Timeline for Quantum Mechanics Testability
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 22, 2018 at 18:32 | answer | added | Stéphane Rollandin | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 22, 2018 at 16:37 | comment | added | OON | @Lambda again. All theories when applied to the real world say only "this is likely to happen" becayse we always operate with imperfect knowledge. Funny that you are not consistent in your radicalism | |
| May 22, 2018 at 16:22 | comment | added | Lambda | @OON But you must admit there is a difference between a theory/prediction that says “this is likely to happen” vs “this will happen” | |
| May 22, 2018 at 16:17 | comment | added | Lambda | @KyleKanos I hear what you’re saying. Thanks for your input. | |
| May 22, 2018 at 16:07 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | @Lambda no, LLN is a theorem based on observations of a probabilistic experiment should approach the expected value. So unless all coins never flip heads again, LLN says we should expect $\sim50\%$ distribution. Also, can you please use the @ convention for pinging someone? I can't tell if you're replying to me without you doing so. | |
| May 22, 2018 at 16:03 | comment | added | OON | As there are no ideal experiments, every measurement comes with error bar and thus any physical theory is probabilistic when it's confronted with reality. So you "can't disprove" anything. From that you may start appreciating the value of your ideas | |
| May 22, 2018 at 15:56 | vote | accept | Lambda | ||
| May 22, 2018 at 15:55 | comment | added | zeldredge | @Lambda You should look up some philosophical background on the problem of induction -- you are substantially right, in that almost any outcome could just be a low-probability result in QM, but as a practical matter, the statistics of our world seem to agree with the predictions of QM. Viewpoints will vary, but it's better to think of scientific theories, imo, as "useful" rather than "true." | |
| May 22, 2018 at 15:48 | answer | added | Sebastian Riese | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 22, 2018 at 15:41 | comment | added | Lambda | When a theory uses probability it allows for predictions to be wrong, but yet still considered to be right. On my coin flip example could I ever make a testable flip? Never. How could you ever prove me wrong? That’s my point. | |
| May 22, 2018 at 15:34 | comment | added | DanielSank | "So isn’t QM in the same situation? How can it be accurate if it can’t predict with certainty a given event?" It's not clear what is meant by that sentence. | |
| May 22, 2018 at 15:28 | comment | added | Lambda | The law of large numbers is based on probabilities. So it’s kind of like using probabilities to prove probabilities. I don’t doubt what you’re saying my point is when a theory uses probabilities it shields the theory from close scrutiny. | |
| May 22, 2018 at 15:24 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 25, 2018 at 10:02 | |||||
| May 22, 2018 at 15:20 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | @Lambda are you aware of the law of large numbers? | |
| May 22, 2018 at 15:20 | comment | added | Lambda | My point is when a theory is based on probabilities it become a difficult if not impossible theory to disprove. | |
| May 22, 2018 at 15:15 | comment | added | yuggib | The fact that $1000$ tosses give tails does not disprove anything. It is in perfect agreement with classical probability to have repeatedly the same event. It is simply improbable, not impossible. Your line of reasoning is difficult to follow, at least by me. | |
| May 22, 2018 at 15:07 | comment | added | Lambda | It would take one half of the coins plus one | |
| May 22, 2018 at 15:06 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | I imagine it would take all coins in the universe to never flip heads for all eternity for the 1/2 probability to be wrong. | |
| May 22, 2018 at 14:58 | comment | added | Lambda | Doesn’t it use probabilities in its equations? | |
| May 22, 2018 at 14:57 | comment | added | Jon Custer | Why do you believe that QM is in the same situation? | |
| May 22, 2018 at 14:46 | history | asked | Lambda | CC BY-SA 4.0 |