have a good idea what is inside the Earth.
Volcanoes give us samples of the upper depths. Seismology tells us about the deeper structure of the Earth. We can experiment with rock to see its properties under the interior temperatures and pressures.
You misunderstood: Science does not explain things that science cannot explain and by definition that excludes the supernatural from science.
It's complicated, I may not have the explanation precisely correct.
Yes, I could see that. I was just making it clear that a self-aware observer is not necessary for a quantum 'observation' or 'measurement' to occur.When I refer to an observer, I am thinking in terms of anything that has self awareness.
Yes, quite a few people believe that based on similar grounds. I think it's called panpsychism. The available scientific evidence suggests that individual perception, introspection, and intuition is an unreliable guide to the deeper aspects of reality (and many superficial ones); for example, neuroscience has a substantial history of demonstrating that what individuals feel or think is the case in various situations is mistaken.Based on the evidence I have of my own sensory transduction and recognition of what these actually tell me I cannot avoid concluding the physical reality we all know and participate in is simply not what it appears to be and self awareness is inherent in every physical appearing identity we know, and those we have yet to discover.
Yes, I could see that. I was just making it clear that a self-aware observer is not necessary for a quantum 'observation' or 'measurement' to occur.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool".
How true that is. It's even Biblical. Wouldn't it be great if we all had the ability to avoid self deception! I'm afraid it is an inherent part of the human condition though, for some some of the "time, and others most of the time, and others still all of the time! Who is who?
This reminds me of Einstein's comment about two things with out limit, the universe and our stupidity, and he wasn't sure about the universe!(Sorry RealityCheck01, seems I just can't avoid quoting dead folks )
Cheers!
You obviously did not read my post or the cited science so:It's all still assumptions....
My "conviction" is that your posts contain ignorance about the definitions of words such as science and supernatural, some ignorance about science, a couple of irrelevant links and irrelevant, outdated quotes....I completely understand why.
You can change my "convictions".....
Why would I want to change your convictions? Why do you insist on repeating yourself?
It is already obvious you cannot understand what I wrote so there is no point in my further attempts to clarify for you. You show no interest at all in being open to anything outside your idea of intellect. Do you need me to write "i'm wrong, you're right"? Will that set you free?There it is! My gift to you!
Cheers
My "conviction" is that your posts contain ignorance about the definitions of words such as science and supernatural, some ignorance about science, a couple of irrelevant links and irrelevant, outdated quotes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?