What qualifies as science?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Jozen-Bo, Apr 25, 2017.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,620
    I agree, maths do not consciously contribute to wave reception, but waves or wave functions are he result of mathematical interactions between the values contained in the presently expressed potentials, before and after they interact.
    A fundamental condition which allows for certain phenomena to occur, but also disallows other phenomena to occur. Eventually this leads to orderly patterns, including humans. Our body is full of wave functions, from the most subtle cyclical behavior to the hula dance.

    Something just struck me, suppose the Higgs field is the dance floor of a field of vibrations (waves) and matter are the dancers which move in accordance to where the wave properites in the Higgs music lead us.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,620
    p.s. to the above.
    Actually I meant all three. Not individually, of course.
    As I understand this correctly;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

    Specific wave forms create specific harmonic responses, some which are beneficial (mathematically compatible), some detrimental (mathematically incompatible) to the harmonics of a living organism or even to the harmony (integrity) of stationary structures.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,620
    How then can the assertion be made that;
    I found this very interesting, albeit a little above my knowledge of QM.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,297
    As I understand it, the pilot wave idea is that the wave function represents, for each QM entity, an aspect of its existence separate from the particle aspect that one detects in a measurement. Under certain conditions the maths - apparently - allows a wave function to be described without there being any associated particle.

    But this does not means there is some "pervasive" entity out there in the universe. The pilot wave is still the good old QM wavefunction, that is, a wavelike phenomenon associated with each individual QM entity.

    By the way, even in conventional QM, one has "virtual particles" . These are disturbances in the relevant field which can be treated by some of the same maths as particles but are not particles. I'm not suggesting these are the same as the hypothesised "empty wave function": I do not know nearly enough about either QED or pilot wave theory. But just to show that the maths can throw out some strange beasts.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,620
    I may be interpreting the following incorrectly, but I believe it proposes that Bohm's Pilot Wave is a universal phenomena, because the wholeness of the universe is itself in motion. Thus my impression that the wave functions of individual particles are in a superposition with the Universal Pilot Wave function
    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_holouniverse04.htm

    Then also, I ran across this statement;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2017
  9. Nahor87 Registered Member

    Messages:
    71
    We wont know the cause because there can be no cause we know before time.
    Nothing's really off the table bob.
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,297
    A universal phenomenon, i.e. a phenomenon, instances of which can be observed everywhere, is not at all the same thing as a "pervasive" entity.

    The "wholeness of the universe is in motion" is meaningless woo.

    As to the quote, yes in principle the boundary conditions can be set by the whole universe. It is a standard result in QM that if you have an entity whose momentum along an axis is exactly known, then its wave function exists to infinity along that axis, meaning you have no idea where along that axis the particle will be found in a measurement. But QM entities are not generally found to be in this state.

    I quote the author of my old university physical chemistry handbook, Moore:

    "In principle....... from the French "en principe oui", meaning "non". "
     
  11. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,853
    More gibberish.
     
  12. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    252
    As maths has no consciousness, that is obviously true.

    You mean "are the result of interactions that can be described by mathematics"? Seeing as math is not physical, so "mathematical interactions" in a physical context is non-sense.

    Please note that the mathematical model that we use is just that, a model. It's descriptive, not prescriptive.

    No, our body is part of the wave functions, not full of it. (Although some members will now probably make immature jokes that somebody is full of something... Not me, no siree!)

    Cute metaphor, I suppose, but I don't think it brings much new insight into the matter?

    Wavelengths, waves, and wave functions are three different things. Heck, one of them isn't even a thing! (In the physical sense.) Seeing you don't (yet) understand the difference between the three, please refrain from using the most incorrect one (wavelengths) in this context.
     
  13. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    252
    Just read the topic title: it's a perfect demonstration of what doesn't qualify as science!
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,620
    In order to avoid the perception that I am making up the following posits, I'll use the actual quotations.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_wavefunction
    The problem here is that this part of the "old university chemistry handbook" may be replaced successfully with Bohm's Pilot Wave model.

    p.s. "En principe oui" actually means ; In principle, yes. Moore may have been a great chemist, but he was not a very good linguist.

    An interesting interpretation of the term "Pilot Wave" is the use of the term "guiding wave", which suggests that there is a guiding force (path) apart from the assumed particle/wave duality properties of particles.
    https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-more-physicists-subscribe-to-pilot-wave-theory
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2017
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,620
    Good, we agree.
    Not if you consider that all physical things have mathematical values, which determine the interactions.
    According to Max Tegmark it's all mathematical in essence.
    And a good thing too, because it would just show the ignorance of the properties of feces, which are full of particles with waves of various wavelengths. One might say shit is a form of "standing waves".
    David Bohm must have been wrong then. Are you now going to tell me he was full of shit?
    Well, before you make such definitive statements, you may want to think a little "deeper" than the observable physical world.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2017
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,620
    Just ran across another perspective.
    OK, enough grist for the mill.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2017
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,620
    Yes, that's what they told David Bohm also. I never claimed to be a scientist, but then I don't need to be as long as I understand what real scientists are saying.
    And it appears that QM (Copenhagen Interpretation) has some inherent contradictions, which are conveniently ignored.
    and
    and
    http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/heisenberg/chapter1.html

    And that qualifies as science?
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2017
  18. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    252
    Yeah, but I find the fact that you felt the need to say it quite suspicious.

    Wait, you're a Pythagorean? Cool, I've never met one before!

    Are you saying he is a Pythagorean too?

    Not sure if they are standing waves, but yeah, wave-particle duality and such. (Physical) shit is part of the wave function too.

    Are you now going to tell me you stole that metaphor from him? Oh wait, you've interpreted his artistically written description as a metaphor. So yes, this is quite strong evidence that David Bohm didn't gain any insights from this creative wording.

    Now that I realize you are a Pythagorean, I see where the confusion is coming from. Just understand that people that aren't Pythagoreans (which is the vast majority of all scientists) will mis-understand you when you treat mathematical constructs as physical entities. Just a tip to prevent future miscommunications, that's all.

    Are you referring to what scientists say to journalists and write in popular science books, or to what they write in scientific papers? Because one of those is a dumbed-down version of the other, missing a lot of details and nuances. For example, referring to the intricate interactions between particles as a "dance"...
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,620
    Apparently many scientists gained insight from Bohm's work.
    I never said that mathematics are physical in and of themselves, but I think even you must admit that everything in the universe has certain inherent values, whether they be physical or geometric.

    And yes, I am a great admirer of Pythagoras, as it relates to his recognition of the mathematics in sound waves.

    In context of the topic under discussion, I am a follower of Bohmian Mechanics and his world view as explained in his book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order".
    If you want to call that dumbing down because it does not contain reams of formulas and equations, have at it.
    No, I am sure I came up with that all by myself, but thank you for the compliment.

    p.s. I was also a competent musician and studied some of the mathematics of sound waves.

    p.p.s Actually my use of the "dance" analogy was probably inspired by "why fluid dynamics mimics Quantum Mechanics" (see post # 323).

    p.p.p.s.
    Watch this and you tell me. NOVA, "The great math mystery",


    Your presumptions are astounding and a clear sign you do not read the reliable links I provided to you with actual quotes from respected scientists, albeit in "dumbed down" narratives.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2017
  20. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    252
    I never claimed otherwise?

    Well, except that one time you called a wavelength a physical thing... Oh, and when you felt the need to specify maths as being not conscious. Oh, and that time when you said "mathematical interactions between the values" result in waves or wave functions.
    My point here is this: your wording strongly suggests you think mathematics are somehow (partly) physical; prescriptive, instead of descriptive. If that's not the case, please adjust your wording in the future. Read back my first post in this thread: that's exactly the point I was trying to make there too. Wavelengths are not physical entities themselves, just descriptions of what we see in nature.

    I object to the use of the word "inherent". Sure, things seem to act in ways compatible with mathematical descriptions, but it's not the math demanding they act that way (IMO).

    I didn't even realise he had done work on that. Nice!

    Well, perhaps "popularizing" or something to that effect would have been a nicer choice of words, but yes. You can't do fundamental physics without a lot of maths, especially when it comes to the quantum world where intuition breaks down.

    Hello, Thad Roberts! Nice to meet you! I mean, this is your quote, right:
    You claiming to have come up with the "dance" analogy and all...

    Ok, so perhaps you're not Thad Roberts after all. Fine.

    Your links don't explain your views of the world. I'm quite sure those respected scientists wouldn't mess up the terminology that bad!
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,620
    That is why I quote them! I have already stipulated I am not a scientist. But as long as I understand the narrative (the verbal explanations) by real scientists, I am satisfied.
    And at my age I am not going to invest years in formal studies which as explained, may not even be correct in all respects. "QM is magic", this little gem came from a true scientist. Surprise!
     
  22. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    252
    May I suggest you at least invest some time into using the proper terminology, so that what you say can be properly understood by other people?
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,620
    Give me an example and post # where my terminology is terminally flawed to the point it is incomprehensible to scientists.

    Actually, this funny. English is my second language and I consult the dictionary constantly to make sure that the words I use are appropriate to the intent of my posits.

    But give me an example and I'll be happy to clarify the intent of the usage of that particular word.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2017

Share This Page