What qualifies as science?

Yes, IMO, this is at the heart of Bohmian Mechanics. It directly relates to QM itself. It's the deterministic part of his theory.
I am looking for a specific condensed version of the four fundamental (generalized) Bohmian levels , but can't find it yet.
In the mean time, this shows that other scientist recognize a hierarchical state of pure potential, from which implicates form, which in turn are dynamically expressed to us as physical reality.

This is somewhat similar to Tegmark's hypothesis, but Tegmark claims that only a few (not indefinitely many) "eternal objects" are required.

IMO, these eternal objects constitute the abstract fundamental potentials of every expression, including electric potential.

I'll keep looking for a more formal description of Bohm's "pure potential" and "the implicate orders" , the laws which govern the universal forms and functions as we observe them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A little aside;
I do have a couple of questions, regarding light as a form of energy.

question 1; given background; a hermetically sealed room with a light bulb at the center of the ceiling.

If I turn the light switch to "on" electricity will begin to flow to the light bulb which will immediately fill the room with light in all directions.
But if I then turn the light switch to "off" and the room immediately turns dark, all light is gone instantly.
Where did the light go?

question 2; same background except the walls are all mirrors, reflecting light.

If I turn the light switch to "on" the entire room will immediately be filled by, not only from the bulb but also as reflected by the mirrors.

a) Will the room be brighter by the reflections of the mirrors?

b) If I then turn the light switch to "off", will the room remain lit by the infinite reflections from the four mirrors, or will the room still become dark immediately thereafter. If so, where did the light and its infinite reflections go?

Either way, is this a function of QM?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In context of using these words as verbs, is shutting the door, not the same as closing the door?

Of course each word, in addition to that common denominator as a verb, also has its own related synonyms, in different contexts. "close" can also mean "near" and "shut" can also mean "being shut off".
Example; two persons each leaning against the opposite sides of a wall can be "close" (near), yet be "shut off" from each other by the presence of the wall. Using these words in different contexts require different sets of potentials. But in that case the common denominator which allowed them to be "near" yet "shut off" from each other was the wall.

Carlin asked this question in regard to the linguistic term of "a near miss" as used in aviation when two airplanes come really close in passing. In reality it is not a "near miss", but a "near hit".
A complete misnomer. It is when they barely touch but both planes go down, it was a "near miss"..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But the problem does not lie in the definitions of potential. The point is that potential can exist in several forms, whereas you seem to view potential as a very specific thing which must apply uniformly to all things.

But that is not the intent of my posts. My original statement claims that all actions or states of existence are "preceded" by a set of potentials which (combined) have a high probability (implicate) for certain actions or states to emerge (become expressed)

The potential exists that the Fibonacci Sequence can be found in many places from flowers to galactic spirals, it is a common denominator, found in most spiral forms. This potential sequence exists as a latent universal mathematical abstract potential, regardless if it becomes expressed or remains a latent potential.
Sometimes we give these abstract universal ordering imperatives names which express their inherent ability (excellence), i.e. the "Golden Ratio", a phenomenon that can be found throughout the universe and exist in both physical expression and as a latent essence of spacetime.

IMO, electrical potential also lives as an abstract potential, why else would it's expression always work the same way and can be measured, defined, and used in a prediction of electrical behavior regardless if the switch is "on" or "off"? Does the definition of electrical potential not also exist as an abstract universal
essence? Can we expect a certain consistency when expressed in the real world, or is it just a random coincidence?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In a narrower sense, referring to doors and lids and books (flat rigid barriers that can act to surround a space) they share some cloud, but even there - - -
closing the door on the past and shutting the door on the past don't mean quite the same thing, eh?
closing the door on a legal matter, and shutting the door on a legal matter
Closing the door on the cat, it wanted out; shutting the door on the cat, it wanted in.
One closes a door to keep something in or near, shuts a door to keep something out or away, in a sense.
To have closure, as if hearing the door latch click and behind it a cleaned and well-ordered room. To be shut of something, as if hearing the door latch click and behind it the whole outside and who cares where things went.
One carries a sense of completion, storage, enclosure; the other carries a sense of incompletion, discard, exclusion. These are - or can be, certainly in sensitive and complex situations - almost opposites.

And so forth. So we see that what they have in common - the physical act of aligning the door with its frame and engaging the latch to fix it in place - is often less fundamental to the meaning than in what they differ.

The principle is general - there is no one fundamental commonality in these metaphorical usages, normally.

 

Right, so what do these kinds of potentials have in common with (for example) the electric potential?

(Not instantly, due to the limited speed of light, but sure.)

The light was being "consumed" by the room walls all the time; you simply stopped producing it. An analog: open a water faucet above a sink. There is now water. Shut the faucet (and wait a couple of seconds). Where did the water go?​

​

Yes.

If you had perfect mirrors, the light would bounce around indefinitely. But perfect mirrors don't exist, and thus the light will eventually be absorbed.​

​

What definition of the word "function" are you using here? If you mean: "do you need QM to explain this", then no.

 

But that is the point, they are all aspects of closing or shutting something. IOW a common denominator in seemingly unrelated situations and in different application. If they all exactly the same we would only need to use a single word.

Makes no difference as long as they have fundamental essence in common.

The principle is general - there is no one fundamental commonality in these metaphorical usages, normally.[/QUOTE]

 

I am not claiming that all potentials need to be the same. My claim is that the potential (of any kind) must exist before the action or event is expressed. Suppose there is no door? Nothing to close? the potential for closing the door does not exist. However, when the wall is large enough, the potential for constructing a door exists in the abstract. An abstract implication of a possibility. If I then construct the door, that potential has been realized. If I don't construct the door, that potential remains latent.

The posit reads Potential = "that" which may become reality. It's really not a difficult concept, IMO.

 

Of course there are. All laws of nature are universal constants. They exist in their own world, either as an expressed quality or a latency.

A circle drawn on a paper is an approximation of one "that" which may become reality. A natural tendency to assume a 3d circular shape (a sphere). It's naturally the strongest and most efficient structure which can exist. Don't see a square star or planet. They can be distorted circular forms, such as earth is not a perfect circle due to gravitational force of the sun, but always it always tries to remain a sphere by it's own center of gravity. Some things become spherical from equal external pressure from all sides.

When we see a cloud of cosmic dust, it's likely that eventually something spherical will emerge from that dust. The cloud (or part of it) has the potential to become a star or a planet

What do 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, have in common? They're Numbers (symbolic representations of certain inherent values). We can identify some them as Prime numbers. We can combine some of these numbers to get a numerical Set. They never lose their inherent quality as Numbers.

 

Sorry, the question should have been if EM is an expressed phenomenon of QM?

But is there a fatal difference between the two questions> Is Electro-Magnetism one function of Quantum Mechanics?
How can that be confusing in meaning? Can you please explain the difference in meaning?

 

For Christ's sake, man, get a grip on your use of this bloody word. Best of all, just stop using it entirely.

Electromagnetism is a branch of physics. So is QM. A branch of physics cannot, under any circumstances, be a "function". It's meaningless.

Electromagnetism is a branch of physics that predates QM by a hundred years (look up Michael Faraday, for example) and has a perfectly valid existence separate from it. Though of course there are many relationships between the two, as there often are between branches of physics.

 

Electrical potential is a measured, existing, physical thing. It is real now.

Now you confuse single word usage - the addressed subject of the quote - with "laws of nature".
Then you make a false statement composed of several inaccuracies and confusions.

Laws of nature are not necessarily "universal", not "constants", do not exist in some other world than ours, are not a "quality" expressed or otherwise, and are "latent" only in metaphorical usage - the exact category of usage that seems to be giving you the most trouble.
Furthermore, there are several "laws of nature" - not just one. So they do not necessarily provide you with one fundamental commonality in anything, regardless of their ->nature<-.

The word "law", in the term "law of nature", is (or was originally) a metaphor. That "strikes" me as a possibly "enlightening" "place" for you to start over.

One of the most likely emergent shapes from a cosmic cloud of anything - dust, gas, whatever - is a flat, rotating disk. A solitary sphere shape, not part of a collection of mutually interacting stuff of various shapes and kinds, is quite rare - as far as we can see.

What are the inherent values represented by those things as currently emblazoned on my mailbox? On the license plate of my car?

 

Yes, look up quantum electrodynamics. In fact, that is one of the most successful models science has produced so far, being accurate to more that 8 digits in the case of the electron anomalous magnetic dipole moment (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED )

I cannot answer that question, as you've forgotten to define how you are using the word "function".

Because you appear to be using the word "function" in a non-standard way.

Please define the word "function" you are using!

 

If it does not study physical behaviors and functions, what does Physics study?

I understand that you mean the questions of how QM works (functions) came after the questions of how EM works (functions).
I am not asking when these disciplines became branches of Physics. The question was about the relationship between EM and QM, regardless of history. I see these phenomena as existing long before we even asked the questions how these natural phenomena work (behave?)
The second part of your statement actually answers my question. EM and QM are related at least in part. TY.

 

I consider every one of those answers as non-responsive.

 

Just to explain what prompted my questions (as poorly as they may have been posed),
I was trying to find common denominators between these three disciplines of physics.
This is what I came up with;

and

and hopefully of interest

 

This is the trouble: your persistent sloppy use of language. Yes of course physics studies physical behaviour of nature. But studying "functions", no, it doesn't.

As Yazata observed some pages back, "function" in its everyday sense has a teleological edge to it, suggesting purpose or design. Such an idea plays no part in science. The behaviour of nature does not imply purpose or design.

And as for its mathematical sense, "function" describes a relation between a variable quantity and other variable quantities, i.e. between a given quantitative input and quantitative output. You cannot simply put, say, a given quantity of energy or force into some function called "Physics" and get a quantitive output. Obviously. So it is a nonsense to say that physics "is a function". And physics is not a study of mathematical functions, either. It is a study of physical observations of nature, many of which are subsequently correlated and modelled through mathematics.

So, in either sense, "function" is completely the wrong word.

Your persistently inappropriate use of this term seems to have led you to indulge in a kind of pseudo-mathematics-speak, through which you have convinced yourself, by bogus terminology, that everything in nature is mathematics. There may or may not be a respectable (metaphysical) argument about that proposition, but what is for sure is it that no such argument is going to get off the ground if the wrong terms are used.

 

Didn't even try?
't's ok, I've wasted time on loster causes.

 

I think i have question that emerges from this... is social science really science? I would be glad if someone could take a stance on this...

 

No way

Those who practice (and no matter how much they practice it frequently comes unstuck) tack science onto whatever idea pops into the collective brain to give it more status

It has to be settled because it is science

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I am instinctively suspicious of claims of "social science" to be science in the commonly understood sense of "natural science". This is because I am not convinced that they really have much in the way of predictive models that can be tested reproducibly. This is fairly apparent with economics, in which it seems that political ideology plays as important a part as dispassionate analysis - and that the predictions are so often wrong.

It seems to me the trouble is that firstly human society is an extremely complex system to analyse, and secondly, the human behaviours that lead to social outcomes depend on psychology and emotion, as well as on purely rational factors. Such things are unpredictable, making it almost impossible to isolate a system to study its interactions free from extraneous influence, repeatably or reproducibly, in the way that we commonly do in the hard sciences.

I suspect the social sciences tend to fall back on the wider original meaning of "scientia", i.e. knowledge, rather than anything conforming properly to the discipline of natural science.