Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Talk

smbc-comics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: The Talk

#31

Post by patall »

cm127 wrote: post #28

I'm starting to become skeptical of our understanding of quantum mechanics because we completely discredited a common theory with only one experiment over a hundred years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_exper... We never recreated the experiment again until Ernest Wilbur Silvertooth did about one-hundred years later in the 1980s. He found a possible connection to the Ether, but by this poi…

The wikipedia article you link tells the exact opposite story, with more than 30 (did not count) experiments that followed until 2009.

Re: The Talk

#33

Post by cm127 »

andylei wrote: post #30
cm127 wrote: post #28

I'm starting to become skeptical of our understanding of quantum mechanics because we completely discredited a common theory with only one experiment over a hundred years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_exper... We never recreated the experiment again until Ernest Wilbur Silvertooth did about one-hundred years later in the 1980s. He found a possible connection to the Ether, but by this poi…

the article you linked says the experiment has been "repeated many times with increasing sensitivity" in the early 1900s

The point is so much of our conclusions are based off of these null hypothesis. It's like saying the iPhone will never succeed because so many other "smart" devices at the time were terrible.

Re: The Talk

#35

Post by timmaxw »

cm127 wrote: post #28

I'm starting to become skeptical of our understanding of quantum mechanics because we completely discredited a common theory with only one experiment over a hundred years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_exper... We never recreated the experiment again until Ernest Wilbur Silvertooth did about one-hundred years later in the 1980s. He found a possible connection to the Ether, but by this poi…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Re: The Talk

#36

Post by cm127 »

timmaxw wrote: post #35
cm127 wrote: post #28

I'm starting to become skeptical of our understanding of quantum mechanics because we completely discredited a common theory with only one experiment over a hundred years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_exper... We never recreated the experiment again until Ernest Wilbur Silvertooth did about one-hundred years later in the 1980s. He found a possible connection to the Ether, but by this poi…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Is that where they explain particle-wave duality, or is that where they pretend it's not an issue?

Re: The Talk

#37

Post by [deleted] »

cm127 wrote: post #36
timmaxw wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Is that where they explain particle-wave duality, or is that where they pretend it's not an issue?

[deleted]

Re: The Talk

#38

Post by jcranmer »

cm127 wrote: post #33
andylei wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the article you linked says the experiment has been "repeated many times with increasing sensitivity" in the early 1900s

The point is so much of our conclusions are based off of these null hypothesis. It's like saying the iPhone will never succeed because so many other "smart" devices at the time were terrible.

> The point is so much of our conclusions are based off of these null hypothesis.

Quantum mechanics, special relativity, and general relativity (I'm not sure which ones you're objecting to here) all have strong predictive power. The fact that we can build extensions of these theories and see experimental validation of those theories is itself support for the underlying principles. With quantum mechanics, you can explain atomic spectra, crystal field splitting, aromaticity and antiaromaticity, vagaries of chemical bonding--and that's only in the domain of chemistry. Special relativity can also explain, say, why there is a stable Pb²⁺ ion.

Re: The Talk

#39

Post by cm127 »

jcranmer wrote: post #38
cm127 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is so much of our conclusions are based off of these null hypothesis. It's like saying the iPhone will never succeed because so many other "smart" devices at the time were terrible.

> The point is so much of our conclusions are based off of these null hypothesis. Quantum mechanics, special relativity, and general relativity (I'm not sure which ones you're objecting to here) all have strong predictive power. The fact that we can build extensions of these theories and see experimental validation of those theories is itself support for the underlying principles. With quantum mechanics, you can expl…

That's like saying computers and laptops are so great -- we'll never need smart phones. Sure, classical devices / models are great and proven true, -- but that's still a limited view based on previous biases.

I know that's a terrible analogy, but proving GR kinda works doesn't really disprove the Ether, either.

Re: The Talk

#40

Post by openasocket »

cm127 wrote: post #39
jcranmer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is so much of our conclusions are based off of these null hypothesis. Quantum mechanics, special relativity, and general relativity (I'm not sure which ones you're objecting to here) all have strong predictive power. The fact that we can build extensions of these theories and see experimental validation of those theories is itself support for the underlying principles. With quantum mechanics, you can expl…

That's like saying computers and laptops are so great -- we'll never need smart phones. Sure, classical devices / models are great and proven true, -- but that's still a limited view based on previous biases. I know that's a terrible analogy, but proving GR kinda works doesn't really disprove the Ether, either.

We have evidence showing General Relativity is true, we have the Michelson–Morley experiment showing that there is no "aether wind" predicted by the Ether theory. Do you have any experiments supporting the Ether?
Post reply on HN