The Quantum Cosmology Inverse Theory

[jaysadie]

Yet somehow will not respond. This is a discussion forum. If you will not discuss your ideas then by definition, there is no discussion to be had.

I would love to discuss my ideas on this forum. That is why I posted it here in the first place. Apparently very few members are willing to enter into a debate. It seems that posting theories on this forum only invokes insults and ridicule. I am not willing to engage in a battle of the minds to see who can come up with the most creative mockery.

If anyone on this forum wishes to engage in a true debate about my theories and ideas then please go ahead and do so. I will be more than happy to respond. But let's focus on my theory, and not personal insults. Please feel free to vigorously disagree with me on any of my assumptions. I promise not to ever insult or attack any forum member's integrity. It would only be fair to expect the same courtesy in return.

If I had evidence or proof of my theory I would not have called it a theory. In order to search for what cannot be seen or proven we sometimes have to think unconventionally or against what is considered mainstream. The human mind can conjure up ideas that may be far-fetched, but I find it fascinating where our minds can take us. When one has an idea or theory, even if it does not make sense, it does make sense to share it with others. The purpose of a forum is to discuss and speculate about ideas. Some ideas could spurt other ideas, leading to eventual success.

What I have discovered from most forums is that there are two kinds of participants: 1) Those who are not afraid to share their ideas, however crazy they may seem, and 2) those who typically do not share their own ideas, but rather thrive by making fun of those who dare to share.

So, please, let's debate with mutual respect and courtesy.

 

[Pixel42]

If I had evidence or proof of my theory I would not have called it a theory.

If you have no evidence or proof then you do not, by definition, have a scientific theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.[3][4]

My bolding.

 

[turingtest]

I would love to discuss my ideas on this forum. That is why I posted it here in the first place. Apparently very few members are willing to enter into a debate. It seems that posting theories on this forum only invokes insults and ridicule. I am not willing to engage in a battle of the minds to see who can come up with the most creative mockery.

If anyone on this forum wishes to engage in a true debate about my theories and ideas then please go ahead and do so. I will be more than happy to respond. But let's focus on my theory, and not personal insults. Please feel free to vigorously disagree with me on any of my assumptions. I promise not to ever insult or attack any forum member's integrity. It would only be fair to expect the same courtesy in return.

If I had evidence or proof of my theory I would not have called it a theory. In order to search for what cannot be seen or proven we sometimes have to think unconventionally or against what is considered mainstream. The human mind can conjure up ideas that may be far-fetched, but I find it fascinating where our minds can take us. When one has an idea or theory, even if it does not make sense, it does make sense to share it with others. The purpose of a forum is to discuss and speculate about ideas. Some ideas could spurt other ideas, leading to eventual success.

What I have discovered from most forums is that there are two kinds of participants: 1) Those who are not afraid to share their ideas, however crazy they may seem, and 2) those who typically do not share their own ideas, but rather thrive by making fun of those who dare to share.

So, please, let's debate with mutual respect and courtesy.

That one sentence, all by itself, demonstrates that if you think you're talking science, talking is all you'll ever do, you'll never walk the walk. It's not a theory unless it has evidence for it. This whole thread might be more properly in the "Religion and Philosophy" section- you can gas (out of the box) all you want there.

Sorry if you think this is insulting; reality can look that way sometimes.

ETA- what Pixel said (less insultingly, I suppose)

 

[ctamblyn]

...
If I had evidence or proof of my theory I would not have called it a theory.
...

1. What makes you think it is true, if you don't have evidence or proof?

2. How do you aim to persuade other people that your idea is worth taking seriously, unless you have some form of evidence or proof?

3. How can you or anyone else use your theory to make experimentally testable statements about the world?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I would love to discuss my ideas on this forum. That is why I posted it here in the first place. Apparently very few members are willing to enter into a debate. It seems that posting theories on this forum only invokes insults and ridicule. I am not willing to engage in a battle of the minds to see who can come up with the most creative mockery.

If anyone on this forum wishes to engage in a true debate about my theories and ideas then please go ahead and do so. I will be more than happy to respond. But let's focus on my theory, and not personal insults. Please feel free to vigorously disagree with me on any of my assumptions. I promise not to ever insult or attack any forum member's integrity. It would only be fair to expect the same courtesy in return.

If I had evidence or proof of my theory I would not have called it a theory. In order to search for what cannot be seen or proven we sometimes have to think unconventionally or against what is considered mainstream. The human mind can conjure up ideas that may be far-fetched, but I find it fascinating where our minds can take us. When one has an idea or theory, even if it does not make sense, it does make sense to share it with others. The purpose of a forum is to discuss and speculate about ideas. Some ideas could spurt other ideas, leading to eventual success.

What I have discovered from most forums is that there are two kinds of participants: 1) Those who are not afraid to share their ideas, however crazy they may seem, and 2) those who typically do not share their own ideas, but rather thrive by making fun of those who dare to share.

So, please, let's debate with mutual respect and courtesy.

The first thing a good theory should do is explain current knowledge as well as the current theories and then show how the new bit expands on current gaps with quantitative predictions.

Something I often see with such theories as yours is the implied idea that quantum mechanics is akin to philosophy. Something people believe to explain things they cannot explain.
This is NOT the case. Quantum mechanics actually underlies a LOT of modern technology. So, that being the case, kindly give the equations where your theory gives the same results as QM for things like superconductors, electron/photon behaviour, radioactivity, hydrogen tunneling, semiconductors etc.
Until it can do that you do not have a theory, but rather a hunch. And while hunches CAN be right, you need actual proof to proceed to potential theory.

 

[jaysadie]

Firstly, let me thank you all for toning down the insults.

When it comes to theories about Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Cosmology there is really no definitive proof that can absolutely back up these theories. Most of it is still based on speculation and hypothesis. A mathematical equation alone is not proof, especially if "fudge factors" are used to make an equation stick. No one has ever seen an electron, proton, neutron, quark, neutrino... and the list goes on. How about a Higgs Boson? Someone convinced financial backers to spend billions of dollars to try and discover it. What did they base it on? To this day the Higgs Boson has not been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt. There may be claims, but no proof. If all science has to be proven before a new discovery is made then we would make very slow progress as a society. People who think outside the box are usually the ones who make giant leaps forward. By wearing blinkers to alternate possibilities impedes our ability to move science forward. Why not challenge the unknown and postulate about alternate possibilities? What harm can it do?

Perhaps most theories are nothing more than thought experiments. So, perhaps I should revise the title of my paper to "The Quantum Cosmology Inverse Thought Experiment". Would this help to get the conversation going?

 

[ctamblyn]

When it comes to theories about Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Cosmology there is really no definitive proof that can absolutely back up these theories.
...

Be that as it may, QM (for example) makes testable claims about what we'll see when we do various experiments. Your hypotheses, in contrast, are almost untestable by construction.

By wearing blinkers to alternate possibilities impedes our ability to move science forward. Why not challenge the unknown and postulate about alternate possibilities?
...

Most rational people are aware that modern theories are possibly just stepping stones to future ones. That doesn't mean that anything goes, though.

 

[Donn]

If all science has to be proven before a new discovery is made then we would make very slow progress as a society.

Discovery reveals facts. Science starts from those facts, trying to explain them. Evidence and proof take as long as they take. We advance just fine.

People who think outside the box are usually the ones who make giant leaps forward.

Giant leaps are made from boxes that have no ceilings and stand on the shoulders of giant boxes. It's like Minecraft on springs.

If you get out of the box you have to build a new box.

By wearing blinkers to alternate possibilities impedes our ability to move science forward. Why not challenge the unknown and postulate about alternate possibilities? What harm can it do?

None, but don't call your challenge "science" yet.

Perhaps most theories are nothing more than thought experiments. So, perhaps I should revise the title of my paper to "The Quantum Cosmology Inverse Thought Experiment". Would this help to get the conversation going?

Sounds groovy.

 

[drelda]

When it comes to theories about Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Cosmology there is really no definitive proof that can absolutely back up these theories. Most of it is still based on speculation and hypothesis. A mathematical equation alone is not proof, especially if "fudge factors" are used to make an equation stick.

Quantum mechanics has made many predictions that have been tested to extraordinary degrees of accuracy. That doesn't prove its true in any absolute sense - but when a theory predicts a number - and you observe that exact number to 10 decimal places - and you get the same thing for many different predictions - then you have to take that very seriously.

Yes - people also apply it in ways that are more speculative - like cosmology - but because the theory has lots of evidence behind it this isn't unreasonable.

The key thing you have to do to get your ideas taken more seriously is to work out how they could be falsified - ie what predictions can you make that can be tested against reality?

Its fine for some aspects of your idea to be completly unobservable - as long as some parts are testable. I don't even mind if we don't currently have the technology to do the experiment - as long as in principle it could be tested one day.

If you can't make any predictions - then its just metaphysics. Maybe thats all you intended?

- Drelda

 

[Reality Check]

Apparently very few members are willing to enter into a debate.

I am willing to enter in a debate based on actual science, not pseudoscience rambling. The problem is that is all the OP contains along with a cartoon, jaysadie.

Conclusion - all you have is that cartoon !

 

[Reality Check]

When it comes to theories about Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Cosmology there is really no definitive proof that can absolutely back up these theories.
...some ignorance snipped...

Sorry, jaysadie, but you need to learn some things about science before you try to do any science.
A basic part of science is that nothing is ever "proven" - proofs belong to mathematics. What happens is that a scientific theory gains evidence to support it. The theory is accepted when there is enough evidence to convince the majority of scientists that the theory is correct.

So we have Quantum Mechanics with an enormous body of evidence to support it.
There is Quantum Cosmology which is very theoretical.
These are two different theories, jaysadie !

 

[SezMe]

Perhaps most theories are nothing more than thought experiments. So, perhaps I should revise the title of my paper to "The Quantum Cosmology Inverse Thought Experiment". Would this help to get the conversation going?

The word you are looking for is "hypothesis". Science proceeds by stating an hypothesis plus tests that could be used to negate it. Such tests are done, data are gathered and the hypothesis is evaluated. Rinse, lather and repeat.

Note, for example, that in proposing his hypothesis, Darwin spent A LOT of his writing showing how his ideas could be refuted. As a far out example, find a genuine human femur in a seam of coal (that has not been planted there) and out goes the theory of evolution.

So you have proposed an hypothesis. Now define some tests that could be conducted that would refute it. Until you do that, all we're doing is (metaphorically speaking) exercising our jaw muscles.

 

[jaysadie]

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

[Reality Check]

Now we're getting somewhere.

Not really, jaysadie.
You do not have a thought experiment (no proposed experiment at all).
You do not have a scientific hypothesis since your OP contains no test of your hypothesis.
You may have a hypothesis if you could actually explain anything. So that is what you need to do. Take a single known phenomena and explain it using your hypothesis. This is not the bald statement "my hypothesis explains X". It is "my hypothesis means A. A suggests B. B suggests C. Given C we have X".
Since you claim that tis is cosmology then the obvious thing to explain is Hubble's Law.

 

[turingtest]

Now we're getting somewhere.

Not really, jaysadie.
You do not have a thought experiment (no proposed experiment at all).
You do not have a scientific hypothesis since your OP contains no test of your hypothesis.
You may have a hypothesis if you could actually explain anything. So that is what you need to do. Take a single known phenomena and explain it using your hypothesis. This is not the bald statement "my hypothesis explains X". It is "my hypothesis means A. A suggests B. B suggests C. Given C we have X".
Since you claim that tis is cosmology then the obvious thing to explain is Hubble's Law.

Ball's in your court, jay.

 

[jaysadie]

For those who are sitting on the sidelines, observing these posts and comments about my theory, sorry, "Thought Experiment" or "Hypothesis", please enter the discussion. No need to worry about ridicule. Please share your thoughts. Words can't harm you. Remember that those who changed the world did not care about what the so-called experts thought. If they did, this forum would not exist. The Internet would not exist. We would be burning candles and communicate via snail mail. Nicola Tesla was one of those who were looked upon as a weirdo, even by one of the so-called experts, i.e. Thomas Edison. Today this world owes most of its modern advancements to Nicola Tesla, and others like him. No matter how you slice or dice it, that is a fact, and it would continue to be a fact now and into the future. You have a choice, either embrace the establishment and go nowhere fast, or think outside the box, and change the world. One would think that experience would teach us something. Apparently not. All I can hope for is that at some point people would wake up to truly collaborate about thoughts and ideas, and to not see these as threats or attempts to undermine science. Why are we so scared about lateral thinking? Why do we as a society lock onto a simple equation like e=mc2 and believe that it explains the Universe? Einstein may be a genius in most people's eyes. I can't help but wonder whether he would be accepted as such in our modern world if he emerged with his theories at this point in time. Okay, long story short, no matter where I go, no matter which forum I visit, there seems to be a common thread, i.e. do not attempt to come up with an idea, unless you can prove it with a mathematical equation or verifiable experiment. Who exactly established this rule, and more importantly why should we abide by this rule? I say that there are no rules when it comes to figuring out this complex world we live in. Anyone who attempts to dictate to others about how they should think or hypothesize is hindering one of the most powerful features of the human mind, i.e. solving impossible problems. Come on people, let's work together. Not everything in life can be explained by an equation.

 

[jaysadie]

Reality Check and turingtest, I must admit that I am impressed by the number of posts you have done on this forum. I do admire your passion and dedication to science, whether we agree or not.

 

[jaysadie]

Oops. almost forgot about SezMe. It's going to take some time to catch up to 19,247 posts!

 

[gerdbonk]

Who exactly established this rule,

Humans, with their brains, over thousands of years of exploring and experimenting, and finally honing a method that has proven over time to be, without rival, the most successful system of distilling the facts about everything that exists.

and more importantly why should we abide by this rule?

So we don't waste time investigating unprovable nonsense.

I say that there are no rules when it comes to figuring out this complex world we live in.

Feel free to say what you want. The scientific method has figured out much of our complex world, and continues to discover new things every day. Having no rules merely invites nonsense.

Anyone who attempts to dictate to others about how they should think or hypothesize is hindering one of the most powerful features of the human mind, i.e. solving impossible problems. Come on people, let's work together.

Huh? Human brains solve possible problems. By utilizing the scientific method. And no one is dictating to anyone how they should think or hypothesize. Creativity is welcome. But if all you come up with is unprovable conjecture, you've brought exactly nothing to the discussion. You are the one sneering at the tools used by those who provide evidence, substantive arguments and inspiration to others. Come on, sir, contribute something of substance to the existing store of knowledge and let's work together.

Not everything in life can be explained by an equation.

Er, probably can. Sorry.

 

[jaysadie]

gerdbonk

Okay. You do make a strong case against my arguments. That's what I'm looking for. I do agree that there has to be some rules. The question is what exactly are those rules? Do we not perhaps inhibit creative thinking by applying strict rules? Who exactly determines what these rules should be? Where do we draw the line? Do you not see the dilemma in this approach? I honestly do not see why we should not be permitted to propose ideas, and to allow others to challenge these ideas. I think that this forum would be so much richer and meaningful if we would allow members to propose ideas and for us all to hypothesize and challenge such ideas. Let's refine these ideas. No one person has all the answers. Goodness knows, I don't. I'm just reaching out to those who would like to attempt to make sense of this world we're all living in. We are tiny little specks in an unimaginable space, trying to figure out the truth.