I just had a crazy thought

Occam's razor.

Adding another spacial dimension to the universe to explain one phenomenon would be an extreme case of needless multiplication of entities.

It is much much more likely that the postulates of relativity are wrong.

 

Actually it is a good guideline. That you think it isn't is because you are following what is essentially the ptolemaic mainstream of physics -- wherein whenever something breaks they just add a new hypothetical entity to 'fix the problem'. For example now apparently 90% of the universe is intangible untestable untouchable unseeable immutable 'dark matter'. Instead of accounting for their missing force by I don't know, looking at one of the other four fundamental forces, they suppose the universe is full of black icky stuff which adds more gravity. Good idea.

Nature isn't arbitrarily complex. When you propose a hypothesis that assumes numerous unprovable/untestable entities you are engaging in religion, not science.

Both theories of gravity are shit. Hypothesizing that space, i.e. the absence of matter, has attributes is a contradiction in terms. You fall so readily into the trap of 'if the math works then the theory is correct.' This is pure bullshit. You can fit a curve to anything. That doesn't mean you understand how it works.

See previous point.

Right, you just have to give up finite speed of information transfer.

Information IS transferred faster than the speed of light.

Quantum physicists the world over would have you believe that the wave function is a mathematical construct -- that it is not real. But if the wave function is not real, then how can a particle really be in a super-position of states? The wave function IS real, as a description of physical states. In Copenhagen the 'wave function collapse' is, in physical literal REAL terms, the changing of a physical object from the state of being in a superposition to the state of being in a single finite position.

You must understand that the superposition can span over an infinite distance. How can a particle with a superposition that spans all of space snap to a single point, instantaneously, at the collapse of the wave function (a real physical change in state) without information transfer at faster than light speed? It cannot. If the other end of the universe did not know that the wave function had been collapsed then surely it could be collapsed at the other end whilst the 'wave of collapse' was still in transit -- that information having not arrived. But this is unacceptable in quantum. This would ruin the model.

I might add that no one at your university will be able to tell you what a wave function is in explicit non-contradictory terms or whether or not it is real. Don't try to ask them because they will become hostile. No one seems to know what the fuck it is or what the fuck they are doing in quantum but they all get paid for it so who cares apparently? But if you are interested in solving the real and significant contradictions of quantum I would direct you at De Broglie–Bohm. Remember however that if you ever did fix physics the world's governments would fund bomb making with the advances and try to kill everyone. It has happened before.

 

If dark matter is a testable hypothesis then what is the test? "Search for it by smashing atoms together" is not a test. I could say that god is the reason the universe exists, and you just need to find the god particle. Search for it by smashing atoms together. Is that science? No.

Neutrinos are another hypothetical particle.

It is extremely easy after being exposed to university level physics to transpose experimental evidence for math. However this is not how science works. Everything you put on your whiteboard exists only through induction. Percepts are integrated into concrete concepts by a thinking mind, and then over many many iterations concrete concepts become abstract concepts. This is how math, the laws of physics, logic itself, everything is formed. But it is all still based on empirical evidence. Empirical evidence trumps everything.

So let's consider the evidence. What evidence do you have that gravity bends light at all? Light bends around the sun. Some bits of the universe look like other bits of the universe. This is not very strong evidence.

What evidence do you have that the universe is expanding at several times the speed of light? Fainter stars appear more red shifted. Doppler effect causes a red shift here on earth. It does not necessarily follow that the red shift in stars is caused by the same mechanism. Again, extremely weak physical evidence for a hypothesis as sweeping and difficult to test as the infinitely expanding universe.

Burden of proof is on the claimant in science. The debunker does not need a better theory in order to debunk or throw into doubt an existing theory. We know almost nothing about the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Ptolemaic_system

You can correctly calculate the positions of the stars with an intricate enough mathematical model even whilst holding the incorrect assumptions that 1/ everything revolves around the earth and 2/ that every celestial body moves in perfect circles only. Of course neither of these assumptions is correct, but the curve can be fit regardless.

It is a fallacy, a nonsequitor, to say that "if the math works then the theory is correct." If the math works, then the curve fits. It has no bearing on the qualitative theory. One can fit a curve to ANY data set with no knowledge of the underlying parameters and variables. One can construct a whole ridiculous story --- ex-post facto --- to explain the curve. Keynesian economics is a good example of this. It means all of nothing. A sound theory is one built from first principles where the first principles are consistent with observation. Relativity does not fit this description.

This is equivocation, which is what I expected. You can't have it both ways. Either the wave function is a complete description of the particle -- in which case it is a physical description of the particle -- or it is not. You want to tell me that the particle has an undefined physical state and yet the physical state is perfectly defined by the wave function. Indeed the very idea that matter can have an 'undefined state' is absurd on its face. If it lacks definition then how can be it be.

You need philosophy to be a real physicist. If you can't understand why things need to be internally consistent and built from first principles then you will be stuck in the Keynesian-esque curve fitting school of fish.

Copenhagen and Debroglie Bohm are not the same theory. Again you fall into the trap of math = science. It does not. The consequences of a deterministic model of the universe are much more important than you have considered. God does not play dice.

One of the key contradictions in copenhagen is this idea that everything is a probability wave or a wave function. However probability is defined in terms of certainty. Yet at the lowest and most basic level of matter in compenhagen, nothing is certain.

To illustrate what I mean, if I were to explain probability to a 6 year old, I would use a dice. I would say: The dice has 6 sides -- this is a certain fact, and the dice will land on just one of those 6 sides -- this is a certain fact. From these certain facts I can now reason about the various possibilities of throwing the dice with unknown starting parameters. I could get any of the 6 faces pointing up.

In Copenhagen, it is assumed that probability is a valid concept however it is also assumed that nothing is certain. Probability only comes about through deterministic certainty. This is a contradiction. There are many more and this is why you need rational philosophy (particularly epistemology and metaphysics) if you want to actually do something useful with physics. If you can't understand and avoid contradictions you will never be talking about physical reality.

 

If I'm not mistaken the cumulative evidence for neutrinos consists of a few blips on heavily amplified photo detectors underground. Indeed, the only reason they were even looked for was to make a hypothesis work. (This is called confirmation bias.)

This is not really a rebuttal. The idea that gravity can bend light is currently untestable. You cannot isolate the variables for an experiment. For example all large celestial bodies are surrounded by (or composed of) gas. How do you propose to control your variables and ensue that light isn't being bent via traditional / classical optics around the sun? The second 'evidence' for gravitational lensing is literally that some parts of the universe look like mirror images of other parts. But again, with confirmation bias you can look and find a part that naturally looks like a mirror of another part. You can call that evidence but it isn't.

As I said before the math can work yet the qualitative theory can be completely wrong. General and special relativity rest on the postulate that information cannot travel faster than light speed. However this is in contradiction with the empirical observations of quantum mechanics.

If the wave function is a complete description then it is a physical description. If it is a physical description then the universe is explicitly non-local.

Your willingness to throw reason under the bus in order to make your textbooks fit on the shelf next to eachother is called being religious. If you want to be a scientist you need more rigor. Think for yourself and don't accept blindly what the mainstream tells you. At every point in history hitherto the mainstream in physics has been essentially wrong according to the next group of physicists that come along. Try not to forget that.

Good lord. The geo centric model of the universe requires acceleration of every body in the universe except earth. Don't you remember anything from your garbled relativity courses? Acceleration is a real event that changes the way things are.

NO.

Again you would have me believe that the wave function is not real but that it is real at the same time.

If the wave function is a complete description of the particle THEN it is a physical description of the particle. It is not an approximation, it is the actual state of the particle.

You want to have it both ways -- you want to say its an approximation and that the particle is in an 'undefined state' until you apply your mod squared. This is bullshit. The particle IS the wave-function -- and it continues to be until you apply your mod squared (i.e. invoke 'observation'.) That is what Copenhagen is really saying. Openly contradicting themselves, they say that that the particle is 'in an undefined state' which is 'explained perfectly by the wave function'. If you can't even see this basic contradiction you have no hope to get anywhere in quantum.

But now I am just repeating myself.

Learn just a little bit of philosophy and you can debunk 90% of the nonsense in quantum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

If you are interested in the reality behind the math do a Socratic examination. None of the lecturers while I was studying physics could answer the contradictions in Copenhagen. It is not a lack of understanding on your or my part -- if you have read the textbook then you have read the textbook. It is rather that Copenhagen cannot be understood because it is not internally consistent. It hides its contradictions behind the quantum formalism but will never answer you the three basic questions to satisfaction: 1/ What IS the wave function? 2/ What IS observation, why does it cause wave function collapse and why are we the only ones able to do it? 3/ How can everything be a probability when probability itself, in order to be a valid concept, requires deterministic certainty?

The final secret of Copenhagen they don't want you to admit to know is that wave function itself is a non-local hidden variable.

If you consider De Broglie–Bohm: The universe is deterministic AND non-local, the wave function is a real physical field, and humans or 'observers' are not special and 'wave function collapse' is our discovery of the non-local hidden variables. It is a sensible interpretation of the empirical evidence for quantum mechanics. This doesn't mean its right, but in order to get anywhere with a hypothesis you first need one which is internally consistent (which Copenhagen is not.)

But by all means go back to Copenhagen and continue to ignore the contradictions. After all science has become a pay cheque, not a quest for knowledge. People aren't interested in the truth, but rather in how much grant money they can scrape together.

Source: 6 years of university education including 2 of physics.

 

No, it is confirmation bias. See if you can understand the difference between them:

Unfortunately most scientists exhibit confirmation bias in not considering the set of all possible hypotheses which might explain the results of an experiment.

Consider the difference between these the following two examples:
1/ A new drug is discovered, a random control group is set up which is given a placebo, and a second random drug group is set up which is given the drug. Both groups are statistically large. After the testing period the control group has a mortality twice that of the drug group. The conclusion drawn is not confirmation bias.

2/ A theory requires that in order to explain the shape of the human hand, a prehistoric man with a hand of seven fingers must have existed. Research groups dig up hundreds of ancient bodies looking for a skeleton and find one with seven fingers. They then conclude that this theory must be correct, for the man with seven fingers was found. This conclusion IS confirmation bias. It is not scientific.

Do you understand the difference?

The problems with the neutrino are 1/ it is a hypothetical particle designed to explain away a problem in a theory and 2/ cannot be directly detected 3/ it is not well defined. The experiments done for it cannot DISPROVE the hypothesis, they can only prove it. Therefore you have inherent confirmation bias at work. When the experiment is modified enough and the hypothesis is modified enough, eventually the criteria for 'proof' will be satisfied, whether or not it actually exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Flavor_oscillations

The neutrino is whatever they want it to be, whenever they want it to be. It 'changes its flavours'. It is a stop-gap to explain where spin goes in beta decay, just as the 'higgs-boson' is a stop gap to explain why massy particles have mass.

I'm not against the neutrino, there's a slim possibility it could actually exist. However a simpler explanation should be sought than an invisible almost massless almost non-interacting magical particle which randomly changes to whatever is useful at the time of detection.

I'll save you the work. Gravitational lensing just uses snells' law at the end of the day.

I'll point out also that there is evidence standing against gravitational deflection of light which I've never seen anyone bother to answer. See: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/eclipse/

But beyond the evidence, let's return to the argument briefly:
1/ Light is a massless particle.
2/ Gravity bends light
3/ But gravity can't bend light because gravity is a function of mass.
4/ Therefore the mass of the star must instead bend 'space itself', so that light takes a 'longer path' and 'appears bent'.

When mass 'bends space', what is the equal and opposite reaction of space on the mass? Or isn't there one.

General Relativity doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to give attributes to space -- that is to give attributes to the absence of that which exists. What General Relativity really is then is an aether theory: It says that the aether is affected by the mass, and that the light travels through the aether and takes longer due to the effect.

There are about a thousand other problems with it in logical terms but we can save those for another day. But just to re-iterate this is an insane multiplication of entities. Every point in space must now contain localized aether. Almost any other explanation would require fewer entities.

Hanging a lantern on a contradiction doesn't make it less of one. Further, again, redefining concepts by putting the word quantum on the front is just the fallacy of moving the goalposts AND floating abstraction fallacy. Again: Probability is based on certainty. But Copenhagen would have you believe that certainty is based on probability. A complete and total contradiction. And they do this by just calling it quantum probability, or a wave function, or whatever.

This is begging the question fallacy. What IS the wave function? Your answer was: " a complex-valued function roughly analogous to the amplitude of a wave at each point in space". In otherwords your answer is that a wave function is a function that looks like a wave.

If you can't see why that's not an answer I can't help you. Synonyms aren't definitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

The second question you answered again in bold with: "measurement is only a particular type of interaction where some data is recorded and the measured quantity is forced into a particular eigenstate." Again this is begging the question. What is said here is "measurement is when the wave function collapses." It then goes on to say: "The act of measurement is therefore not fundamentally different from any other interaction." This is just a contradiction. If measurement is not fundamentally different from any other interaction then there is no wave function. Any interaction between anything would collapse the wave function. This doesn't answer at all why wave function collapse can only be invoked by human beings either.

I already did. If you want to understand then you should read the links I give you. As an exercise why don't you try to explain to me what probability is without assuming that the universe is causal.

Irrelevant. When you attempt the above exercise you will immediately hit a performative contradiction. Philosophy is important and you don't know the first thing about it. How are you supposed to study the physical world when you don't understand 1/ What a thing is, 2/ What makes a thing true, and 3/ What is a valid concept.

 

The argument that classical information cannot be transferred (by an experimenter) and therefore no information is transferred is a non-sequitur. The other end of the universe must know about the collapse of the wave function instantaneously. This is information transfer.

I'm not denying any observationally confirmed facts. The results of all experiments are open to interpretation -- this is called being a scientist. That you believe whatever you are told in a textbook or by your teachers is called being a zealot. Further, if you understood logic a bit better you would know that no replacement hypothesis is needed to discredit an existing one. Indeed this would be shifting the burden of proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

This is called basing your understanding of the world on faith and the beliefs of others.

It is completely irrelevant to the nature of things -- the physics of the universe -- what other scientists believe and how strongly they believe those things.

All that matters in science is the evidence, the logical consistency of the theories that explain it, and the predictive power of those theories. It seems you are not concerned with any one of these three, but rather only with how many and which people believe in what. This is why you are engaged in religion, not science.

If there's one thing I would have you take away, it would be this: Where you see contradictions in physics, the physics is wrong. Logical consistency is of paramount importance in physics. 'The math makes accurate predictions sometimes' is not a substitute for logical consistency.

I expect you'll do quite well in your degree. The less you question them the better marks you'll get. You might even manage a job in physics ... what few there are to be had.

 

Final quote: