Originally posted by Bobathon
Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm also interested in how the particle vs. wave debate fits in to the debate on Haramein's theory.
I think it's great that Mary is asking about how the mass of the proton is known to be what it is. That is a great question. I wish you luck with your
Bobathon, I agree, and Mary, I hope you find the answers you seek.
Regarding the particle/wave debate, please note that Haramein has declared the whole of quantum physics as "bunk", despite the fact that
virtually the whole of the technological developments of the last 80 years have relied entirely on quantum physics.
I'd like to add something
to this comment. The model of quantum mechanics is one of the best models ever because it makes so many accurate predictions. However it's a model:
* Models of Science are useful maps which approximate Nature.
* The Laws of Physics are mathematical Models that reflect the underlying order found in Nature.
* Models in Science are not equivalent to, identical with, or a one-to-one match with the aspects of Nature they describe.
* There is always some limited range over which a Model is a useful predictor of Nature.
* The fundamental criteria for the acceptance or rejection of a Model is determined by how close the Model predicts the outcome of measurements and
* Models of Science are not unique. There may be two or more Models which describe the same observations equally well.
* Preference between competing Models is judged by:
a. Size of the error. The smaller the size of the error between actual measurements and predictions, the more accurate the Model. A good Model will be
able to predict the uncertainty within its predictions.
b. Range of Application. The larger the range over which a Model faithfully reflects Nature, the more universal the Model. If the range is big enough
we might even call the Model a Law of Physics.
c. Simplicity. A subjective and practical property that makes a Model easier to both understand and manipulate. In Keats words, "Truth is beauty, and
beauty is truth."
Example 1: Mechanics, Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics
Newton's Laws of Motion faithfully reflect the motion of a body as long as the speed of the body is small compared to the speed of light. When the
speed of the body approaches the speed of light, Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicts results closer to the actual values measured than Newton's
Laws of Motion predict. The Theory of Relativity is itself only a better approximation; it has a bigger but still limited range over which it can be
Both Relativity Theory and Newton's Laws give inaccurate predictions when trying to explain the behavior of matter on the atomic scale. In this range,
a model call Quantum Mechanics has proven to make more accurate predictions. None of the well-established Models represent the Absolute Truth about
Nature, but they are very close likenesses of the Nature under certain conditions.
Quantum mechanics is only a model and it only has a limited range, though disingenuous farces like "What the Bleep do We Know" try to imply that
quantum mechanics applies to larger objects in addition to subatomic objects. We can do the double slit experiment on photons, electrons, and other
tiny things and see the dual particle/wave nature of quantum mechanics in the experiment. But what happens when you try to fire a human through the
If you've seen an experiment where a wave-like behavior is observed when a large object like a human is fired through the double slit, please cite the
experiment, because I'd like to see it.
The nuances of how these three models of quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics versus relativity overlap with each other can be described both
verbally and mathematically, but it's no more appropriate to try to say quantum mechanics is a good model at all scales than to say that Newtonian
mechanics works well at the speed of light. This to me is the sin that the "What the Bleep do we Know" movie committed and it's given many people some
twisted ideas about the scale of applicability for the quantum mechanical model.
I have a high confidence in predictions made by the quantum mechanical model, because, it has proven capable of making accurate predictions. I'm not
as confident it's the true representation of nature. Maybe if we develop a theory of everything that explains more than our current models we can have
more confidence about that. However what we can all agree on, are the observations we make. (At least I thought that was true before I read some
opinions int his thread). And if anyone wants to sell me on a better model, I'm willing to be persuaded if it explains the observations we make better
than current models.
However Haramein's model doesn't even come close to explaining current observations. I may agree with Haramein about one thing, that there may be a
better model than what mainstream science currently offers.
But to be a better model, it must explain more observations better than the models we currently have. (So that rules out Haramein's
edit on 7-2-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo