Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: dr_lew

“This does not prove Quantum Mechanics wrong.”

But if the predictions are wrong, then how can you say that?

In fact, it is the “fantastic accuracy” of the predictions that has been cited by physicists as proof that the theory is right.

I think that what you’re trying to say is that they did their math wrong, and that the theory itself is not the problem. But how do you know? I think that the physicists like to use lofty language to describe the success of the theory because of the need to convince doubters, but in reality, it does not measure up to the claims.

The crown achievement of quantum mechanics, for example, is Feynman’s calculation of the charge of an electron. He calculated it to... I forget... something like the 32nd decimal point? But what is often not mentioned is that no one has ever measured the charge to that level of accuracy, so no one really knows that the prediction is correct. They only know that it he made a very precise PREDICTION. And sometimes, physicists use inexact verbiage and claim that he made an “accurate” prediction instead of a “precise” one.

In fact, there has been very little comparison of the predicted probabilities to the actual probabilities.


22 posted on 02/05/2010 5:45:38 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: Brilliant
I think that what you’re trying to say is that they did their math wrong, and that the theory itself is not the problem.

That's not it. QM provides the pots and pans and the kitchen to cook up a theory, but you have to bring the different ingredients for each type of interaction. The Dirac equation describes the behavior of electrons, and Dirac bragged that it "explains all of chemistry and most of physics". Of course the equation only has meaning in terms of the matrices, operators, and other apparatus of QM.

Today's particle physics depends on the "Standard Model" largely developed in the 1950's through the 1970's. Frankly most of it is beyond my ken, but it also is formulated in the context of QM. It is this "Standard Model" which might be the more worthy focus of your scorn.

To add my own 2 cents. My immediate thought was that this increase in meson production, were it to be amplified as they go to higher energies, could constitute an impenetrable fog which brings all their high hopes and expectations to naught.

23 posted on 02/05/2010 6:13:49 PM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson