[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 86 KB, 330x331, 1293394840168.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2281139 No.2281139 [Reply] [Original]

What if quantum mechanics is completely wrong?

>> No.2281146

It can't be completely wrong because it has shown to be experimentally correct.

>> No.2281152

>>2281146
What if the experiments themselves are wrong. What if we're not looking at it correctly?

>> No.2281156

if you mean partly wrong... then a new hypothesis will be made and they will try testing those. Thats the fun part of sciences, if you mess up, you just try with something else.

>> No.2281167
File: 46 KB, 500x338, lucifer (101).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2281167

>> No.2281186

For a field as studied, researched, experimented, verified, tested, and documented as quantum mechanics, it's literally impossible to be "completely wrong." Some of it might be off, but the whole thing? Impossible to happen, there's just too much tested and experimented and verified for that to happen.

But if it were it'll probably get the same treatment as Freud's old works: massive retesting, revisions, reresearching, etc.

>> No.2281196

>>2281146
Thats not how science works!

>> No.2281242

isn't the whole deal of quantum mechanics saying that there may be an universe/possibility where the whole theory is wrong?

>> No.2281247

>>2281242
no

>> No.2281254

>>2281247
Says who?

>> No.2281263

>>2281139
It might be incomplete, but not completely wrong.
Like newtons theories are incomplete, because they don't account for special and general relativity.

>> No.2281270

>>2281254
Says me. Quantum mechanics just gives you the mathematically correct answer to a quantum mechanical problem. It doesn't say anything about alternative universes and such.

>> No.2281280

What if there was on OP who wasn't a troll?

>> No.2281283

>>2281270
If an experiment is incompatible with QM, then some genius out there will revise the current theories to fit with the new data.

For the time being, QM it accurate in predicting numerous physical phenomenon, so practically, it might as well be "right."

>> No.2281376

>>2281186

A long time ago people had working models of the earth being the center of the universe. They had been tested, verified and documented.

They were still completely wrong.

>> No.2281397

>>2281376

Read this. http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

>> No.2281488

>>2281397

Soooo.. you're saying that quantum mechanics is like the theory that the earth is flat? It works well for our practical purposes, and from our current methods of observation appears to be right, but someday we'll realize it was in fact completely wrong?

We're not talking about our overall comprehension of how the universe works here. We're talking about a single, specific system that's relatively new. I think with time our understanding of quantum mechanics is going to evolve and correct itself, just like our understanding of the shape of the earth.

But I have a hard time believing that we got it right the first time. Someday we'll realize that our current understanding of quantum mechanics is laughably crude. Less-wrong than nothing, I guess, but still mostly wrong.

This is a process that a lot of our systems of understanding the universe have to go through. I think it's pretty arrogant to say "Well we can plug in some numbers and they come out supporting this, so it must be right" because, like Asimov said, that's what they did with the flat-world theory.

tldr, quantum mechanics may be better than nothing, but it still has a long way to go.

>> No.2281508

>>2281488

>>Soooo.. you're saying that quantum mechanics is like the theory that the earth is flat?

No, you completely misunderstood. The point was that prior mistakes were made when scientific methodology itself was less rigorous and more error prone. We continue to make mistakes but they are of an ever-diminishing scope.

>> No.2281594

>>2281488

this.

>> No.2281604

>herpherpherfherfherferfeeferferfeefeherp

>> No.2281842

>>2281376
But they weren't scientifically documented and tested, just religiously assumed.

>> No.2281869

every kind of experiment that we were able to imagine and then do proved it.
If you got a better idea them go ahead and do it.
we need more people working in science anyways. Or more people working in useful things in general

>> No.2281876

>>2281376
>They had been tested, verified and documented.

No, they hadn't. Plus there were a number of unsolved problems like retrograde motion. Way to pick a terrible example.

>> No.2281884

>>2281139
Quantum Mechanics is wrong. In a way science demands that all theories are wrong.

inb4 philosophical argument about the difference between mathematical structure of reality and physics

>> No.2281895

what if sun was an orange and rose from OP's left cheek?