34 ms·

Worth noting is that this idea of quantum randomness has recently been all but proven wrong in an experiment involving water ripples[1]. Einstein had this idea

Worth noting is that this idea of quantum randomness has recently been all but proven wrong in an experiment involving water ripples[1]. Einstein had this idea of "hidden information" (i.e., just because we're not advanced enough yet to observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist), but it has always been regarded as ludicrous. In other words, the resolution of the universe may not be finite, but since the parts involved in infinity are impossible to comprehend or list in a peer reviewed paper, this drives mathematicians bananas. In the end, the human ego might prove to be the real Strong Force in the universe. [1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2014/09/quantum-physicists-catch-a-pilot-wave/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2014/09/quantum-p...

semi-extrinsic 12y ago
Sorry, but I have to correct this. 1) It's very far from proven that water pilot wave experiments say anything at all about the quantum world. Most physicist believe they don't tell us anything about it, they just provide a simpler system that "looks quantum". This quote is from the article you linked: “It is not by itself capable of representing very much physics,” Oxford University physics philosopher David Wallace told Quanta earlier this year. 2) Physicists have no problems with handling/removing infinities, just see regularization or renormalization in quantum field theory. 3) In general, this comic applies to anything you read in popsci sources: https://xkcd.com/1240/ https://xkcd.com/1240/
- mangeletti 12y ago
  Good points. Pertaining the 1st and 3rd points though, an important thing to keep in mind is that a lot of big scientific ideas come from philosophers and even science fiction writers, and I wouldn't be shocked if a few thoughtful comic strips joined the club. Most scientists are just technicians, applying existing knowledge to test existing theories. This means that a scientist doesn't necessarily have more qualified of opinions than any other person does.
  - lgas 12y ago
    While technically correct (the best kind of correct!) your final sentence seems to be a fairly ludicrous position to me -- in general scientists spend (quite a lot) more time learning about biases and other flaws in rigorous thinking and how to avoid them, studying and discussing all of that existing knowledge, learning how to perform experiments, performing them, interpreting the results, etc. all of which lead directly to them having a much more qualified opinion than "any other person" does.
  - semi-extrinsic 12y ago
    Re: your second-to-last sentence: it may well be that many scientists appear as if they are technicians applying existing knowledge to test theories. But that is partly because the only way to go beyond accepted theories is often to find where those accepted theories start breaking down, and then see how they break down.

semi-extrinsic 12y ago

Sorry, but I have to correct this. 1) It's very far from proven that water pilot wave experiments say anything at all about the quantum world. Most physicist believe they don't tell us anything about it, they just provide a simpler system that "looks quantum". This quote is from the article you linked: “It is not by itself capable of representing very much physics,” Oxford University physics philosopher David Wallace told Quanta earlier this year. 2) Physicists have no problems with handling/removing infinities, just see regularization or renormalization in quantum field theory. 3) In general, this comic applies to anything you read in popsci sources: https://xkcd.com/1240/ https://xkcd.com/1240/

mangeletti 12y ago
Good points. Pertaining the 1st and 3rd points though, an important thing to keep in mind is that a lot of big scientific ideas come from philosophers and even science fiction writers, and I wouldn't be shocked if a few thoughtful comic strips joined the club. Most scientists are just technicians, applying existing knowledge to test existing theories. This means that a scientist doesn't necessarily have more qualified of opinions than any other person does.
- lgas 12y ago
  While technically correct (the best kind of correct!) your final sentence seems to be a fairly ludicrous position to me -- in general scientists spend (quite a lot) more time learning about biases and other flaws in rigorous thinking and how to avoid them, studying and discussing all of that existing knowledge, learning how to perform experiments, performing them, interpreting the results, etc. all of which lead directly to them having a much more qualified opinion than "any other person" does.
- semi-extrinsic 12y ago
  Re: your second-to-last sentence: it may well be that many scientists appear as if they are technicians applying existing knowledge to test theories. But that is partly because the only way to go beyond accepted theories is often to find where those accepted theories start breaking down, and then see how they break down.