224 réponses à ce sujet

[mildmort]

And maybe I have read the physicist's another thread about ...a particle.

[Sable Rhapsody]

mildmort wrote...
I thought quantums are still unexplained but physicist explains quantums fairly its wave side and particle side.
So the explanation of light is beautiful, also safe to believe.
But if the physicist's motivation is not the zeal for science, or making games, the explanations could hard to be valid.

Depends on what you mean by explained.  Quantum mechanics is an example of science at its greatest and most elegant.  The astounding accuracy of quantum mechanics' predictions compared to actual experimental data has been compared to shooting a basketball in Los Angeles and having it go through a hoop in New York...without hitting the rim.  The theory itself is just beautiful in its accuracy and elegance.

Now, if you mean explain in terms of having it make sense in context of daily life...nuh uh.  Not gonna happen.  Quantum takes place on scales so miniscule we can't conceptualize them.  So conceptualizing the theoretical ramifications of quantum to our daily lives is a futile task.

[mildmort]

Quantums and Quantum mechanics is different, besides Quantum mechanic does not explain light conpletely.

[Sable Rhapsody]

mildmort wrote...

Quantums and Quantum mechanics is different, besides Quantum mechanic does not explain light conpletely.

...uh...what?  Quantum is just an adjective.  The only thing "quantum" indicates is discrete quantities.  Integers count up in a quantized fashion.  1, 2, 3, 4, etc.  Real numbers do not count up in a quantized fashion.

Quantum, used in quantum mechanics, originally just referred to the fact that certain physics phenomena are quantized.  Electron energy levels "orbiting" a nucleus are quantized.  Light is quantized.  

Anyway, we're way off topic.  If you want to know more about quantum mechanics from an actual physicist, as opposed to me who just has a geeky interest in it, try A Brief History of Time 

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 29 juillet 2010 - 12:24 .

[mildmort]

What I have said is that I have a doubt the physicist's motivation so he would prove a truth. besides I found his theory not safe to believe.

[Sable Rhapsody]

mildmort wrote...

What I have said is that I have a doubt the physicist's motivation so he would prove a truth. besides I found his theory not safe to believe.

Science isn't about proving a truth.  It's NEVER about proving a truth.  Never.  If that's your criteria, then you might as well throw out the rest of science with physics.  Science is about acquiring evidence through experimentation, and testing hypothesis based on where the evidence points.  There's always a possibility, however small, that some piece of evidence might come along and disprove the whole theory.

[mildmort]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

mildmort wrote...

Quantums and Quantum mechanics is different, besides Quantum mechanic does not explain light conpletely.

...uh...what?  Quantum is just an adjective.  The only thing "quantum" indicates is discrete quantities.  Integers count up in a quantized fashion.  1, 2, 3, 4, etc.  Real numbers do not count up in a quantized fashion.

Quantum, used in quantum mechanics, originally just referred to the fact that certain physics phenomena are quantized.  Electron energy levels "orbiting" a nucleus are quantized.  Light is quantized.  

Anyway, we're way off topic.  If you want to know more about quantum mechanics from an actual physicist, as opposed to me who just has a geeky interest in it, try A Brief History of Time 

And "quantized" did not explain what the light is.

[Bobad]

This thread is all mere speculation, behold proof........

[mildmort]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

mildmort wrote...

What I have said is that I have a doubt the physicist's motivation so he would prove a truth. besides I found his theory not safe to believe.

Science isn't about proving a truth.  It's NEVER about proving a truth.  Never.  If that's your criteria, then you might as well throw out the rest of science with physics.  Science is about acquiring evidence through experimentation, and testing hypothesis based on where the evidence points.  There's always a possibility, however small, that some piece of evidence might come along and disprove the whole theory.

Proving a truth is not my criteria, but physicists, through the procedures you mentioned, which could be easily warped by the physicist's motivations.

Modifié par mildmort, 29 juillet 2010 - 12:35 .

[Bobad]

So is God real or not?

[mildmort]

"This video contains content from EMI, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds. "

I couldn't see the proof...

[mildmort]

Physicists could be religious, but should avoid blending religion with facts.

[Sable Rhapsody]

mildmort wrote...
Proving a truth is not my criteria, but physicists, through the procedures you mentioned, which could be easily warped by the physicist's motivations.

Oh, I see.  You're talking about the experimental procedure.  My mistake, sorry.

First, I didn't mention any specific procedures.  Second, the edifice of scientific research is designed to weed out the biases of individual scientists.  Research designs are, ideally, double-blind so that even the experimenter doesn't know what conditions she/he is observing.  Every piece of research gets picked apart by other scientists, review boards, etc.  More importantly, quantum mechanics experiments aren't observed by experimenters themselves.  The data is actually collected from huge machines, like the ATLAS detector in the LHC.  

As for the explanation of what light "is," light "is" electromagnetic radiation, and light "is" quantized.  A crude way of saying it is that light is both a particle and a wave, and that's that.  It doesn't make sense to us, but that's literally what the experiments indicate.

I'm not getting into the god thing.  Except to say that any scientist worth half a damn will strive to prevent any personal bias, including religious ones, from interfering with his/her practice of science.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 29 juillet 2010 - 12:41 .

[mildmort]

jln.francisco wrote...

mildmort wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

mildmort wrote...

What I have said is that I have a doubt the physicist's motivation so he would prove a truth. besides I found his theory not safe to believe.

Science isn't about proving a truth.  It's NEVER about proving a truth.  Never.  If that's your criteria, then you might as well throw out the rest of science with physics.  Science is about acquiring evidence through experimentation, and testing hypothesis based on where the evidence points.  There's always a possibility, however small, that some piece of evidence might come along and disprove the whole theory.

Proving a truth is not my criteria, but physicists, through the procedures you mentioned, which could be easily warped by the physicist's motivations.

very unlikely. Given the length of the peer review process, the demands of experimentation itself and just how many people will be looking to replicate your results, if you're a cheat or simply careless you'll be found out.

So I found his theory not safe to believe. At least I will be very careful, and this is not the matter of faith as a physicist insisted, that I wanted to be understood.

Modifié par mildmort, 29 juillet 2010 - 12:49 .

[JergenKajaton]

Way off topic, but what little I do understand about quantum mechanics (very little indeed) is utterly fascinating. I wish I were smart enough to comprehend it better than I do, but unfortunately I'm not, and almost certainly never will be. Oh well.

[Bobad]

JergenKajaton wrote...

Way off topic, but what little I do understand about quantum mechanics (very little indeed) is utterly fascinating. I wish I were smart enough to comprehend it better than I do, but unfortunately I'm not, and almost certainly never will be. Oh well.

fo'shizzle

[Sable Rhapsody]

jln.francisco wrote...
A theory is only as 'safe' as its predictions are and given the level of accuracy of QE it'd be silly to not trust it. If it wasn't mostly right (no scientific theory ever is. not even a lot of thing I'm sure you accept) then a lot of new technology wouldn't work. So there's your 'proof.' QE works, continues to work and there isn't any explanation that's been vetted as much that could possibly replace it, so it's accepted.

True, though even the most gung-ho scientist will admit that to our minds, trying to conceptualize quantum simply hits a brick wall of "WHAAA???"  I mean, I know my keyboard is mostly empty space.  I know that what I'm feeling is simply electron repulsion between the electrons of my fingertips and the electrons of the keys.  That doesn't in any way change my intuitive feeling that the keys are "solid."

The reason why so many people don't "trust" quantum is because it feels intuitively wrong.  I think quantum mechanics is a wonderful marvel of scientific thinking, but it doesn't take away the intuitive wrongness.  I just ignore my intuition in this case and shrug 

[mildmort]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

mildmort wrote...
Proving a truth is not my criteria, but physicists, through the procedures you mentioned, which could be easily warped by the physicist's motivations.

Oh, I see.  You're talking about the experimental procedure.  My mistake, sorry.

First, I didn't mention any specific procedures.  Second, the edifice of scientific research is designed to weed out the biases of individual scientists.  Research designs are, ideally, double-blind so that even the experimenter doesn't know what conditions she/he is observing.  Every piece of research gets picked apart by other scientists, review boards, etc.  More importantly, quantum mechanics experiments aren't observed by experimenters themselves.  The data is actually collected from huge machines, like the ATLAS detector in the LHC.  

As for the explanation of what light "is," light "is" electromagnetic radiation, and light "is" quantized.  A crude way of saying it is that light is both a particle and a wave, and that's that.  It doesn't make sense to us, but that's literally what the experiments indicate.

I'm not getting into the god thing.  Except to say that any scientist worth half a damn will strive to prevent any personal bias, including religious ones, from interfering with his/her practice of science.

Not only procedures also conclusion could be biased.
I think I won't be saticefied with the explanation that doesn't making sanse to me.
And the procedure that explained light is both a particle also a wave was very beautiful part of physics.
Also maybe the one explaines wave or particle side could be beautiful for particular reason.

[steelfire_dragon]

NO the maker does not exist, he is nothing, and nothing his he.
andraste is nothing but the bride of nothing.


the Maker is evil, andraste is evil, your stupid chantry is nothing, your blaspemus chant of light is nothing but lies.
I spit on your maker, I urinated in Andraste's ashes and burned several of your chantrys down to the ground with victims in side.


They all will rest in the black city.

[Ziggy]

mildmort wrote...

Not only procedures also conclusion could be biased.

I think I won't be saticefied with the explanation that doesn't making sanse to me.

The scientific method tries to minimise all bias as much as possible, obviously it's nearly impossible to get rid of it completely, but it's a very rigorous method and results obtained in this way are more trustworthy than any other.

Something not making complete sense is good - it makes it a very exciting field of research.



Morrigan's discussion with Leliana on the topic of whether the Maker exists suggested there is no evidence just superstition and blind faith.

[Grommash94]

steelfire_dragon wrote...

NO the maker does not exist, he is nothing, and nothing his he.
andraste is nothing but the bride of nothing.


the Maker is evil, andraste is evil, your stupid chantry is nothing, your blaspemus chant of light is nothing but lies.
I spit on your maker, I urinated in Andraste's ashes and burned several of your chantrys down to the ground with victims in side.


They all will rest in the black city.

A lot of hate for a fictional religion eh?