Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Surely I'm misunderstanding you.
> 	Reference: "Light is a wave" vs "Light is a particle"
> 
> 	By your logic, if the current theory doesn't explain some known
> phenomenon, it should be abandoned as well.

OK, maybe I misspoke. If a theory is silent on some current observations, 
then it's reasonable to consider it. If a new theory contradicts things the 
current theory explains, there's no good reason to consider it until it has 
been adjusted to explain that which it says shouldn't happen. Or until you 
do experiments that show the previous measurements were wrong somehow.

In the wave vs particle stuff, for a while, neither could explain *all* the 
phenomena, so people knew they didn't have the right answer. But if your 
theory of light as a wave says fluorescence shouldn't happen, it's not a 
very good theory.

Most crackpot theories explain something that the accepted theory says "We 
don't know", but in so doing ignore the vast piles of evidence they're at 
odds with that the current theories explain. If you came up with a "light is 
particles" theory that didn't explain interference and/or claimed 
interference doesn't happen, it would be a crackpot theory.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message