Darren New wrote:
> Yeah. The difference is, new theories not only have to explain *some* of
> the results, they have to explain *all* of the experimental results, and
> hopefully *also* explain something the current theories don't. And as
> physics and other sciences get more and more complete, it gets harder
> and harder to come up with a new theory that still agrees with the old
> theory except in the places we haven't looked.

	A philosophy I never quite understood.

-- 
Always remember that you are unique, just like everyone else.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Yeah. The difference is, new theories not only have to explain *some* of
>> the results, they have to explain *all* of the experimental results, and
>> hopefully *also* explain something the current theories don't. And as
>> physics and other sciences get more and more complete, it gets harder
>> and harder to come up with a new theory that still agrees with the old
>> theory except in the places we haven't looked.
> 
> 	A philosophy I never quite understood.

You don't understand why a new theory has to explain all the experiments the 
old theory does too? It's because if it doesn't, then the experiments you've 
already done are disproving your theory.

Surely I'm misunderstanding you.

-- 
   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

Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Yeah. The difference is, new theories not only have to explain *some* of
>>> the results, they have to explain *all* of the experimental results, and
>>> hopefully *also* explain something the current theories don't. And as
>>> physics and other sciences get more and more complete, it gets harder
>>> and harder to come up with a new theory that still agrees with the old
>>> theory except in the places we haven't looked.
>>
>>     A philosophy I never quite understood.
> 
> You don't understand why a new theory has to explain all the experiments
> the old theory does too? It's because if it doesn't, then the
> experiments you've already done are disproving your theory.
> 
> 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.

	Sure, the new theory has clear flaws, but so does the old one. Perhaps
one day a new theory will be developed that can, in a sense, combine the
two. That can't happen if the new theory is summarily rejected and the
majority of physicists don't even get a chance to think about it.

-- 
Guitar for sale. Very cheap. No strings attached.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

  Perhaps nitpicking, but don't GR and QM contradict each other in some
aspects, yet both are considered the current status quo, to the best of
our knowledge? In other words, a theory contradicting another establishing
theory is not *always* grounds for dismissal.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
>   Perhaps nitpicking, but don't GR and QM contradict each other in some
> aspects, yet both are considered the current status quo, to the best of
> our knowledge? In other words, a theory contradicting another establishing
> theory is not *always* grounds for dismissal.

Yes. But the places where QM contradicts GR is places where you can't 
*measure* GR.  Places where GR contradicts QM is places where you can't 
*measure* QM.

Let me see if I can rephrase one more time: If a new theory explains 
something, but the theory predicts things that *experiements* (not other 
theories) already contradict, the new theory needs to be changed.

For a while, light acted like waves sometimes and like particles other 
times, so we knew neither theory was right. (Once we figured out light was 
acting like particles, that is, which is what Einstein won the Nobel for.) 
Now we've figured out that light *isn't* a wave, it's always particles, and 
it just *moves* sometimes en mass in a way that waves move. But there are 
several ways of writing the equations for the way a wave moves, and not all 
of them require the contents to be a wave. (For example, an actual ocean 
wave is made out of particles, but it still moves like a wave.)

If you have a theory that says X is only 1000 years old, you need to explain 
why there are 15 different independent ways of measuring its age that says 
it's 100,000 years old that all come up with a date close to each other. If 
you point to photos taken by Apollo 11 astronauts and show how they might 
have been taken on Earth, you have to also explain the other dozen moon 
shots, the rocks brought back not looking like anything anywhere on earth, 
and explain why all the technical drawings matched the space ships and would 
according to current science also work. You can't just say "there's one 
discrepancy that I can explain by dismissing the entire rest of the 
evidence."  If you want to claim that no plane hit the pentagon, you also 
have to explain where the 130 people who got on that plane went. And so on.

If you want to say life came from outer space, OK, we don't know where life 
came from, but what supports your theory, and where did it come from in 
outer space in order to come here?  Maybe it did, but what's the evidence 
that it *did* rather than *might have*.

-- 
   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

Darren New wrote:
> Yes. But the places where QM contradicts GR is places where you can't
> *measure* GR.  Places where GR contradicts QM is places where you can't
> *measure* QM.

	So, if one day we measure things that confirms what QM predicts, and GR
contradicts, and also make other measurements for other phenomena that
confirm what GR predicts, and QM contradicts, what do you suggest? Drop
QM as it is the newer theory?

"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."

	You did it again. Yes, neither explained all the phenomena, and neither
was abandoned.

	So unless you're suggesting that current (accepted) physics theories
explains *all* observable phenomena, why reject a new theory that
explains most unexplained phenomena, most currently explained phenomena,
but is wrong on a few things that the current theory is correct on?


-- 
Blessed are the censors, for they shall inhibit the earth.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Yes. But the places where QM contradicts GR is places where you can't
>> *measure* GR.  Places where GR contradicts QM is places where you can't
>> *measure* QM.
> 
> 	So, if one day we measure things that confirms what QM predicts, and GR
> contradicts, and also make other measurements for other phenomena that
> confirm what GR predicts, and QM contradicts, what do you suggest? Drop
> QM as it is the newer theory?

No. We'd have to come up with a unified theory that covers both. Just like 
we did when we measured "sometimes waves, sometimes particles".

> "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."
> 
> 	You did it again. Yes, neither explained all the phenomena, and neither
> was abandoned.

Yeah, OK. I see what you're getting at.

> 	So unless you're suggesting that current (accepted) physics theories
> explains *all* observable phenomena, why reject a new theory that
> explains most unexplained phenomena, most currently explained phenomena,
> but is wrong on a few things that the current theory is correct on?

If the new theory actually does explain *most* phenomena but maybe not all, 
I don't think it gets rejected out of hand.  I was considering primarily 
what you'd call the "crackpot" theories. (I haven't watched a lot of 
Joseph's videos, but they don't seem scholarly to me. :-)

But yes, now I understand what you meant when you said "a philosophy you 
never understood", and I see you're probably seeing reasonable theories 
rejected more often than I do (since I'm no longer in the 
theory-investigation business).

-- 
   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

Darren New wrote:
> If the new theory actually does explain *most* phenomena but maybe not 
> all, I don't think it gets rejected out of hand.

On the other hand....

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726485.700-quantum-randomness-may-not-be-random.html?page=2

"Even so, most physicists are not yet ready to embrace the new models, 
because one crucial problem remains: Bohmian theory, critics point out, 
doesn't make any predictions that differ from those of ordinary quantum 
mechanics."

-- 
   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

Darren New wrote:
> If the new theory actually does explain *most* phenomena but maybe not
> all, I don't think it gets rejected out of hand.  I was considering
> primarily what you'd call the "crackpot" theories. (I haven't watched a
> lot of Joseph's videos, but they don't seem scholarly to me. :-)

	Well, I think it's a philosophy that's an overreaction from crackpots,
that unfortunately has become a prevalent mentality. Imagine if
Schrodinger's Equation, when formulated, was found to be inconsistent
with some actual measured GR phenomenon, and they simply wouldn't allow
it to be taught in schools, for example.

> But yes, now I understand what you meant when you said "a philosophy you
> never understood", and I see you're probably seeing reasonable theories
> rejected more often than I do (since I'm no longer in the
> theory-investigation business).

	Well, not for anything serious (as I don't know particle theory, etc -
I'm not a physicist - I just *do* physics<G>). At a much smaller level,
I think this is common in a lot of scientific disciplines. A colleague
of mine had trouble publishing a paper some years ago. His paper
proposed a theory that explained some previously unexplained phenomena
in carbon nanotubes, but lacked feature B (a hypothesized form of a
phonon, if you need to know). B had been used in the past to explain
some phenomena in nanotubes, but was a much more sophisticated theory.

	It's important to note here that no one had ever observed B (those
kinds of phonons) in the lab (which doesn't mean they don't exist - just
that it's hard to measure).

	For a while, the paper was rejected purely because it didn't account
for B. The referees wanted to know how his theory ties in with B (it
doesn't - he was pointing out the results could be explained without
resorting to B altogether).

	So here's a situation where a theory explained a phenomenon and matched
experimental results well (after some parameter tweaking). It was a
simple model that didn't involve as yet unmeasured particles. Yet
somehow the onus was on him to show it explains everything B does...

	(He got it published eventually).

-- 
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message