They have been definitively "ruled out"?
In circumstances where Bell's theorems apply, certainly.
I've declared my interest in Bohm's work. I haven't seen any publication with outright rejection of Bohmian Mechanics.
That's a non-local theory.
And just because we are unable to predict with certainty, that creates "uncertainty" or "indeterminism" in nature?
It creates uncertainty for humans.
Quantum indeterminacy is not about human uncertainty. The indeterminacy we're talking about in quantum physics is built into nature. It is not due to a deficiency in our theories.
But collapse of superposed states is a deterministic event.
Not as far as we can tell. Quite the opposite, it appears.
If you think collapse is deterministic, perhaps you can tell what determines exactly when a nucleus of uranium will emit an alpha particle. Can you? It's a problem that nobody else has ever solved, as far as I'm aware, but maybe you know better.
"As far as we can tell"?? . I used the phrase "as far as we know" once and got slammed for that. Scientists apparently can take literary liberties (such as invented metaphors) a layman is not allowed.
When I write "as far as we can tell" I am alluding to the available evidence from actual experiments and so on. If you have any experiments that suggest we can predict the outcome of a quantum measurement with certainty, please present them. I'd be really interested to see them.
I can just see the reaction in this forum if I used the phrase "spooky action at a distance". Consternation all around.
I don't see why. That's just another term that Einstein used to refer to what is referred to as "entanglement" these days. Quantum entanglement is an established and experimentally verified effect.
Does providing proof suggest "understanding"?
How can you claim to have an understanding that anything is the case, in the absence of supporting evidence?
Everytime I mention E = Mc^2, I need to provide proofs?
No, because the proofs are readily available - both theoretical and experimental. It is when you propose some
new explanation or effect that you need to provide justification for your claims in the form of theory and - the ultimate test - experimental evidence.
You will rarely hear a physicist talking about what "reality is", and if they do talk about that they are probably making a mistake. What physicists do is they build testable
models of "reality". Their confidence about the accuracy of the models is (or should be) directly proportional to the degree to which those models make accurate predictions borne out by experiment and observation.
I invite all to disprove what I propose. No one has ever managed to do that in my time here. Well, that's why I am now keeping company with other pseudo-scientists, no.
This is not how science is done, and that's why you're keeping company with pseudoscientists rather than scientists. Science is not based on "prove me wrong!". It is based on "Here's evidence that shows I'm right!" It is only pseudoscientists who believe that it is up to scientists to disprove every wacky idea they come up with. They get the burden of proof wrong every time.
Are you going to demand formal proofs in pseudo-science? If I could provide proofs, I'd be posting in the hard science sub-forum, no?
If you're only posting vague ideas that have no or very little supporting evidence, what's the point? Is it just that you enjoy the fantasy world-building aspect of it? Don't you ever want to get real? Don't you want to know what's true?
What I don't understand why religionist are given their own sub-forum to post their woo without any critique or threat of banishment? After all this is a science forum.
Among other things, our Religion forum provides a place where the scientific claims that religions make can be put to the test. More importantly, it gives us an opportunity to examine the extent to which religious people use critical thinking - or fail to use it. It is a good place to introduce people to critical, scientific methods of thought, especially if they are not accustomed to applying such modes of thought to their beliefs in a consistent way. A lot of people give their religious beliefs a free pass, without ever really considering why they do that. Why should religious ideas be in a special category, exempt from rationality.
We also have a whole bunch of "Fringe" forums, which are there for two reasons. One is to clearly separate the pseudoscience from real science, because a lot of people are ill-equipped to recognise the difference. And there's the second reason: to educate people about what makes the pseudosciences unreliable and suspect. When fringe beliefs are exposed to the hard reality of critical thought, their shortcomings become more obvious, and that's a learning opportunity, too.
Nobody is "banished" here for holding religious beliefs, or Fringe beliefs. In this respect, we are different from some other "Science" forums. This is a conscious choice we made here a long time ago. Personally, I believe there is value in scientists - and those who are trained in critical thinking - engaging with religious people (who, let's face it, make up the majority of people as a whole) and with believers in "fringe" topics.
Oh, right. We cannot rule God out 100% by the rules of scientific rigor. But Bohm (a brilliant theorist according to Einstein) was a "commie nutcase" spouting woo. It is these things that bother me.
Whether Bohm had communist sympathies is irrelevant to his scientific ideas. They stand or fall on their own merit. From what I know about them, they appear to be largely unfalsifiable, so it becomes a philosophical decision as to whether you decide that Bohm might be right or he might be wrong. But notice I said "might", there. If there's no good evidence either way, then as far as I can tell there's no good justification for
believing that Bohm had the "answers", any more than there's good justification for
believing that he was barking up the wrong tree. Science isn't about faith or idol worship. If there's good evidence in favour of Bohm and against standard quantum theory, then bring it. The onus is on the party making the claim.
As for God, that's a patently unfalsifiable hypothesis and therefore an unscientific one (by Popper's criterion, at least). However, there's a lot more baggage that people carry about God than a bare belief in its existence. Religious beliefs often impinge on the territory of science, and there we can comment with some confidence. (I'm not with Steven J. Gould on his contention that there are "non-overlapping magisteria". Religion often attempts to intrude into the "magisterium" of science.)
