3 ms·

Did the results of this experiment differ from what quantum mechanics predicts? No? Then what is the point of publishing it? It's not as if different interpreta

Did the results of this experiment differ from what quantum mechanics predicts? No? Then what is the point of publishing it? It's not as if different interpretations make different testable claims, or else they would be theories rather than mere interpretations.

wilg 8y ago
You don't want people to publish experimental results that confirm predictions?
- dooglius 8y ago
  Quantum mechanics has already been experimentally confirmed ad infinitum. If I experimentally verify predictions of Newtonian mechanics with some new configuration of billiard balls, would you consider that worthy of publication?
  - empath75 8y ago
    If it’s a brand new configuration of billiard balls that nobody has ever seen before, sure.
    - wilg 8y ago
      And even if not, it never hurts to double check. Certainly not hurting anyone to publish a "repetitive" paper. Worst thing that happens is more people have a chance to hear about it.
ceejayoz 8y ago
> Did the results of this experiment differ from what quantum mechanics predicts? No? Then what is the point of publishing it? Experimental confirmations of theoretical predictions are very valuable.
anonytrary 8y ago
> Did the results of this experiment differ from what quantum mechanics predicts? No? Then what is the point of publishing it? Quick counterexample: By that logic, do you think results showing agreement with Einstein's GR should have never been released? I'm taking a wild guess that your answer is "no". This case is not any different.
TehCorwiz 8y ago
The ironic part of your comment is that the entire scientific method demands independent verification; and this thought experiment, now tested experimentally, calls into question the idea of objective observation underpinning that method. New discoveries are nice and all, but the rigorous work of science comes from making sure the guy before you did his homework.

wilg 8y ago

You don't want people to publish experimental results that confirm predictions?

dooglius 8y ago
Quantum mechanics has already been experimentally confirmed ad infinitum. If I experimentally verify predictions of Newtonian mechanics with some new configuration of billiard balls, would you consider that worthy of publication?
- empath75 8y ago
  If it’s a brand new configuration of billiard balls that nobody has ever seen before, sure.
  - wilg 8y ago
    And even if not, it never hurts to double check. Certainly not hurting anyone to publish a "repetitive" paper. Worst thing that happens is more people have a chance to hear about it.

ceejayoz 8y ago

> Did the results of this experiment differ from what quantum mechanics predicts? No? Then what is the point of publishing it? Experimental confirmations of theoretical predictions are very valuable.

anonytrary 8y ago

> Did the results of this experiment differ from what quantum mechanics predicts? No? Then what is the point of publishing it? Quick counterexample: By that logic, do you think results showing agreement with Einstein's GR should have never been released? I'm taking a wild guess that your answer is "no". This case is not any different.

TehCorwiz 8y ago

The ironic part of your comment is that the entire scientific method demands independent verification; and this thought experiment, now tested experimentally, calls into question the idea of objective observation underpinning that method. New discoveries are nice and all, but the rigorous work of science comes from making sure the guy before you did his homework.