Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
reply in detail; Professor Will does not even include this test in his recent summary of all the evidence for GR, and we can now see why.
Line 36: Line 36:     
Just so you know, I've got some feedback on your paragraph on quantum mechanics as well. For starters, the position and momentum of a particle is exactly as uncertain after an observation as it is before, because reducing uncertainty of the position increases uncertainty of the momentum and vice versa. They're intrinsically linked. Maybe that's not your point; measuring a particle does, I suppose, bring about a sort of philosophical order that was previously absent — we know where the particle is now — but at the cost of reducing our knowledge about another aspect of the particle's motion. But your essay isn't fleshed out enough for me to really see yet what you're getting at, so that might be irrelevant to your point. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 20:00, 14 November 2009 (EST)
 
Just so you know, I've got some feedback on your paragraph on quantum mechanics as well. For starters, the position and momentum of a particle is exactly as uncertain after an observation as it is before, because reducing uncertainty of the position increases uncertainty of the momentum and vice versa. They're intrinsically linked. Maybe that's not your point; measuring a particle does, I suppose, bring about a sort of philosophical order that was previously absent — we know where the particle is now — but at the cost of reducing our knowledge about another aspect of the particle's motion. But your essay isn't fleshed out enough for me to really see yet what you're getting at, so that might be irrelevant to your point. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 20:00, 14 November 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
:Kate, I don't have an ax to grind about this.  General Relativity was developed to explain the Mercury precession, so the theory certainly should fit the data.  I expected that it would.  But the fit isn't there anymore, due to more precise measurements.  It's beyond the margin of error, and logically that's all that matters.  You're using rounding above that obscures what the margin of error is.  Professor Will does not even include this test in his recent summary of all the evidence for GR, and we can now see why.  Those are the facts, and logic applied to the facts.  Anyone has free will to accept or deny it.  I accept the facts and logic as they require.
 +
 +
:You make an interesting point about position, but I don't think the essay is incorrect because it says nothing about momentum.  Observation can pin down the position, which is relevant to establishing order.  But without observation there is disorder.  That is the basic point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 14 November 2009 (EST)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,194

edits

Navigation menu