Guest Paul Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 A theoretical physicist named Anthony Valentini is in the news, arguing that while quantum mechanics yields useful science, its theory is fundamentally incorrect. http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68...05/Default.aspx Even its proponents acknowledge that many of quantum theory's claims remain speculative. [http://quantumfieldtheory.org/] And yet even a stauch critic like Valentini acknowledges that quantum theory is successful because "it has given us lasers and superconductors and all kinds of things." So what do we do? How will we ever live through the day not knowing? Well, most people don't pay the slightest attention. But with applications of quantum theory yielding tangible results, the field should not be ignored or set aside. The hard part for most people, I think, consists of two things: (1) taking the long view and (2) living with doubt. This does mean that scientists should not devise theories to explain what they see. If Newton, or someone, had not theorized about gravity, the industrial revolution probably could not have occurred; yet his theory of gravity was fundamentally incorrect. [http://www.gravityforthemasses.com/Page2.html] If the scientists who theorized about the double slit experiment Valentini discusses in the linked interview had not formulated and published their theories, we probably would not have lasers or superconductors. A scientific theory is the best explanation we have at the time. It could be wrong, but that doesn't mean that we can afford to disrespect the work behind it, or to dismiss the theory. We need our young people, and our citizens generally, to understand how science advances. If they do not understand it, they will not respect or support it, and that will be to everyone's detriment. That is part of what is happening in our community now. We also need to refrain from thinking that we have final answers to the great questions of nature. More arguing, and perhaps more violence and suffering, are caused by the impatience surrounding this issue, than perhaps anything else. The key is in the method of thinking. This is not being taught adequately in our schools or in our homes, in my opinion. Biggest problem is, reading this is no fun. It seems like being lectured to. What can I tell you? If we want to understand the world and the universe, we may have to put aside our egos for a while and pay attention to the people who know the most about these things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 You have to be one of the most boring people to sit and try to have a conversation with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 You have to be one of the most boring people to sit and try to have a conversation with. You just proved his point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 A theoretical physicist named Anthony Valentini is in the news, arguing that while quantum mechanics yields useful science, its theory is fundamentally incorrect. http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68...05/Default.aspx Even its proponents acknowledge that many of quantum theory's claims remain speculative. [http://quantumfieldtheory.org/] And yet even a stauch critic like Valentini acknowledges that quantum theory is successful because "it has given us lasers and superconductors and all kinds of things." So what do we do? How will we ever live through the day not knowing? Well, most people don't pay the slightest attention. But with applications of quantum theory yielding tangible results, the field should not be ignored or set aside. The hard part for most people, I think, consists of two things: (1) taking the long view and (2) living with doubt. This does mean that scientists should not devise theories to explain what they see. If Newton, or someone, had not theorized about gravity, the industrial revolution probably could not have occurred; yet his theory of gravity was fundamentally incorrect. [http://www.gravityforthemasses.com/Page2.html] If the scientists who theorized about the double slit experiment Valentini discusses in the linked interview had not formulated and published their theories, we probably would not have lasers or superconductors. A scientific theory is the best explanation we have at the time. It could be wrong, but that doesn't mean that we can afford to disrespect the work behind it, or to dismiss the theory. ZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZ Oh excuse me, I must have dozed off. We need our young people, and our citizens generally, to understand how science advances. If they do not understand it, they will not respect or support it, and that will be to everyone's detriment. That is part of what is happening in our community now. We also need to refrain from thinking that we have final answers to the great questions of nature. More arguing, and perhaps more violence and suffering, are caused by the impatience surrounding this issue, than perhaps anything else. The key is in the method of thinking. This is not being taught adequately in our schools or in our homes, in my opinion. Biggest problem is, reading this is no fun. It seems like being lectured to. What can I tell you? If we want to understand the world and the universe, we may have to put aside our egos for a while and pay attention to the people who know the most about these things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 blah, blah, blah............ What qualifications do you have to speak about science? For what I know about you, you are a LAWYER I find really interesting how come Paszkiewicz is not qualified to speak about science because according to you he is a history teacher and doesn't know anything about science. Yet you are a lawyer and it's ok for you to speak about science. Please share with us your credentials. What makes you so QUALIFIED. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 What qualifications do you have to speak about science?For what I know about you, you are a LAWYER I find really interesting how come Paszkiewicz is not qualified to speak about science because according to you he is a history teacher and doesn't know anything about science. Yet you are a lawyer and it's ok for you to speak about science. Please share with us your credentials. What makes you so QUALIFIED. 1. He's a bright guy and he can read. 2. The quality of his argument is what matters. He's making the point that everybody needs to understand basic science. That's why every student has to take some science classes. He's not saying anything controversial or anything that the average person can't understand with a little study. By contrast, Paszkiewicz was and is saying stupid things, things that we know aren't true. 3. Obviously you either didn't read what LaClair wrote, didn't understand it, or you know he's right. If you want to disagree with him, go ahead. But don't display your ignorance by suggesting it's not OK for him to speak about science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 A theoretical physicist named Anthony Valentini is in the news, arguing that while quantum mechanics yields useful science, its theory is fundamentally incorrect. http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68...05/Default.aspx Even its proponents acknowledge that many of quantum theory's claims remain speculative. [http://quantumfieldtheory.org/] And yet even a stauch critic like Valentini acknowledges that quantum theory is successful because "it has given us lasers and superconductors and all kinds of things." So what do we do? How will we ever live through the day not knowing? Well, most people don't pay the slightest attention. But with applications of quantum theory yielding tangible results, the field should not be ignored or set aside. The hard part for most people, I think, consists of two things: (1) taking the long view and (2) living with doubt. This does mean that scientists should not devise theories to explain what they see. If Newton, or someone, had not theorized about gravity, the industrial revolution probably could not have occurred; yet his theory of gravity was fundamentally incorrect. [http://www.gravityforthemasses.com/Page2.html] If the scientists who theorized about the double slit experiment Valentini discusses in the linked interview had not formulated and published their theories, we probably would not have lasers or superconductors. A scientific theory is the best explanation we have at the time. It could be wrong, but that doesn't mean that we can afford to disrespect the work behind it, or to dismiss the theory. We need our young people, and our citizens generally, to understand how science advances. If they do not understand it, they will not respect or support it, and that will be to everyone's detriment. That is part of what is happening in our community now. We also need to refrain from thinking that we have final answers to the great questions of nature. More arguing, and perhaps more violence and suffering, are caused by the impatience surrounding this issue, than perhaps anything else. The key is in the method of thinking. This is not being taught adequately in our schools or in our homes, in my opinion. Biggest problem is, reading this is no fun. It seems like being lectured to. What can I tell you? If we want to understand the world and the universe, we may have to put aside our egos for a while and pay attention to the people who know the most about these things. Interesting how all of this gets ignored. Even the people who responded didn't really respond. Everyone wants the benefits of science but very few are willing to do the work. Don't you dare point it out to them, or they'll get mad at you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2smart4u Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 A theoretical physicist named Anthony Valentini is in the news, arguing that while quantum mechanics yields useful science, its theory is fundamentally incorrect. http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68...05/Default.aspx Even its proponents acknowledge that many of quantum theory's claims remain speculative. [http://quantumfieldtheory.org/] And yet even a stauch critic like Valentini acknowledges that quantum theory is successful because "it has given us lasers and superconductors and all kinds of things." So what do we do? How will we ever live through the day not knowing? Well, most people don't pay the slightest attention. But with applications of quantum theory yielding tangible results, the field should not be ignored or set aside. The hard part for most people, I think, consists of two things: (1) taking the long view and (2) living with doubt. This does mean that scientists should not devise theories to explain what they see. If Newton, or someone, had not theorized about gravity, the industrial revolution probably could not have occurred; yet his theory of gravity was fundamentally incorrect. [http://www.gravityforthemasses.com/Page2.html] If the scientists who theorized about the double slit experiment Valentini discusses in the linked interview had not formulated and published their theories, we probably would not have lasers or superconductors. A scientific theory is the best explanation we have at the time. It could be wrong, but that doesn't mean that we can afford to disrespect the work behind it, or to dismiss the theory. We need our young people, and our citizens generally, to understand how science advances. If they do not understand it, they will not respect or support it, and that will be to everyone's detriment. That is part of what is happening in our community now. We also need to refrain from thinking that we have final answers to the great questions of nature. More arguing, and perhaps more violence and suffering, are caused by the impatience surrounding this issue, than perhaps anything else. The key is in the method of thinking. This is not being taught adequately in our schools or in our homes, in my opinion. Biggest problem is, reading this is no fun. It seems like being lectured to. What can I tell you? If we want to understand the world and the universe, we may have to put aside our egos for a while and pay attention to the people who know the most about these things. I wonder if science can explain how Quantum Mechanics evolved from a puddle of soup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 I wonder if science can explain how Quantum Mechanics evolved from a puddle of soup? You do fixate on this issue, don't you. Do you realize how ignorant your question is? The one thing has nothing to do with the other; no one in science would suggest that Quantum Mechanics evolved from anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.