Quote from PhysicsForDummies

This statement seems profound

It is not profound

it is rather passé... being ancient history.

What happened to all those Ptolemaic epicyclers post -Kepler?

Quote from RobertBryant

It is not profound

it is rather passé... being ancient history.

What happened to all those Ptolemaic epicyclers post -Kepler?

They went away, over time, because, when a theory comes along that is shown to fit observations and make predictions better than existing theories, it triumphs.

(wikipedia)

Kepler's laws of planetary motion were not immediately accepted. Several major figures such as Galileo and René Descartes completely ignored Kepler's Astronomia nova. Many astronomers, including Kepler's teacher, Michael Maestlin, objected to Kepler's introduction of physics into his astronomy. Some adopted compromise positions. Ismaël Bullialdus accepted elliptical orbits but replaced Kepler's area law with uniform motion in respect to the empty focus of the ellipse, while Seth Ward used an elliptical orbit with motions defined by an equant.^[81][82][83]

Several astronomers tested Kepler's theory, and its various modifications, against astronomical observations. Two transits of Venus and Mercury across the face of the sun provided sensitive tests of the theory, under circumstances when these planets could not normally be observed. In the case of the transit of Mercury in 1631, Kepler had been extremely uncertain of the parameters for Mercury, and advised observers to look for the transit the day before and after the predicted date. Pierre Gassendi observed the transit on the date predicted, a confirmation of Kepler's prediction.^[84] This was the first observation of a transit of Mercury. However, his attempt to observe the transit of Venusjust one month later was unsuccessful due to inaccuracies in the Rudolphine Tables. Gassendi did not realize that it was not visible from most of Europe, including Paris.^[85] Jeremiah Horrocks, who observed the 1639 Venus transit, had used his own observations to adjust the parameters of the Keplerian model, predicted the transit, and then built apparatus to observe the transit. He remained a firm advocate of the Keplerian model.^[86][87][88]

So how does that relate to data being forced to fit theories? It shows that when a more observationally predicted theory comes along it triumphs.

Quote from THHuxleynew

when a theory comes along that is shown to fit observations and make predictions better than existing theories, it triumphs

Triumphs and theory coming along can be separated by decades..

This article details the delayed acceptance by almost two decades

of Einstein's 1905 Theory of Relativity in the UK

Apparently the delay was due to a patriotic allegiance to the ether.

How the Cambridge lecturers rationalized for two decades

the Michelson Morley results /Einstein's explanation is unknown.

Perhaps they just ignored both of these altogether.

https://daily.jstor.org/why-no-one-believed-einstein/

With hindsight, it seems as though scientific breakthroughs sweep quickly to universal acceptance.

A paper is published and everybody says, “Eureka!” But that’s not necessarily the case

.....

As late as 1923, a British physicist despaired his coevals were still “ignorant of Einstein’s work and not very much interested in it.”

British physicists Ebenezer Cunningham and Norman R. Campbell were at first quite lonely introducing Einstein to their countrymen and challenging the “ethereal” view. Campbell seems to have been the only anti-ether voice from 1905 to 1911.

Clearly, national constructions of scientific education are one reason why the infancy of modern physics was so bumpy. According to Goldberg, the University of Cambridge–dominated structure of British physics guided British physicists toward ether.

The scientific status quo was so firmly entrenched that in Britain,

Einstein’s groundbreaking theory fell on deaf ears, floating instead off into the (ahem) ether

Some additional insights into quantum mechanics superposition Cut and pasted from https://www.npr.org/2019/09/13…re-infinite-copies-of-you

Everyone knows we live in a partisan age. It's hard to find any issue these days that people aren't ready to square off on, with sharp, snarky barbs.

While no one will be surprised to find these kinds of arguments playing out about immigration or the importance of NATO, finding it among staid physicists — and about the nature of physical reality — might not be so expected. But all too often over the last 100 years, this has been the case, as scientists have disagreed sharply over the meaning of their greatest and most potent theory known as quantum mechanics.

That's the fraught territory best-selling author and physicist Sean Carroll dives into with his new book Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime. What makes Carroll's new project so worthwhile, though, is that while he is most certainly choosing sides in the debate, he offers us a cogent, clear and compelling guide to the subject while letting his passion for the scientific questions shine through every page.

Quantum mechanics, the study of molecules, atoms and even smaller stuff, is the theory behind computer technology and other modern miracles. But while physicists are experts at using the equations of quantum mechanics to make predictions or build things, they have no experimentally verified agreement about what those equations say about reality. In the face of that dilemma, most physicists have chosen to ignore the problem by "shutting up and calculating," while a small handful have battled over quantum interpretations.

The problem with "interpreting" the equations lies in the many ways quantum mechanics violates our common sense about the world. Carroll's book focuses on one of the basic most forms of quantum weirdness called "superposition." In the standard view of the field — called the Copenhagen interpretation — a quantum particle like an electron can be in many places at once. That's what superposition means. It's only the act of making a measurement — looking at the electron — that forces the particle to take on an existence at just one place.

If that seems weird to you, welcome to the club.

Sean Carroll, however, doesn't like the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. In particular, Carroll doesn't like vague ideas of observers "collapsing" the smeared out superposed electron into a single position just by looking at it. Early on in the book, Carroll asks a series of pointed questions: What precisely do you mean by a "measurement?"; How quickly does it happen?; What exactly constitutes a measuring apparatus?; Does it need to be human or have some amount of consciousness ...?"

The idea that measurements somehow change reality introduces a "spookiness" onto discussions of quantum physics that Carroll thinks is both unnecessary and wrong. Instead, his intention is to prize "clarity over mystery" which leads him, and his readers, to what's known as the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The bulk of Something Deeply Hidden is a really carefully reasoned argument for taking the Many Worlds interpretation seriously as the true path to understanding nature's deepest structures.

But what sets Many Worlds apart from the Copenhagen way of looking at quantum mechanics? It all goes back to that basic weirdness of superposition. The Many Worlds interpretation also begins with the electron superposed, existing many places all at once. But when a measurement is made, it's not the other, unobserved versions of the particle which disappear. Instead, it's the universe branching off into multiple parallel copies of itself.

These copies are the "many worlds" of the Many Worlds interpretation — and each world has an observer in it seeing the electron in a different position. After the split occurs, each of these cosmic copies (with its own copy of the observer) goes on its merry way with new branches occurring each time something quantum mechanical happens. But zillions of quantum mechanical events are occurring zillions of times a second throughout the universe. That means there are a lot of copies of you, me and everything else out there all living parallel lives and all continuously branching off into new parallel versions.

Now if that seems weird to you, welcome to the club.

I count myself among those who find the Many Worlds interpretation a solution to quantum weirdness that's worse than the problem. And, I'm sad to admit, on a bad day I would be a snarky partisan. What makes Something Deeply Hidden so excellent is that, in straight-forward language, Carroll keeps his justification for the Many Worlds view grounded in principles like simplicity and economy of description that scientists should all agree on.

As his previous books have demonstrated, Carroll is an excellent guide through the frontiers of physics for interested laypeople. Those skills are on ample display in the new book as well. Carroll expertly takes his readers through the conundrum quantum mechanics dumps into the laps of scientists in terms of superposition (as well as another form of weirdness called "entanglement"). Then he lays out the argument for why the Many Worlds offers not only a resolution to those difficulties but also a path forward to solving some of physics' most vexing challenges — like the nature of space and time.

It is worth noting, however, that this book does not seem aimed at folks who are entirely new to the subject. It works at a slightly higher level and might prove challenging for those who've never seen the topic at all.

I'd like to be able to say that I came away convinced of Carroll's argument that the Many Worlds interpretation is the right way to view the world. But that didn't happen. I remain someone who believes that quantum physics is trying to teach us that we, the experimenters, are always part of the story (I lean towards what's called Quantum Baysianism or QBism for short. This theory states that the equations of quantum mechanics are always about our knowledge of the electron not the electron by itself).

But convincing people is not Carroll's only intention — which is the books' greatest charm. In a remarkable chapter, Carroll presents a number of the Many World's competitor interpretations (including QBIsm) in a wonderfully fair and balanced way. Most important, though, Carroll wants readers to see how remarkable the questions quantum mechanics poses are in-and-of-themselves. In my favorite chapter, Carroll imagines a gentle debate between a philosopher of science and her physicist father. The skeptical dad wants his daughter to explain why anyone would believe in the Many Worlds interpretation. After doing an admirable job of countering her father's criticisms, Carroll puts these words in her mouth:

Quote

"...whether or not I've convinced you of anything at all, this [problem quantum mechanics poses] is what all thoughtful physicists should be talking about. What matters to me is not that everyone [accept the Many Worlds interpretation] but that people take the challenge of understanding quantum mechanics seriously"

"

Quote from Max Nozin

socio-physics or what?

post-modernism physics

QBism

"All probabilities, including those equal to zero or one, are valuations that an agent ascribes to his or her degrees of belief in possible outcomes. As they define and update probabilities, quantum states (density operators), channels (completely positive trace-preserving maps), and measurements (positive operator-valued measures) are also the personal judgements of an agent.

Quote from Max Nozin

sound like machine generated nonsense

Unfortunately it is not machine but human generated . not an experimental physicist though

"Those QBists who find this approach promising are pursuing a complete reconstruction of quantum theory featuring the urgleichung as the key postulate"

Why every thread on this forum gets off topic?

Edit: My comment on Sean's Carroll rants about quantum probability

Quote

Zephirs of the world who are killing the credibility of real LENR research

My comment wasn't about LENR at all.

Quote from axil

Some additional insights into quantum mechanics superposition

QM is an engineering tool. Nothing more. It's based on half (potentials only) of the known world, we know, and QM was never fundamental.

The lack of QM = being not able to derive any fundamental quality did lead to shadow discussions driven by shadow arguments. In psychological terms: You show to be exactly what you not are/never can be.

It's time to debunk all the nonsense written in behalf of QM being a serious (fundamental) physical theory.

Of course QM is fine for tiny potential physics as e.g. given in electronics. It also works half way in chemistry. It is also not wrong as Mills sometimes dreams - it is just quite often inadequate.

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

The "many worlds" theory in quantum mechanics suggests that with every decision you make, a new universe springs into existence containing what amounts to a new version of you. Bestselling author and theoretical physicist Sean Carroll discusses the concept and his new book, "Something Deeply Hidden," with NewsHour Weekend's Tom Casciato.

https://www.quantamagazine.org…ical-principles-20190213/

The Born rule, which converts quantum mechanical wave functions to precise predictions, was essentially a good guess.

@clarifier

As you speak about him, I have some remarks to say also concerning axil .

he is actually a fountain of ideas, some people could say that he's only copy/paste but know, guy, at ICCF most of the work was also copy / pasted.

I don't remember that he was deliberately negative towards other bloggers ?

His life is not only geared to spit on Rossi, he shared some interesting things too.

As "surface plasmons concept" ( he shared often) patented by Google recently which already makes obsolete a possible patent around R20 Mizuno, for example.

I have never heard your analysis on these topics ?

Quote from clarifier

And how Do You get informed about nonsense of this deluted freak ?

Apparently You and othr mods already are "sick and tired" to clean up afterr axil's mess.

Quote from clarifier

And how Do You get informed about nonsense of this deluted freak ?

Apparently You and othr mods already are "sick and tired" to clean up afterr axil's mess.