Post Number:#106 June 4th, 2012, 12:07 pm
Xris wrote:I love it, I am to be sent to the dunces corner because I do not believe in the quantum scripture. Prismatic, why did you not answer my question about dark energy and dark mater being a mathematical invention?
The only questions I found in that post are these:
Mathematics is used to confirm what might be false concepts, so can maths. be held accountable? Is it a tool of deceit to make suspect reasoning valid?
These are not particularly good questions and certainly not questions of science, but let me try to answer you. I wrote that
Newton's law of gravitation was the result of mathematical reasoning as were his three laws of motion, which he presented as axioms, not proved results. On that scaffolding with the aid of the calculus which he invented for the purpose, he built the world system which explained Kepler's laws and confirmed Copernicus.
Let's examine that piece of scientific history more closely. Newton developed the law of gravitation not from direct observation but purely from the mathematics—it was the one law that would allow him to deduce the laws of planetary motion due to Kepler. In other words Newton's entire contribution to the physics of gravitation was mathematical. Later the observed perturbations in the orbit of Uranus led astronomers to guess that another planet was perturbing the orbit. John Couch Adams predicted when and where that planet would be observed and Neptune was discovered—all from mathematics.
Now with dark matter the situation was entirely similar. Observations of the behavior of galaxies indicated that their mass had to be much much larger than their luminosity predicted and therefore that mass had to be dark. Further observations of the behavior of clusters of galaxies supported the notion and no observations contradicted it. Over time it became accepted that dark matter exists, but its nature is still a puzzle. If the mass in the universe is much greater than it was thought to be, the expansion of the universe ought to be slowing when it is accelerating and the notion that dark energy may be responsible has been hypothesized—but it is at this point only a hypothesis, not firmly accepted physics.
That is the way progress is made in science. Observation leads to explanatory theories which make new predictions. If those are correct the theory is validated; if they are incorrect, it is invalidated and discarded. You would like to see mathematics held accountable when a theory is invalidated and you seem to think that your judgment is enough to do that.
Xris wrote:Steve quantum is not just guilty of its inability to convey its knowledge, it is guilty of not agreeing or even understanding what it is observing. Mathematics have played a part in this deception. Inventing formula to support a particle universe where particles do not exist.
You have said that you do not believe in electrons, yet we still have the electron microscope. It reveals objects smaller than you can see with a regular microscope because the wave-length of electrons is much shorter than the wave length of photons. In your view all this is pure invention, but, if so, it is invention that works to provide real results of great value.
Xris wrote:Now I am told by Prismatic electrons are not in two places at the same time yet quantum tells me it is so.
No, I said something quite different. I said "I don't believe anyone claims to have observed an electron in two different places at the same time." The difference may not be clear to you, but it is definite. The inference from experimental results in double slit experiments is that it appears an electron goes through both slits at the same time, and of course that is possible for a wave, but that is different from observing an electron (as a particle) in two different places at the same time. No one denies that the results of the double slit experiments are not intuitive, but there is not a simple contradiction as you think.
Xris wrote: http://www.mpg.de/511738/pressRelease20051011 Had to give this link to indicate the conclusion from the double split experiment, believing electrons are particles so can be claimed to be in two places at the same time.
As I read it, the experiment does not demonstrate that nor does the press release even claim it does. The headline is formulated as a question to draw you in. Here is what the press release says:
It states that manifestations of matter which would normally be mutually exclusive - e.g., local and non-local, coherent and non-coherent - are indeed measurable and make themselves evident, in a particular "transition regime". One can speak of partial localisation and partial coherence, or partial visibility and partial distinguishability. These are measurements that are connected to each other via the duality relation.
Note the many uses of the word partial. This describes a refinement of Bohr's complementarity principle—it shows there is a transition regime in which the object is in between particle and wave states with a bit of both.
Everywhere I have sought peace and never found it except in a corner with a book. —Thomas à Kempis