What is real science?

[dleviwing]

Here are some examples of our physical science.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/22
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/47

http://www.qubit.org/people/david/
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9906007

[theunify]

That's not Science David, c'mon now.

[bottomlander]

Science is falsifiable. Science is definite.

Physics, mathematics and logic can really kick out those unqualified attempts.
For those attempts with just "lip services (empty words)" without detailed factual supports and serial steps, they help too little to the progress of science and the knowledge towards TOE.

Widom words/concepts from ancient Greeks/Chinese were helpful when science had not yet been developed. But after some 2,500 years, if too many educated persons are still repeating roughly the same splendid words/ideas, it is a waste of time in human history without substantial achievements.

Whenever those expressed reasonings are not falisfiable and not definite, different authors and readers may get different perceptions, how they can make further steps with confirmations!

Wisdoms will just repeat and repeat by different writers without deep enough probes. Science progresses or setback, but at least not repeating!

Widoms should guide steps, not just introduced as targeted items.

Best regards. Bottomlander

[dleviwing]

The only time that theory goes from conjecture to science is when experimentation is performed to support the theory. There is NO real science in theory even though they call it “Theoretical Physics”. Science is the testing of conjecture to determine truth. Scientific study means to apply the methodology of scientific testing. Many religious groups speak of the science of theology but fail to show any experimental data to support their claims. These are only methods to impress or control the ignorant.

[Graybeard]

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9906007

Dave .... can you help translate this PDF??. In simple terms how does it differ from Bell's Theorem


cool bananas ... greg

[dleviwing]

Greg;
I’m not sure what you are asking. David Deutsch is pointing out that Bell’s theorem is based on false assumptions that relate to the velocity of reflected wave fronts (1.72c). The entanglement is an illusion produced by the methodology and the math. In plain English, he is saying that Bell did not do the experiment properly.

If you can be more specific to a paragraph, I may be able to provide a better answer. Deutsch believes the math is like a picture, it reduces the need to say the thousand words of explanation. Is it the math you want translated?

[Graybeard]

Dave .... I suppose I am being lazy and looking for the executive summary as to what Deutsch is saying.

I don't think Bell did the experiment, I thought he just proposed a theory and that Aspect (amongst others ) experimentally carried it out.

This paper was written in 1999. From your reply I have the impression that this is now fact.

Has this paper now displaced the aspect experiment in the opinion of mainstream science ??
Is this paper widely accepted ??
Has it opened up the EPR Paradox??

I am struggling thru the paper again, and am making some headway but expect to be stopped by the maths very shortly .

If you knew of this why did you not say so in the thread 'entanglement' ? I may owe an apology to WillieB !

greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Here are some examples of our physical science.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/22
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/47

http://www.qubit.org/people/david/
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9906007

Practically no science here, just more quantum opinion, and I might add, quite false... Greg is stating it closer to reality...

Lloyd

[dleviwing]

Hi Greg;
Maybe I should have said that “Bell Labs” ran experiments in the early 80’s and claimed they verified Bell’s theorem. His theorem is neither proven nor disproved; David Deutsch is very pragmatic with Quantum Physics so I tend to accept his views more readily than those who claim mystery phenomena.

I usually don’t comment when members are debating even though they haven’t done their home work. It’s when they make flat-out dumb statements that tend to make me interrupt their debates. You’re holding your own quite well and so is Willie B. HumanByDefault is another who has made excellent improvements over the past 2 years both in his writing style and his grasp of the wave nature of physical phenomena.


Lloyd;
I think that's what Dr. Deutsch is pointing out when QM is not applied properly.

[bottomlander]

Practically no science here, just more quantum opinion, and I might add, quite false... Greg is stating it closer to reality...

Lloyd

Hydrodynamics is one of the few well-developed experimentable factual knowledge when compared to the whole modern physics!

Everything found in hydrodynamics can be finalized as Scientific Truth !
(Of course, the imperfectness as a continuum (viscosity, actual sizes, intrinsic energy of atoms, etc.) need to be taken into consideration.)
Every theory highly correlated to hydrodynamics is closer to Theory-of-Everything than any other approach !

Best Regards. Bottomlander