What's the story with physics?

[AlexPontik]

Argument

Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results.
5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has hap-pened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still happens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the be-ginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.


And all the above in summary is

AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some-thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.

This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical.

Isn't it?

because for mathematicians....
1. “If a logical system is consistent, it cannot be complete”
2. “The consistency of axioms cannot be proven within their own system”
3. … and if you ask me reality for mathematicians, either is inconsistent, or incomplete…and the opposite they cannot prove to them-selves within the system…before they lose their balance in reality…they have no idea…and let’s say ok with all of these but…

...didn't their mothers teach them anything in their lifes?

 

[abaddon]

<snip gibberish>

Physics, like all science is descriptive, not proscriptive. There is no physics version of Judge Dredd wandering about shouting "I AM THE LAW".

 

[Myriad]

...didn't their mothers teach them anything in their lifes?

My mother never taught me anything about mathematics beyond long division, nor anything at all about computational theory, formal systems, incompleteness theorems, lambda calculus, or combinators. What she taught me about physics stayed strictly on the applied ("don't touch that, it's hot") rather than the theoretical (e.g. quantum mechanics) side.

 

[AlexPontik]

it is a simple argument you guys, you actually have something of any value to say, sure go ahead, we are all here to have fun with you...

 

[Myriad]

it is a simple argument you guys, you actually have something of any value to say, sure go ahead, we are all here to have fun with you...

You only asked two questions, one of which was impossibly vague (for instance, isn't "nothing" also "something else" if you're expecting "something"?).

The other was about what people's mothers teach them. So I answered that one. Did you have any further questions?

 

[Roboramma]

it is a simple argument you guys, you actually have something of any value to say, sure go ahead, we are all here to have fun with you...

You're making the same mistake with respect to Godel's incompleteness theorem that you did in another thread. Which seems weird given that your mistake was pointed out immediately and explained clearly in that thread.

Here's the thread, in case you're wondering: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=351322

And literally the second post in that thread pointed out your error, though others expressed it more thoroughly.

 

[AlexPontik]

I think you guys are thinking you may be funny writing nonsense down.

read again and rethink geniuses...

Nothing means no results
something means expected results
and something else means something else than anything you can imagine, or unexpected results

are you guys really not understanding, because if yes and you are not joking around thinking you are funny, fair point from your side, and apologies if I sound insulting to any of you....

...but guys...help me out...what is it that you don't understand?
...the argument written...even a child can understand and verify...
not in their imagination...in actual reality...


isn't that so in your life's experience?
If so, how on earth is that so, because then your life's experience, is quite interesting from me to listen to, I may learn something from you in the end.

 

[Roboramma]

Okay, to go along with your tone:

Hey genius, no mathematician thinks that:

1. “If a logical system is consistent, it cannot be complete”

So you should probably stop wasting your time burning straw men and try to actually understand what mathematicians actually think before concluding that they are complete morons. The first place to start would probably be the thread that you started where your very obvious error in understanding what mathematicians actually think was pointed out in the very first response to your OP.

Up next: why 1+1 = 2 doesn't imply that 1 orange + 1 apple equals two billion dollars.

 

[Norman Alexander]

You do not get a "something" or "something else" result from an experiment. You get just one result, that is all. It will be either the null hypothesis, or it will not. Otherwise you are pre-judging, which is a big no-no.

 

[Darat]

Morning glory.

 

[Monica 56]

You do not get a "something" or "something else" result from an experiment. You get just one result, that is all. It will be either the null hypothesis, or it will not. Otherwise you are pre-judging, which is a big no-no.

That could be a rather quaint and now time soiled appraisal .

Of interest for awhile when Newtonian based thinking seemed 'the answer' .
But once a defined probability is the experimental outcome , we are in fresh territory .
And though not a qualified physicist , I gather that once we move to more cutting edge theoretical work , our recent notion of probability requires further examination and likely revision .

 

[Darat]

That could be a rather quaint and now time soiled appraisal .

Of interest for awhile when Newtonian based thinking seemed 'the answer' .
But once a defined probability is the experimental outcome , we are in fresh territory .
And though not a qualified physicist , I gather that once we move to more cutting edge theoretical work , our recent notion of probability requires further examination and likely revision .

Nope the results will not change even if the theory is changed!

 

[Roboramma]

That could be a rather quaint and now time soiled appraisal .

Of interest for awhile when Newtonian based thinking seemed 'the answer' .
But once a defined probability is the experimental outcome , we are in fresh territory .
And though not a qualified physicist , I gather that once we move to more cutting edge theoretical work , our recent notion of probability requires further examination and likely revision .

Can you be more specific about exactly what issues you see with the framework outlined by Norman Alexander's post?

I don't really see how quantum physics changes the relationship of theory and experiment, but maybe you can explain.

 

[Norman Alexander]

That could be a rather quaint and now time soiled appraisal .

Of interest for awhile when Newtonian based thinking seemed 'the answer' .
But once a defined probability is the experimental outcome , we are in fresh territory .
And though not a qualified physicist , I gather that once we move to more cutting edge theoretical work , our recent notion of probability requires further examination and likely revision .

Nope. Not how it ever works.

Handwaving and making up your own definitions so you can claim some problem exists is simply straw-manning. That is, a logical fallacy.

Try some other argument. This one has no legs.

 

[The Man]

You do not get a "something" or "something else" result from an experiment. You get just one result, that is all. It will be either the null hypothesis, or it will not. Otherwise you are pre-judging, which is a big no-no.

Also a null result (the OP's "nothing") can even be the expected result of an experiment, thereby failing to falsify the underlying theory.

 

[abaddon]

That could be a rather quaint and now time soiled appraisal .

Of interest for awhile when Newtonian based thinking seemed 'the answer' .
But once a defined probability is the experimental outcome , we are in fresh territory .
And though not a qualified physicist , I gather that once we move to more cutting edge theoretical work , our recent notion of probability requires further examination and likely revision .

Right. So you are declaring up front that you have no idea how science might work.

OK then.

 

[Monica 56]

Considerable Comprehension problems , as is so often the case with those unable to change when change is the required next step .

Let's put on one side the more difficult matters and just concentrate on the now obvious --- that Newton's deterministic machine has been replaced by a shadowy and paradoxical conjunction of waves and particles governed by the laws of chance rather than the rigid rules of causality .
Quantum Field Theory goes even further .
Here solid matter dissolves to be replaced by excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy .
Here ( or there ! ) little distinction remains between material substance and apparently empty space which itself seethes with ephemeral quantum activity .
Newtonian thinking and application at this point is entirely irrelevant , only of interest for those very few problems that are linear and which homo sapiens became obsessed with for such a short period of time --- the one we presently live in .

 

[Darat]

Considerable Comprehension problems , as is so often the case with those unable to change when change is the required next step .

Let's put on one side the more difficult matters and just concentrate on the now obvious --- that Newton's deterministic machine has been replaced by a shadowy and paradoxical conjunction of waves and particles governed by the laws of chance rather than the rigid rules of causality .
Quantum Field Theory goes even further .
Here solid matter dissolves to be replaced by excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy .
Here ( or there ! ) little distinction remains between material substance and apparently empty space which itself seethes with ephemeral quantum activity .
Newtonian thinking and application at this point is entirely irrelevant , only of interest for those very few problems that are linear and which homo sapiens became obsessed with for such a short period of time --- the one we presently live in .

None of which would alter one single result of an experiment whether it was carried it in 1621, 1721 or 2021.

 

[The Man]

Considerable Comprehension problems , as is so often the case with those unable to change when change is the required next step .

Yep, the comprehension problems are considerable and entirely yours.

Let's put on one side the more difficult matters and just concentrate on the now obvious --- that Newton's deterministic machine has been replaced by a shadowy and paradoxical conjunction of waves and particles governed by the laws of chance rather than the rigid rules of causality .

Nope, causality and determinism still hold, the evolution of the wave function is deterministic. It is the relation of the wave function to observables that appears to be probabilistic. Also there is no "paradoxical conjunction of waves and particles", only waves. What we tend to consider a particle is simply a highly localized wave packet having a well defined peak (location) and consequently an ill defined energy or frequency.

Quantum Field Theory goes even further .
Here solid matter dissolves to be replaced by excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy .
Here ( or there ! ) little distinction remains between material substance and apparently empty space which itself seethes with ephemeral quantum activity .
Newtonian thinking and application at this point is entirely irrelevant , only of interest for those very few problems that are linear and which homo sapiens became obsessed with for such a short period of time --- the one we presently live in .

Nope, the very perception of "solid matter" is specifically the interaction of those fields. In our everyday experience it is electromagnetic fields that keep our hands from passing into, or even through, objects we try to grab. Heck, even in a 'Newtonian particles are like little billiard balls' application the fields would still be the determining factor since the size and spacing of the 'billiard ball like particles' would allow for considerable infiltration if not complete intangibility.

 

[Mike Helland]

It is the relation of the wave function to observables that appears to be probabilistic.

Which is where the rubber meets the road.

Not that this validates the point they were trying to make. But on its own, it's accurate enough.