I see a couple of trends here. You reject QM and AGW - both widely accepted theories.
Me to. You don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Both QM and AGW are hypotheses. A hypothesis A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability. In order for a hypothesis to move up to the status of theory, it must be extensively tested by experiment and be able to make accurate predictions.
It's funny how defensive you guys are over QM. There are people who spend every day searching for a single contradiction in the theory of relativity which will be enough to justify discarding it. QM fails at the most basic level (the hydrogen atom) and is chock full of contradictions and yet, people cling to it much as they cling to AGW even though the hypothesis is failing majestically.
No experiment has ever been done that demonstrates that adding X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere will result in Y amount of warming...all of its predictions have failed, the models of the hypothesis are invariably wrong and yet you believe and question anyone who doesn't. Perhaps you should question yourself.
you do not reject them because of any significant flaw, but because - you claim - they can not cover some portion of their intended or applicable domain.
You really aren't paying attention. I reject them because as hypotheses, they have failed. A single failed prediction or contradiction is cause to go back to the drawing board. Both have failed more than once.
QM has been experimentally verified so many times that rejecting it is simply not justifiable. I begin to see why others have developed the opinions of you that they have.
Some small portions of QM have been experimentally verified. As a general hypothesis, it is so full of contradictions, failures, and ad hoc fixes, that it is not viable. Don't suppose that because some small portion of a hypothesis has been proven that the hypothesis in general is ready to be called a theory.
Here is a set of lecture notes from MIT (certainly credible where physics is concerned) discussing and describing some of the myriad of problems with QM. Maybe some reading on your part is in order.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2006/lecture-notes/lecture2.pdf
QM is another attempt to explain things that we don't understand....not a fully tested hypothesis ready to be called a theory.
**********************************************************************
Abraham3 said:
I see a couple of trends here. You reject QM and AGW - both widely accepted theories.
SSDD said:
Me to. You don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
Don't be stupid. Of course I do. Both QM and AGW have survived sufficient testing that very large majorities of experts in their respective fields accept them as theories. Your opinion counts for very, very little in this regard. They are theories.
SSDD said:
Both QM and AGW are hypotheses.
Whether or not you accept them, you are aware that the vast majority of scientists do. Thus this statement is false and you know it to be so.
SSDD said:
A hypothesis A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability. In order for a hypothesis to move up to the status of theory, it must be extensively tested by experiment and be able to make accurate predictions.
And both theories have done so. When 97% of the world's climate scientists believe that Nikolov's and Zeller's ATE has met the goals that AGW has met, you will be able to say that it has moved from hypothesis to theory.
SSDD said:
It's funny how defensive you guys are over QM.
Defensive? I find it funny how poor you are at characterizing our behavior. Rejecting AGW and QM is foolish and we have made that point clear. We have not grown defensive about QM. It hardly needs us to defend it - it does an excellent job on its own. The published literature on the topic clearly shows your rejection is unwarranted. This, of course, reinforces my
hypothesis that your rejection is made in order to appear iconoclastic and has nothing to do with the theory's technical merits.
SSDD said:
There are people who spend every day searching for a single contradiction in the theory of relativity which will be enough to justify discarding it. QM fails at the most basic level (the hydrogen atom) and is chock full of contradictions and yet, people cling to it much as they cling to AGW even though the hypothesis is failing majestically.
Newtonian mechanics fails at both the Planck and relativistic scales. QM actually works at Newtonian scales as they become equivalent in extremis. Have you rejected Newtonian mechanics? Every physicist on the planet is aware of the domain conflict between QM, Newtonian mechanics and Relativity. If you think this is a show-stopper, you are about 70 years behind the times. Each theory has a range of scale at
which it is valid. These ranges are known. Researchers continue to search for a unified theory. Until they do, when they need a theory to predict behavior and interactions at the Planck scale, they will use QM and their results will be completely satisfactory.
I am tickled a bit by your claim of QM's failing with a hydrogen atom's electron cloud. How many electrons would that be? And in what way do you believe QM is unable to solve for the electron's position or momentum? Do you think Heisenberg refutes QM? Can you solve a three-body problem with Newtonian mechanics?
SSDD said:
No experiment has ever been done that demonstrates that adding X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere will result in Y amount of warming.
There are thousands of experiments that can be and have been perfomed to that end. Let me guess, you reject out of hand any such experiment that doesn't use the entirety of the Earth. That climate sensitivity is under debate does not refute the Greenhouse
Effect or AGW. No one has suggested that sensitivity is non-positive... unless you'd like to give that a shot.
SSDD said:
..all of its predictions have failed
They have? Show us a model that can recreate the planet's climate of the last 150 years without assuming AGW. The predictions of AGW-assuming models are orders of magnitude more accurate than the predictions of models that do NOT assume AGW.
I find it odd that you try to apply the term "failed" where it is obviously not applicable. The accuracy of a model's predictions is a measure with multipart parameters. They are not pass/fail, go/nogo.
SSDD said:
the models of the hypothesis are invariably wrong and yet you believe and question anyone who doesn't. Perhaps you should question yourself.
Your opinion of these models is not shared by the people who use them.
Abraham3 said:
you do not reject them because of any significant flaw, but because - you claim - they can not cover some portion of their intended or applicable domain.
SSDD said:
You really aren't paying attention. I reject them because as hypotheses, they have failed. A single failed prediction or contradiction is cause to go back to the drawing board. Both have failed more than once.
Abraham3 said:
QM has been experimentally verified so many times that rejecting it is simply not justifiable. I begin to see why others have developed the opinions of you that they have.
SSDD said:
Some small portions of QM have been experimentally verified. As a
general hypothesis, it is so full of contradictions, failures, and ad
hoc fixes, that it is not viable. Don't suppose that because some small
portion of a hypothesis has been proven that the hypothesis in general
is ready to be called a theory.
Here is a set of lecture notes from MIT (certainly credible where
physics is concerned) discussing and describing some of the myriad of
problems with QM. Maybe some reading on your part is in order.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8...s/lecture2.pdf
<
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2006/l
ecture-notes/lecture2.pdf>
QM is another attempt to explain things that we don't understand....not
a fully tested hypothesis ready to be called a theory.
From your link:
Problems with/failures of QM
* No model for some macroscopic quantum behavior (high-critical temperature superconductivity),
this is likely to be solved within QM.
* QM is incompatible with general relativity.
This is likely to be solved outside QM, within some bigger theory. (string theory?)
* Interpretation ambiguities of mathematical structure of QM: -Role of measurement -Determinism vs. probability. . . "The old one does not roll dice." -Transition from microscopic quantum mechanical to macroscopic quantum behavior...(Schrodinger's cat, "dead and alive") -Entanglement and hidden-variables. . . (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, Bell's
inequalities) -Bohr's (& Born's) Copenhagen Interpretation vs."many-worlds-theory"
None of these are falsifications of QM. And I see no mention of the electron cloud of a hydrogen atom. Try again if you like, but you're wasting everyone's time and this is off-topic to boot.
