Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Bang
That being said then why isn’t it possibly that some of our scientific conclusions may be in error.
|
Of course they could, but you need a reasonable demonstration that something is in error. Any theory you throw out needs to be more predictive (or at least AS predictive) as the theory you want to replace.
Quote:
|
An example might be the plethora of short lived subatomic particles found over the past forty years is astounding. Why isn’t there a possibility that all those particles may be repeatable waveforms ( repeatable in a certain percentage of collisions and energies ) that appear to have charge and mass? No one knows what an electromagnetic wave looks like so how do we know for certain that there are no short lived waveforms that exhibit charge and mass?
|
First, particles ARE waveforms in quantum mechanics! Second, what do you mean no one knows what an electromagnetic wave looks like? You can create and observe them in wires and very accurately measure whatever you want. You can directly plot them with things like oscilloscopes.
Next, This conjecture doesn't seem to be fleshed out. We know that we can measure and observe other properties of particles (spin, for instance). Further, it can be shown on general principles (relativity+quantum mechanics) that spin 1/2 fields cannot be constructed out of integer spins. This means most of the known particles cannot be electromagnetic waveforms, since they are spin 1/2 particles. Unless we are willing to throw out either special relativity or quantum mechanics....
