A perspective on Testing.

Hi DAB,

Testing for verification would seem to indicate that a positive truth value might be able to be assigned to the results of an experiment. The scientific process does not however allow for a positive result only a negative one. While we can show that a hypothesis is false by finding a contradiction no matter how many experiments that we run with positive results there may always be the next experiment that shows a contradiction. While many positive experimental results can increase our confidence in a prized hypothesis it can still never be validated as True. The scientifically minded person does not have a need for an inventory of things that are True but rather a set of useful ideas that so far give satisfactorily accurate predictions for the results of phenomenon or experiments. The scientifically minded person should always be ready to discard his idea tool or at least better define its operational parameters if it can be show to fail under certain circumstances. Newton's Physics is a good example of this. While much of Newton's Theory has been shown to fail under extreme conditions, (Speed, Gravitation) the laws are still within acceptable parameters for most human applications. So what is True. Not the Laws of Newton nor it seems the laws of Einstein as they too encounter contradictions when we move into the sub atomic realm.

While you have some very interesting ideas it is hard to begin to use them for any practical purpose. Most people do not have the time for the re-education process that would be needed to add the new vocabulary and new thought procedures. Also my reading of current physics indicate that most of the current theory is being tested vigorously and ideas that fail the experiments are discarded or modified for special uses. If there was a need for a complete rewrite there would be many others up on the stage with you shouting for the new ideas.

I offer the above as a trigger for the discussion that I know you would love to have.

John

Most people do not have the time for the re-education process that would be needed to add the new vocabulary and new thought procedures.

Not sure that this isn't one of those 'excuses' rolled out whenever the truth gets in the way.

I am aware that many people are scared to question people who have been elevated to positions of 'authority', either by good work in other realms, or because they may be able to offer explanations that fool the question asker.

It doesn't mean their theory/idea or design will work (or fail), but verification is the only way to prove it.

I cringe whenever some developer suggests that his new project (that usually needs funding or concessions) will bring in xx million dollars to the community ..... yeah right, and best of all, it's commercially sensitive so we can't show you how we arrived at that figure.

DAB

It will be a very hard road, and sadly one that may not recognise your efforts until long after you leave this forum.

Hopefully we're able to say we were then when you told them so.

Mark

Hi Mark,

My main point in my comment is that Science is not able to prove that a hypothesis is true, only that it is false. No matter how many times we run a different experiment that doesn't disprove the hypothesis there is always one more potential experiment that may show our hypothesis fails under certain conditions. Too often when Science is talked about it is thought of as a collection of laws and truths, but it is more appropriately a collection of ideas that seem to work to make predictions and give insight to the user. There are no "Laws or Truths" in science. It is just a process which pushes a group of ideas closer and closer to an ideal reality.

New ideas, like those of DAB are important in the process of Science. They provide another perspective by which we can test our current ideas to see if they can be falsified or refined. I have taken DAB seriously. I have read his book "I Killed Schrodinger's Cat" and I have made a pilgrimage to visit him personally and to hear from him directly about his ideas. I have also read other books by other thinkers who are outside the current approach to physics. At least for me I have not seen or read anything that would support a radical new approach. Many times the new thinker has fallen into the trap of proving a personal theory that has become a goal in itself. Part of the reason that I have not put more time into changing is that my needs with respect to particle physics are not critical enough to make a difference whether I understand the physics in terms of traditional particles or in terms of the "Tons" of DAB's theory. Further I was not able to easily accept many of the assumptions that lie at the foundation of DAB's theory. Just being told that all the Physicists in the world are getting it wrong isn't enough for me. Why is one theory better than another? This has to be determined by experiment. If the new theory yields an experimental result that is better than the previous theory then we have made progress. As far as I have been able to determine we do not have any such experiments that would discredit the current meme. Thought experiments are good tools but the final test is in a real physical experiment.

John

You make a great straight man John.

You hit the nail right on the head.  No single test ever validated anything!

Each test, no matter how elaborate can only provide you with a pass/fail on the specific question the test was to answer.  That is it.  No light bulb in the sky, no bolt of lightning, nothing.  Just one answer to a complex problem.

As for "elevated" people, a good Phd friend of mine pointed out that as you get higher in the education and research structure, you actually know less and less about anything other than the specific issue you study or research.

So anyone with letters after their name are really unqualified to speak on any issue other than their specific field of study.

Plus you also identified the key issue.  Until a theory can be used to solve everyday problems, it is totally useless.

That is why my specific investigations goes through the underlying issues, cites existing test and experimental data, but defines the "process" by which my theory would evolve over time to build what we can see and measure in the universe around us.

I also introduce mathematical models that only require basic algebra and science to understand.

The result is that my math, works, and you can apply all collected measurements and many observations to fully explain what happened and why.

Try asking anyone with a Phd to do that and see what you get.

Which brings us to the reason for my post and the identification of the Validation issue.

When people can USE a theory, they validate it.

If people cannot use a theory, then it provides no value.

Believe me, by engineering use requirements are very high.  Hence my efforts over the last seven years to find answers about how the universe works so that people can solve everyday problems.  Not introduce alternate dimensions, uses, mass, energy, imaginary particles and fields, all of which are interesting but basically useless.

DAB

Hi Mark,

When we stop learning, we are all doomed.

I did not embark upon my journey for fame or fortune.  Like Steven Hawking, I want to know how the Universe Works before I die.

I now have an advantage over Steven as I feel pretty confident that I now have a plausible answer and he is stuck with theories that will not work.

Validation is the hardest test to pass.  Often, it takes years, decades and centuries, but in the end, the truth will come out.

Many people will have to run the experiments and tests, assess the mathematical models and consider the evidence I cite as reasons why I think I am right.  I fully agree that I could be wrong, but then I apply my models to existing experiments and data to get more plausible answers than others have provided to date.

All I can do is plant the seeds, provide trail of bread crumbs, and let the curious follow the path to enlightenment.

The books at least get my ideas documented world wide beyond the reach of anyone to suppress them.

I am encouraged after my first public talk that there are still educated people willing to listen and ask questions.

Time will finally validate my ideas.

I do not worry that I am trying to climb a mountain with a near vertical face.  New ideas always face that hurdle, but there is no mountain that cannot be climbed with planning, preparation and persistence.

Plus I happen to be one very stubborn person.  What can I say, it is in my blood.

As the Vikings used to say, I am standing at the crossroad with no desire to run.

I am not afraid of the truth, I have presented my ideas, come read and discuss.   Open minds are welcome.  Closed minds have already lost.

DAB

When we stop learning, we are all doomed.

Correct.

All I can do is plant the seeds, provide trail of bread crumbs, and let the curious follow the path to enlightenment.

The books at least get my ideas documented world wide beyond the reach of anyone to suppress them.

I mix with some really clever EE at a robotics club, where they cover just about everything except robots!.

I sometimes find myself going WTF are they talking about, are they talking some foreign language because I only caught two or three words in those last few sentences.

Physics and all the theory is something that hurts my head, so you'll find me sitting there.

It's not that I subscribe to either camp, it's just that you need to understand something before you can even start to decide.

I prefer to not be a sheep and simply follow what is considered 'mainstream', I prefer to have a basic understanding, even if it is simply to place it with all the blue pieces of the jigsaw.

Plus I happen to be one very stubborn person.  What can I say, it is in my blood

Stubborn is fine as well as it doesn't cloud objectivity.

I've seen some stubborn people finally come a cropper in a big way because they failed to consider the alternatives.

Mark

Science is not able to prove that a hypothesis is true, only that it is false

I'm curious about why.

Surely you can prove that a theory is true, equally as well as proving it is false.

Mark

Hi Mark,

I will use a simple fabricated hypothesis and experiment to demonstrate. Suppose that we have a situation where we notice that when we drop a ball into a box two square blocks pop out. As scientists we decide to make a hypothesis that whenever a ball is dropped into the box 2 square blocks will pop out. We begin to experiment dropping the ball into the box from different angles and at different velocities. Suppose that on the second try three square blocks pop out instead of two. This is a false result and it means we have shown that our original hypothesis was wrong. We have easily disproved the hypothesis. It is false. On the other hand suppose that two square blocks continue to pop out time after time. Perhaps we have conducted the experiment 10 times and each time two square block pop out. With each experiment, as we vary the angle and speed of the drop, our confidence in the hypothesis grows. At what point however do you as a scientist want to say that in all the possibilities for choosing angle and speed there is not one that will result in 1 square or 3 squares popping out? We can't be certain that there isn't some circumstance whereby our hypothesis will fail in the next experiment. Ideas that continue to survive experimental tests like the Conservation of Energy for example have been tested so many times and in so many ways that there is high confidence in them but a truly scientific view is that even these pillars of our science are just ideas that can be removed with one experiment that shows that they fail under some new circumstance.

John

John

Sorry but that example is simply an attempt to prove an observation.

For me the potential problems with this is.

1. Are the blocks uniformly stacked each time

2. Are the blocks the same size, weight and density.

It could still prove correct, but given the variable at play, I don't think anyone could reasonable sustain a theory of 2 blocks.

If you modified it to will displace one or more blocks ... then maybe it would be correct.

Perhaps we have conducted the experiment 10 times and each time two square block pop out

I'm sure there is some clever person that will demonstrate that probability has some bearing on the exact decision point.

IMO 10 attempts is too small, as the margin for error has to be one, and is therefore 10%.

BTW I'm a realist, not optimist or persimist.

My glass is neither half full or half empty it's simply waiting for me to finish it  

Mark

Hi Mark,

Don't take my example too literally. It is the process that is important.

"BTW I'm a realist, not optimist or persimist.

My glass is neither half full or half empty it's simply waiting for me to finish it " 

OK,  but I would have guessed "Optimist" based on all the help you have given to this Forum and its denizens as well as the students that you help with electronics. There has to be an optimist in there someplace.

John