[Subscribe to Daily Digest]
|[Main General Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: Yes scientific revolution stalled but in progress Posted by Snowmobile [Email] (#686) [Profile/Gallery] (more from Snowmobile) on Sun, 19 May 2019 19:43:55
In Reply to: Re: Yes scientific revolution stalled but in progress, Navid S, Sat, 18 May 2019 23:15:31 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
Lee Smolin's complete lecture is in the link below.
It is important to understand the context in which he is speaking, and that it is regarding the interpretation of quantum mechanics, especially in the context of considering entanglement and the physical implications of that. The Copenhagen interpretation (conventional) rests on what he refers to as "non-realism" (that we affect the system by measuring it) whereas the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation (for which he appears to advocate) is a different philosophical understanding of the same underlying phenomena. For the vast majority of quantum mechanical systems, the mathematics are the same, the wave equation is still used, and boundary conditions will still set and predict the same quantized states eg the same lines in the hydrogen spectrum (a measurable phenomenon). Many of the devices that allow you to read what I am typing via the internet rely on this math being correct (lasers, fiber amplifiers, tft displays, heck, even the solar panels powering TSN)!
That is, when he says "QM is wrong" - he is talking about his opinion on the meaning of it - that the Copenhagen interpretation is "philosophically wrong" from his point of view... Not that the predictions of the physical world that we have made over the last century using QM are incorrect. Now it is possible that given a weak interpretation, we may extend it to misunderstand some new more esoteric behaviour (and that is what he is getting at, and the Perimeter Institute exists substantially to delve into the bounds of physics)... That is how physics works - we mathematically describe the world around us within the context of what we can observe, and then if we measure something that is at odds with the math, we need to improve our mathematical understanding. Physical interpretation is tied closely with the math but there can be multiple interpretations of the same math.
We wouldn't say Newton was "wrong" because his understanding of mechanics didn't adequately explain the behaviour of things moving at almost the speed of light. Newton's laws work very well within a certain measurement domain, but they are incomplete. Physics is broadly incomplete - it is always a work in progress... a unified theory of everything would be wonderful, but we ain't there yet!
This is a non-technical hand-wavy talk for the layman. It is however dangerous for the layman to take it out of context. I would also note that he makes no mention of hydrinos or Randell Mills in the talk.
I would be interested to see any (ideally peer-reviewed) publications related to the hydrino work as I am not familiar with the topic.
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.