statue of baphomet in detroit - discuss civily

[Dannyalcatraz]

No question: Econ uses the scientific method to refine models, etc. But as in all social sciences, controlling for variables like human irrationality can be such a beast.

 

[freyar]

Just popping in on the quantum physics and theoretical cosmology discussion, though I would like to mention that I've really appreciated the civil tone of this thread and the different sides to the discussion.

of course you have the whole end of therotical physics that features oscillating universes and quantum foam where the science is almost entirely speculative and based on trust and indeed faith rather than verifability.

or is Quantum not science?

Well, let's first note that quantum mechanics is a framework for physics, not really a single theory. As such, it is used in almost every discipline of physics from atomic physics (really, the foundations of chemistry), to solid state physics (as noted by Umbran and Morrus, this is necessary for modern computing and even LEDs) to cosmology (the history of the universe). This framework is very well tested in areas like atomic physics, particle physics, etc, etc. In cosmology, quantum physics is used in describing the behavior of the primordial plasma (through particle physics), which is a very conventional use of physics, in understanding the effects of early universe inflation (if you remember the flap about whether we observed gravitational waves or dust from a year+ ago, the gravitational wave option was quantum in nature, though it was not ultimately what the observation represented). Multiverses, etc, are based on applications of quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole. Yes, this is speculative because we don't have many ways to test these theories yet (though some can be tested relatively soon), but it is worth noting that many (indeed not all) are based on firm mathematical and scientific principles that hold every place we can test them. To be fair, some are more like "what if" stories.

It is fair to say that there's a lot of speculation and that we may not get to test all these theories directly for a very long time --- though indirect consequences, which are necessarily harder to distinguish between theories, may be testable sooner. But, like Umbran said, the idea is not to say that we have faith in any one of these ideas at this stage. You might here a physicist talk about believing in a particular theory or the other, but that's generally not a faith issue (leaving aside the personal religion of the scientist) but rather a statement about what scientific principles might be deemed most important. An analogy would be making a bet: you know there is a right answer, and you're trying to lay down the odds.

At this point, the more advanced levels of quantum physics is at the relatively (heh) early stages of the scientific method: hypotheses have been made, those hypotheses are consistent with available data, but they have not been verified.

Basically, it's like saying that we can see this:
<snip picture>
And based on that, that the world looks like this:
<snip picture>
It could look different, but the current theory seems to be the one that best fits the available facts.

In a way, though I'd have to say again that this is really cosmology and not quantum physics. And if you're asking about the shape of the universe (which is a reasonable scientific issue to ask), that's not even really a quantum question in cosmology.

I'm not going to quote them because this is going long, but let me just say again that I agree completely with what Umbran and Morrus have said here.