tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post5949142861604074224..comments2024-01-15T16:21:42.238+02:00Comments on Unitary Flow: Will science end after the last experiment will be performed?Cristi Stoicahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00577217435388643300noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-89789310514796265602014-09-26T08:08:51.342+03:002014-09-26T08:08:51.342+03:00Florin, I expect that the strong statements I made...Florin, I expect that the strong statements I made here will be rejected on the spot, but let me show you my arguments. To make what I said more specific to your own domain of expertise, (and also to test the theory about science I sketched here) I have two questions:<br /><br />1. When was performed <b>the last relevant experiment</b> in the foundations of quantum mechanics? I mean, an experiment that tests new principles, and not that just verifies again and again the same postulates of QM. These were verified already many decades ago. In my humble opinion, ever since, we are just closing very unlikely loopholes, make experiments more complex, increase the distances between entangled particles, or test quantum engineering consequences. Even things like quantum teleportation are just consequences of QM as it is known for almost 90 years.<br /><br />2. In how many cases can the <b>reconstruction of QM</b> be tested? How would you be able for example to falsify the idea that QM is a consequence of the invariance under tensor composition? This may work fine mathematically, but what experiment would distinguish your reconstruction among the others? If it can't be tested, would you consider that this is not science?<br /><br />I attended earlier this year a conference where reconstruction of QM was very well represented. I remember that, whenever one proposed principles which made distinct predictions from QM, for example different correlations, one tried to adjust them. Apparently to be like those of QM, which implicitly is considered to correspond to reality.<br /><br />There are so many physicists, how many of them get the chance to make an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimentum_crucis" rel="nofollow">experimentum crucis</a>?<br /><br />My own view is that now research in the foundations of QM not only continues to be done, but the number of papers increased dramatically. Yet, I think that for many decades foundations of QM are in the post-empirical stage, or at least on a break (from experiments). But I don't think this means that foundations of QM are not science.Cristi Stoicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00577217435388643300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-44928640809702031872014-09-26T02:39:50.780+03:002014-09-26T02:39:50.780+03:00The blessing/curse of physics is that it has to de...The blessing/curse of physics is that it has to describe reality.<br /><br />In the absence of new experiments, there are a huge bunch of half-baked "model theories" predicting unicorns whose existence is well hidden by fine tuning of model parameters. <br /><br />Smolin was right, physics is in trouble. Deep structural trouble. When the last experiment will be performed, just like in H.G. Well's "The Time Machine" story, theoretical physicists will become the ineffectual Eloi.Florin Moldoveanuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01087655914212705768noreply@blogger.com