is this what modern science really is ? religion like believe system ?

MichaelPMaccabee

KrzYma

MichaelPMaccabee
Any scientist worth their salt understands that -nothing- in science is taken on faith.

So no, science is not a religion. It is a tool of understanding based on exploration, experimentation, and explanation.

sure? if I say Einstein was wrong, QT is BS, wouldn't they crucify me ?
that's what I'm thinking...

Yes, I'm sure.

Certainly some will disagree with you, but unless their is undeniable empirical evidence, everyone in the debate should understand that their position rests on as of yet unproven conjecture. If you are dealing with people that do not understand that, you are talking to people not really worth talking.

Thank you !

-PLB-

KrzYma
matter-wave duality is BS

Calling it BS does not change the fact that particle-wave duality (assuming that is what you meant to say) is what we observe in reality. Indirectly you are calling reality bull#.

The claim the person in your video makes, that a conscious observer is required for this effect to happen is nonsense though. Consciousness has nothing to do with the experiment.

The current state is that there is an experiment in which we can both (consciously) determine which slit a photon went through and still get an interference pattern. (see this article)

i think the guy in the video is correct. but with the proviso that it takes an observer that can record data, which in the human being is defined as consciousness, but can also be recorded by amoebas, birds, fish, dogs, cats, and other particles. the concept is data collection, from what i can tell. how do we record data? obviously subatomic particles exist in molecules and energy streams, so it's not apples and oranges, it's red apples, green apples, but still apples.

MichaelPMaccabee

undo

MichaelPMaccabee

undo
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

well.. i... never...

hey one day i asked a scientist to explain string theory to me.

Did you ask a biologist, a chemist, or a physicist? There are important distinctions amongst the disciplines. This is my biggest gripe with people like Neil de Grasse Tyson. He is actually quite educated in his field, but when he starts to stray into areas like biology or anthropology, he makes a right dog's tooth of himself, and sets back popular scientific understanding with his musings.

i asked a physicist. it was bordering on data overload.

as far as physicists go, have you seen this?
www.youtube.com...leonard susskind videos

Physics isn't my bag. Biological Anthropology is more my style, which is why my gripe about Neil was so specific. Man, the times this guy has said something that has made me facepalm is embarrassingly high.

then you might be surprised to know that leonard susskind is an adherent to holographic universe theory.

undo

MichaelPMaccabee

undo

MichaelPMaccabee

undo
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

well.. i... never...

hey one day i asked a scientist to explain string theory to me.

Did you ask a biologist, a chemist, or a physicist? There are important distinctions amongst the disciplines. This is my biggest gripe with people like Neil de Grasse Tyson. He is actually quite educated in his field, but when he starts to stray into areas like biology or anthropology, he makes a right dog's tooth of himself, and sets back popular scientific understanding with his musings.

i asked a physicist. it was bordering on data overload.

as far as physicists go, have you seen this?
www.youtube.com...leonard susskind videos

Physics isn't my bag. Biological Anthropology is more my style, which is why my gripe about Neil was so specific. Man, the times this guy has said something that has made me facepalm is embarrassingly high.

then you might be surprised to know that leonard susskind is an adherent to holographic universe theory.

Well, don't get me wrong, there are some nutters in the fields of science as well. Sadly my wife had a brilliant professor that lost his mind due to mercury poisoning. Not saying that this guy is nuts, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that his published works have lost credibility in Academia.

reply to post by undo


Recording the data or not has no effect on the results of the experiment. It is purely the "overserving" that causes the effect, aka the observer effect. The act of measuring itself (significantly) influences the outcome of the experiment. It does not matter if anything registers the “observation”.

-PLB-
reply to post by undo

 

Recording the data or not has no effect on the results of the experiment. It is purely the "overserving" that causes the effect, aka the observer effect. The act of measuring itself (significantly) influences the outcome of the experiment. It does not matter if anything registers the “observation”.

this is the issue. someone mentioned earlier in the thread, that electrons have been seen changing the wave to a particle as well. my premise is, that electrons exist in your brain as well, as they act as part of the process of recording data. call it measuring, recording, whatever. it's not different, it's the same thing, just in a less discernible package.

MichaelPMaccabee

Well, don't get me wrong, there are some nutters in the fields of science as well. Sadly my wife had a brilliant professor that lost his mind due to mercury poisoning. Not saying that this guy is nuts, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that his published works have lost credibility in Academia.

so your position is, if someone doesn't agree with you, they are a nutter? wouldn't such a hard stance against science be more of a religious fundie position? correct me if i'm wrong, but being that dogmatic about science that you will call anyone who holds a position that differs from your own, a nutter, is really not the best example to set for religious fundies in general. don't ask the fundies to act differently than yourself, in other words.

-PLB-

KrzYma
matter-wave duality is BS

Calling it BS does not change the fact that particle-wave duality (assuming that is what you meant to say) is what we observe in reality. Indirectly you are calling reality bull#.

The claim the person in your video makes, that a conscious observer is required for this effect to happen is nonsense though. Consciousness has nothing to do with the experiment.

The current state is that there is an experiment in which we can both (consciously) determine which slit a photon went through and still get an interference pattern. (see this article)

yes, sure, we describe what we are observing, getting wrong conclusions.
particle-wave duality, that's what I mean... isn't it just behaviour description ?
'the base' doesn't change, particle does not became a wave, it creates a wave.
I think it depends what you are measuring or better said, how the theory explains that, right??

and yes, I think relativity is wrong in many cases
the twin paradox doesn't exists but is used as kind of proof for relativity
here we have something predicted by a theory, nobody can solve this so the theory must be right

here is an example how science works, if the theory doesn't work, we make something up ( starts about 7:30 )
www.youtube.com...

sounds like religion to me

reply to post by KrzYma


no the position is, waves are potential and as such exhibit all qualities at once. well the way it is defined is, they are bits of future data, in super position to each other, waiting for a recording device to collapse the wave function into 3d reality

MichaelPMaccabee

undo

MichaelPMaccabee

undo

MichaelPMaccabee

undo
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

well.. i... never...

hey one day i asked a scientist to explain string theory to me.

Did you ask a biologist, a chemist, or a physicist? There are important distinctions amongst the disciplines. This is my biggest gripe with people like Neil de Grasse Tyson. He is actually quite educated in his field, but when he starts to stray into areas like biology or anthropology, he makes a right dog's tooth of himself, and sets back popular scientific understanding with his musings.

i asked a physicist. it was bordering on data overload.

as far as physicists go, have you seen this?
www.youtube.com...leonard susskind videos

Physics isn't my bag. Biological Anthropology is more my style, which is why my gripe about Neil was so specific. Man, the times this guy has said something that has made me facepalm is embarrassingly high.

then you might be surprised to know that leonard susskind is an adherent to holographic universe theory.

Well, don't get me wrong, there are some nutters in the fields of science as well. Sadly my wife had a brilliant professor that lost his mind due to mercury poisoning. Not saying that this guy is nuts, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that his published works have lost credibility in Academia.

I don't get that. So Darwin might have died of lead poisoning, (a considered possibility) and lost his mind at some stage and influenced his writings, (not considered possibility as far as I know) Pfff.

undo
reply to post by KrzYma

 

no the position is, waves are potential and as such exhibit all qualities at once. well the way it is defined is, they are bits of future data, in super position to each other, waiting for a recording device to collapse the wave function into 3d reality

oh well, the physicist call this uncertainty relation or Heisenberg indeterminacy principle

first they say if you look at it ( take energy out ) you change the behaviour,
than they say you can not measure position of an particle because of some math
they can predict the position or the velocity but not both at once... math equation doesn't allow this

all the explanation why this is like they say are so full of fraud. I mean, on the end they get what they want in calculations... as long as it holds

undo

MichaelPMaccabee

Well, don't get me wrong, there are some nutters in the fields of science as well. Sadly my wife had a brilliant professor that lost his mind due to mercury poisoning. Not saying that this guy is nuts, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that his published works have lost credibility in Academia.

so your position is, if someone doesn't agree with you, they are a nutter? wouldn't such a hard stance against science be more of a religious fundie position? correct me if i'm wrong, but being that dogmatic about science that you will call anyone who holds a position that differs from your own, a nutter, is really not the best example to set for religious fundies in general. don't ask the fundies to act differently than yourself, in other words.

No. If someone is using their standing within a community to further their beliefs, contrary to their own previous experience, they may in fact be a nutter. Take one Lohn Jear as an example of this possibility. Now, Lohn Jear has become more and more eccentric in his beliefs as the years go on, all the while he is mining in Nevada and other places using techniques that have been known to expose folks to high levels of heavy metals. Is Lohn Jear a nutter? I'd never make that accusation, but I wouldn't be surprised if it became known that he has experienced some cognitive problems.

It isn't about my agreeing or disagreeing with his position on theoretical musings, it is about whether or not the science of his theories stand on their own. Considering the substance of his claim, a holographic universe, his empirical evidence supporting such a theory would have to be pretty impressive not to be dismissed out of hand. Taking this into account, and how these theories would rewrite what we perceive as reality, his science, if accurate, would be front page news in at least ONE of the Academic journals I read.

The fact that I haven't heard of this guy until today does more to dissuade me from paying any attention to his theories. Right or wrong, he's probably a nutter. I'm not saying that I disagree with him, I'm saying that he hasn't really put anything out there that has gotten to a point that I can agree or disagree with.

AbleEndangered
Richard Feynman on the Double Slit Paradox: Particle or Wave?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJfjRoxCbk
www.youtube.com...

Old School!

edit on 1-11-2013 by AbleEndangered because: reply retraction and posting something more relevant

thank you for this video


if light is an EM wave, and we can make EM waves, well better said, we can use them for radio transmission for example, why we can't make light with it ??? If it's just frequency what is the problem ?

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


how are his scientific theories simpiy his beliefs and yours are not? this is the part that makes me scratch my head when i read scientists trying to defame one another.

MichaelPMaccabee
Any scientist worth their salt understands that -nothing- in science is taken on faith.

So no, science is not a religion. It is a tool of understanding based on exploration, experimentation, and explanation.

Real science requires little or no explanation. When science starts in on a lengthy explanation they're looking for 'faith' from their audience.

And where, oh where, did you find that cool picture of Satan you use for your avatar?

good video explaining, in simple terms, the holographic universe

undo
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

how are his scientific theories simpiy his beliefs and yours are not? this is the part that makes me scratch my head when i read scientists trying to defame one another.

This is part of the answer:

www.physicsforums.com...

The other part is of course that after a credible theory is published in a reputable journal, it could still be wrong and needs to be vetted by other scientists, confirming the observations or experiments and analyses. This is the process the science I believe in has gone through, and the process the ideas of Campbell has not gone through. He doesn't even provide a good starting point to analyze his work.

Historically the consensus of scientists isn't always right (though the more recent track record is better), but the ideas of any one individual statistically have a far worse track record of being wrong, than the scientific consensus (where there is a difference).

reply to post by Arbitrageur


who is campbell? i'm talking about leonard susskind.

reply to post by undo

Does it really matter who's name it is?

The process for discovering truth doesn't depend on the person's name.

Campbell is the guy in the opening post video which had a bad link but the next poster made a good embed of it. But it's kind of interesting you're posting in a thread about Campbell and are asking who Campbell is.

Arbitrageur
reply to post by undo

 

Does it really matter who's name it is?

The process for discovering truth doesn't depend on the person's name.

Campbell is the guy in the opening post video which had a bad link but the next poster made a good embed of it. But it's kind of interesting you're posting in a thread about Campbell and are asking who Campbell is.

edit on 2-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

i didn't recognize his name. i did, however, originally link that campbell video in another thread, that lead to the op making this thread which he encouraged me to read. but the subject matter you were responding to, was not about the campbell video but about susskind. the other fellow was critiquing susskind, and i responded. then you replied to my response as if i was talking about campbell, which i was not.

if you're going to critique susskind, critique susskind, but don't offer as an argument against susskind, your opinion of campbell, and expect me to see these as the same thing. i wasn't sure you realized that you came in in the middle of a debate about susskind and then proceeded to call him campbell. what did you expect me to say?