...... truly considered a "physical anomaly”?
2006-08-17 08:45:44 · 4 answers · asked by lowonbrain 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Jabberwock - My point exactly; all you did was paraphrase my question! You did NOT tell me what YOU think!
2006-08-17 09:06:47 · update #1
Jabberwock - I am afraid you still haven't answered my question! And btw, Quantum Mechanics is NOT, and I repeat is NOT, "merely" based on experimental observations. That's an unfortunate and limiting line of hooey that they teach freshmen level physics students, which in turn gets mindlessly regurgitated ad nauseam. ... The general body of scientific knowledge (quantum mechanical or otherwise) includes countless and highly plausible, but as yet NOT experimentally observed, hypothesis and hypothetical objects, notions and particles (e.g. Supuerstring Theory - which by definition is not a theory yet - being one of them). ... The scientific method is not merely restricted to explaining immediately observable phenomena.
2006-08-17 10:55:37 · update #2
if that is so then the answer is no. wouldn't the probabilities have to include everything?...what do you do lay awake at night thinking of ways to make me feel stupid?
2006-08-17 10:34:15 · answer #1 · answered by sheepherder 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The wave function gives us the probability for a system being in a given state. What you call anomalous behavior could be some state that has a low probability.
What I think or what you think has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It is based on experimental observation.
The scientific method IS based on observation. Chemistry and physics are experimental sciences.
Theory follows experiment. What you THINK or FEEL have no place in physics or chemistry. You need to be in the Social Sciences.
2006-08-17 15:55:06 · answer #2 · answered by Jabberwock 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, first of all there is no unified field wave function![1]
In fact is The holy grail of theoretical physics.
If there was -- sure there would be no anomalies. And if some were ever found -- they would prove that the formula is incorrect.
2006-08-17 17:46:29 · answer #3 · answered by hq3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
cold duck time....round on me~ quantum mechanical wave you could not have been thinking about the scattering JAVA applet intergrates~ You know how smart I am.....more duck
In the future you will beable to go to a porting station and go any where you want~ beam me up Scotty
2006-08-19 01:46:22 · answer #4 · answered by MissChatea 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋