3 ms·
I don't know if this is what is going on here, but I get the impression that these sort of discussions are ways to probe theories for inconsistencies. That seem
by mannykannot 8y ago
I don't know if this is what is going on here, but I get the impression that these sort of discussions are ways to probe theories for inconsistencies. That seemed more clearly the case in this recent commentary by Sabine Hossenfelder on a paper invoking negative mass[1].
You don't have to experimentally observe a posited contradiction before thinking about whether it really is one, and if so, how it might be resolved. For one thing, you might find a way to investigate the issue experimentally.
[1] http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/12/no-negative-masses-have-not.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/12/no-negative-masses-...
- mirimir 8y agoThanks. I do agree that generating testable hypotheses is a good thing, and that exploring contradictions, implications, etc re existing theory plays an important role. Still, it bugs me when these ideas get popularized, and people talk about them as if they were known. But I'm pretty sure that experts in the field keep it straight.
- solotronics 8y agoObserving/measuring a quantum state affects it, I always wondered if thinking about possibilities similarly could affect quantum mechanics.
- mirimir 8y agoSo what? Observing a black hole could affect it? But because of the event horizon, we couldn't observe any such effect, right? I suppose that someone could drop in to check. And maybe then they'd know. But what about the rest of us? I gather that Hawking eventually agreed that black holes preserve information, and could leak it (somehow, eventually). Rajaniemi exploited the idea that information could be encoded in Hawking radiation. But that's just SF, I think.