Does a controversy still exist ?

  • Thread starter McQueen
  • Start date
In summary: Aren't you taking a bit your dreams for reality here ? I know that your programme is to show ONE DAY that SOME classical field theory might EVENTUALLY reproduce observed quantum effects, but for sure it will not be good old Maxwell with no additional stuff, right ? Try to explain anti-correlations such as the famous paper by Thorn et al...
  • #1
McQueen
256
0
Three hundred years after the controversy had started , the question of whether light is wave like or particle like in nature is still raging. Modern theories of light tend more to the particulate view of light , in spite of the wave like properties associated with light and the generally accepted view of the wave-particle duality of light , wherein light possesses both wave like and particle like properties but can never possesses both properties simultaneously. One instance of the general dissatisfaction with the theory of wave-particle duality is that explanations of how light undergoes reflection , refraction , and transmittance through substances is today explained almost entirely in terms of the particle nature of light , while even ten years ago , explanations for the manner in which light underwent , reflection , refraction and transmittance were almost wholly wave based. The fact is that the overwhelming evidence tends towards the view that light , in the form of photons , does interact with matter ( electrons) in a very definable particulate manner. In order to support this view , the conjecture has been put forward that light might be composed of particles but that the particles themselves travel like a wave , this is analogous to the way in which water , which is made up of molecules , assumes a wave like form. The draw back with this point of view is that a wave never interacts with matter in the manner of a particle , while light does. This leads to the saying that light travels like a wave but arrives at its destination as a particle. Thus the debate still rages. Today the widely prevalent view is that Reflection is due to the rapid absorption and re-emission of photons , while refraction is also thought to be due to the result of the slowing down of light as it travels through a medium due to its absorption and emission as it travels through the medium. This raises the extremely interesting question of why , if light can travel through a medium such as glass by being rapidly absorbed and emitted by the electrons in the atoms of the glass , cannot it be transmitted through a metal in a similar manner. The rapid absorption and emission of photons through a glass pane implies that this kind of interaction is due to the conduction band properties of the glass. This being so , why cannot light travel through a metal , a metal has wide open conduction bands , it should theoretically be possible to replicate in a metal the phenomenon which is known to exist in glass , namely the transmittance of light . Why doesn’t it happen ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
For one thing, light can be reflected off of a metal pain. Secondly, metal is made up of more mass. With this light is is obsorbed but you also have to remember that, when the photons hit the tightly packed electrons, they lose some of their energy. Well with the thickness and tightly packed electrons in a metal you could imagine how many atoms they would hit before they made it through.
 
  • #3
Three hundred years after the controversy had started , the question of whether light is wave like or particle like in nature is still raging. Modern theories of light tend more to the particulate view of light
FYI, I stopped seriously reading your article after this introduction. The question has been answered for quite a while now: light is neither a (classical) particle nor a (classical) wave. Light is some quantum mechanical thing to which the classical notions of particles and waves are good approximations under various circumstances.
 
  • #4
You know I think that is the best explanation of light I've heard yet. I'll have to remember that one
 
  • #5
Hurkyl said:
FYI, I stopped seriously reading your article after this introduction. The question has been answered for quite a while now: light is neither a (classical) particle nor a (classical) wave. Light is some quantum mechanical thing to which the classical notions of particles and waves are good approximations under various circumstances.
Very amusing :rofl: No, no, light is just a good old fashioned EM wave, no fuzzy QM stuff involved.
 
  • #6
Careful said:
Very amusing :rofl: No, no, light is just a good old fashioned EM wave, no fuzzy QM stuff involved.

Aren't you taking a bit your dreams for reality here ? I know that your programme is to show ONE DAY that SOME classical field theory might EVENTUALLY reproduce observed quantum effects, but for sure it will not be good old Maxwell with no additional stuff, right ? Try to explain anti-correlations such as the famous paper by Thorn et al (Am. J. Phys. 72) sept 2004 with *pure classical optics*.

So I'd say that *at least for the moment* the best description of light we have is the quantum-mechanical one and then Hurkyl's statement is very accurate.
 
  • #7
McQueen,

I assure you, there is no problem with QM, what so ever. I think Hurkyl gave you a nice explanation concerning your question. I would like to add that al these "measurement problems" are all just coming from people who are interpreting the result and formalism of QM in the WRONG way.

QM works, Einstein was wrong, "point final"

regards
marlon
 
  • #8
vanesch said:
Aren't you taking a bit your dreams for reality here ? I know that your programme is to show ONE DAY that SOME classical field theory might EVENTUALLY reproduce observed quantum effects, but for sure it will not be good old Maxwell with no additional stuff, right ? Try to explain anti-correlations such as the famous paper by Thorn et al (Am. J. Phys. 72) sept 2004 with *pure classical optics*.
So I'd say that *at least for the moment* the best description of light we have is the quantum-mechanical one and then Hurkyl's statement is very accurate.
Sorry, don't have immediate acces to library. Can you explain me what the measurement setup is and what the results are?

Cheers,

Careful
 
  • #9
marlon said:
McQueen,
I assure you, there is no problem with QM, what so ever. I think Hurkyl gave you a nice explanation concerning your question. I would like to add that al these "measurement problems" are all just coming from people who are interpreting the result and formalism of QM in the WRONG way.
QM works, Einstein was wrong, "point final"
regards
marlon
Really, and on what basis do you claim that ?! :rofl: :rofl:
 
  • #10
Careful said:
Sorry, don't have immediate acces to library. Can you explain me what the measurement setup is and what the results are?
Cheers,
Careful

It is also available freely here:

http://marcus.whitman.edu/~beckmk/papers/Thorn_g2_ajp.pdf [Broken]

cheers,
Patrick.

EDIT: FYI, this is not an EPR style experiment. It would be very simple to explain the experiment with bullets, for instance. But with *classical optics* I think it is impossible (unless you modify about all we know about optical devices such as beam splitters in classical optics).
Although this is not demonstrated in the paper, similar setups can show *interference* after recombination of the split beams, so the argument that the beamsplitter sends little packets "left" and then "right" randomly would not do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
Careful said:
Really, and on what basis do you claim that ?! :rofl: :rofl:

err, really easy, how about the fact that we have transistors, semiconductors, diodes, ...

How about the fact there is not a single experiment that contradicts with QM ?


marlon
 
  • #12
Careful said:
Really, and on what basis do you claim that ?! :rofl: :rofl:

QM is extremely well established now. For sure, there is no controversy among physicists about that.

Actually, the title of the paper quoted by vanesh is
"Observing the quantum behavior of light in an undergraduate laboratory".

Here's a bit of the abstract, in which I color-emphasize some parts:

"While the classical, wavelike behavior of light (interference and diffraction) has been easily observed in undergraduate laboratories for many years, explicit observation of the quantum nature of light (i.e., photons) is much more difficult. For example, while well-known phenomena such as the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering strongly suggest the existence of photons, they are not definitive proof of their existence. Here we present an experiment, suitable for an undergraduate laboratory, that unequivocally demonstrates the quantum nature of light."

i.e., the article is not about a high end, controversial, multimillion dollar experiment, but about how to confirm in school a well established, well known result: that QM is a better description of nature than classical physics.
 
  • #13
ahrkron said:
QM is extremely well established now. For sure, there is no controversy among physicists about that.

That said, QM faces serious problems too on a more foundational level of which the measurement problem and the incompatibility with GR are the two principal ones. Another difficulty is of course the mathematical inconsistency of QFT - no matter how well it works to crank out numbers that compare to scattering experiments. But that doesn't do away the tremendeous experimental success it has seen in vastly different areas.
As such, I cannot say anything about how 'fundamentally true' QM is, but at least how successful it is as a current description of the workings of nature.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
ahrkron said:
i.e., the article is not about a high end, controversial, multimillion dollar experiment, but about how to confirm in school a well established, well known result: that QM is a better description of nature than classical physics.
How, how, I was not aware of this result and I shall study it in detail; I thought people would come up with compton scattering again :smile: But I doubt it will be that unambiguous ... as the authors claim it is.

Will come back to this, thanks for the reference anyway Vanesch
 
  • #15
vanesch said:
That said, QM faces serious problems too on a more foundational level of which the measurement problem and the incompatibility with GR are the two principal ones.

Sorry, but on this one i disagree. Concerning the incompatibility with GR, i do not see how that is an issue for QM ? I mean we do not say this about Newtonian physics and QM, right ? QM is not built to explain the GR-phenomena, so why is this incompatibility an issue then ? This is just a matter of physical regimes. I know, in the past, i have stated this before but i really feel that we need to look at it like that ? We should not "create" problems based upon interpretations of the underlying mathematical formalism.

Same goes for this mysterious measurement "problem".

If it ain't broken, do not fix it.

Another difficulty is of course the mathematical inconsistency of QFT

ok, you may find this question to be very stupid, but...what mathematical inconsistency ?

Even if there is one, how is this correlated to QM ?

regards
marlon
 
  • #16
vanesch said:
That said, QM faces serious problems too on a more foundational level of which the measurement problem and the incompatibility with GR are the two principal ones.

Agreed. However, one has to be careful (which you have been) when discussing these, since people sometimes get the wrong impression that QM is not well tested.

vanesch said:
Another difficulty is of course the mathematical inconsistency of QFT

What are you referring to in here? renormalization?
I've often heard good theorists say that this is now understood, in a tone of "we now have it solved"...
 
  • #17
ahrkron said:
What are you referring to in here? renormalization?
I've often heard good theorists say that this is now understood, in a tone of "we now have it solved"...

Renormalization is not the problem as such. The trouble starts with Haag's theorem which invalidates in fact the canonical approach to QFT, and which states that the "interaction picture" must always be equivalent with a free field theory if the creation and annihilation operators are to be what we think they are.
Now, you can leave the canonical approach for what it's worth, and switch to the Feynman path integral. But here the trouble is the measure. Nobody has ever been able to define a measure on the space of paths - as far as I understand, there are reasons to think that this is impossible. As such the path integral is an undefined quantity.
Next, you can STILL do a step backward, and consider QFT to be defined as the set of Feynman diagrams. Apart from difficulties of convergence (even after renormalization: in QED, it is now I think established that at best the perturbative series are only asymptotically meaningful, which means that they will start diverging again after a certain order - and as such that the "true" value is never reached) this would put aside a lot of non-perturbative results which clearly play a role.
As far as I know, there is no known axiomatic structure of QFT - this in sharp contrast to non-relativistic QM which was axiomatized by von Neumann.

That said, QFT as practiced DOES have a huge number of empirical successes on its record. But as far as I understand, it does not make mathematical sense. It is just a bag of phenomenological techniques which, when applied with care and fingerspitsengefuhl, cranks out good numbers which compare to experiment.
 
  • #18
marlon said:
Sorry, but on this one i disagree. Concerning the incompatibility with GR, i do not see how that is an issue for QM ? I mean we do not say this about Newtonian physics and QM, right ? QM is not built to explain the GR-phenomena, so why is this incompatibility an issue then ? This is just a matter of physical regimes. I know, in the past, i have stated this before but i really feel that we need to look at it like that ? We should not "create" problems based upon interpretations of the underlying mathematical formalism.
Same goes for this mysterious measurement "problem".
If it ain't broken, do not fix it.
ok, you may find this question to be very stupid, but...what mathematical inconsistency ?
Even if there is one, how is this correlated to QM ?
regards
marlon

If you take QM to be a phenomenological theory, I agree with all this of course. However, if you consider QM to be a *fundamental* theory (or better, if you take the founding principle of QM, namely the superposition principle, to be a fundamental principle), then you ARE in trouble. And there are people (like Careful) who come from a quantum gravity background who have seen the problems that arise when you are combining both the principle of superposition and the principle of general covariance, and who prefer to stick to the latter. That said, they shouldn't close their eyes to those parts of QM which bother them if they are supported by experiment ; however QM proponents shouldn't be blind either to the difficulties.
 
  • #19
vanesch said:
The trouble starts with Haag's theorem which invalidates in fact the canonical approach to QFT, and which states that the "interaction picture" must always be equivalent with a free field theory if the creation and annihilation operators are to be what we think they are.

I don't understand the problem here. Why is that equivalence a problem?

vanesch said:
they will start diverging again after a certain order - and as such that the "true" value is never reached

That's quite scary. Can you expand on that? or maybe give a reference? If things are expected to diverge again after some order, when can we trust any numbers obtained from it?

vanesch said:
That said, QFT as practiced DOES have a huge number of empirical successes on its record.

Which, in light of what you mentioned, is quite puzzling.

[edit: fixed a quote]
 
Last edited:
  • #20
vanesch said:
I think established that at best the perturbative series are only asymptotically meaningful, which means that they will start diverging again after a certain order - and as such that the "true" value is never reached) this would put aside a lot of non-perturbative results which clearly play a role.

How is that ?

Besides, one can always chose to do a duality transform in order to go from high coupling constant to low coupling constant, like in the case of QCD. Either way, perturbation theory still holds.


marlon
 
  • #21
ahrkron said:
I don't understand the problem here. Why is that equivalence a problem?

the raw stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haag's_theorem

and a more poetic version:
http://www.cgoakley.demon.co.uk/qft/renorm.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
ahrkron said:
That's quite scary. Can you expand on that? or maybe give a reference?

Just a random search on an article related to it which is freely available:

http://ej.iop.org/links/q55/xJRM4SDjMgSOxercMujz7g/jgv7i10pL221.pdf [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
marlon said:
How is that ?
Besides, one can always chose to do a duality transform in order to go from high coupling constant to low coupling constant, like in the case of QCD. Either way, perturbation theory still holds.
marlon

Isn't that only possible in supersymmetric models ? And even then, you can transform high coupling constants in low ones, but for medium values you're screwed, no ? Because if it were so easy, I'd guess that hadron masses would easily be obtained and that one wouldn't have to go on the lattice!

Now, I have to say that I'm not up to level in all this, so you can easily hit me around the ears with lots of technical stuff I'm not aware of. But I don't think that that changes the content of my statement that there is no axiomatic basis for QFT as of today, and that it is a lot of phenomenology which works very well and where one invents more and more useful techniques, but not a crystal clear theory.
 
  • #24
ahrkron said:
or maybe give a reference?

Although this was demonstrated by Dyson [1] (but not proved) more than 50 years ago, it is not well known.

From [2], page 451: "Thus, QED may have a zero radius of convergence in [tex]\alpha[/tex] space."

From [3], page 259: "The belief is that the perturbation series is an asymptotic series for real e at e = 0." Despite its title [3] is NOT a book about rigorous mathematics - it is a book that covers much the same topics as Peskin and Schroeder and at about the same level, and, in my opinion, is one of the best grad-level expositions of quantum field theory.

[1] QED and the Men Who Made It, S. Schweber, 9.17 Divergence of the Perturbation Series

[2] Quantum Field Theory, M. Kaku, 13.5 Does Quantum Field Theory Really Exist

[3] Quantum Field Theory for Mathematicians, R.Ticciati, Remark 9.4.12

Regards,
George
 
  • #25
Thanks for the references!

50 years ago! Boy, do I feel ignorant! : S
 
  • #26
tbone said:
For one thing, light can be reflected off of a metal pain. Secondly, metal is made up of more mass. With this light is is obsorbed but you also have to remember that, when the photons hit the tightly packed electrons, they lose some of their energy. Well with the thickness and tightly packed electrons in a metal you could imagine how many atoms they would hit before they made it through.
Tbone , yours is the only post that immediately addresses the direct question I had posed , which is why , if light can propagate through glass through the process of the rapid absorption and emission of photons by the electrons of the atoms which make up the glass , can’t light propagate in a similar way through metals ? Unfortunately your explanation does not hold water. For one thing. Most matter , even metals , are mostly made up of empty space , for instance electrons are separated by approximately 10 ^^ 5 times their own diameters ( classically is taken to be about 10 ^^ -13 m.) so the chances of one electron hitting another are small. The transmittance of light through a material has to do with conductance bands or the ability of the material in question to absorb and emit electrons within a certain range of energies. The energy range for visible light is from 1.8 to 3.1 eV. Materials with band gap energies in this range will absorb those corresponding colors (energies) higher and lower than the band –gap and transmit the others. Since ordinary glass has a band gap corresponding to the energies 1.8 to 3.1 eV , it appears transparent and colorless. When light is absorbed and re-emitted from the surface at the same wavelength, it is called reflection . Metals, are highly reflective, and those with a silvery appearance reflect the whole range of visible light. The energy levels of electrons are quantized, i.e., each electron transition between levels requires a certain specific amount of energy. The absorption of energy results in the shifting of electrons from the ground state to a higher, excited state. The electrons then fall back to the ground state, accompanied by the reemission of electromagnetic radiation. The energized electrons vibrate between the two levels and send the energy back out of the object as light with the same frequency as the incoming light.
Vanesch said:
This is not an EPR style experiment. It would be very simple to explain the experiment with bullets, for instance. But with *classical optics* I think it is impossible (unless you modify about all we know about optical devices such as beam splitters in classical optics).
Although this is not demonstrated in the paper, similar setups can show *interference* after recombination of the split beams, so the argument that the beamsplitter sends little packets "left" and then "right" randomly would not do.
This lifts the argument out of the mundane , or more succinctly , vitiates the whole argument. The second experiment referred to on interference can be found at [PLAIN]http://www.people.virginia.edu/~xy9z/qubit/qubit.php[/PLAIN] [Broken] . If this is true it implies that non-locality exists , yet despite numerous practical applications being carried out in quantum encryption , wherein the polarization of one of two spatially separated photons is detected thereby automatically assigning a polarization value to the other photon , a variation of the experiment to prove non-locality has been ignored . Using the same equipment and altering the polarity of the first spatially separated photon should always result in an opposite polarization of the other photon. Thus if the detector at A clicks the detector at B should never click and vice versa. The infrastructure is in place , yet the experiment , which would be conclusive has never been performed. Why? The proof of non-locality , if it exists , would be conclusive with regard to many issues vital to QM , including FTL interactions , the Wave function etc., Can , the experiment quoted in this post , with its statistical approach , be given due credence in the face of this huge lacuna ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
In grad school. I learned about this neither in the QFT courses that I took nor in informal discussion. Later, I just happen to stumble upon it during random page flipping - needle in a haystack type of thing.

A friend of mine had a worse experience. She attended a seminar by a guy who works in QED, and, because of comments that I had made to her earlier, she brought up the issue of series divergence. The guy's response was to ridicule her publicly, and to say that of course everything converged.

The topic divergences of QFT (after regularization and renormalization) is one of a number of topics to which with hindsight I think that I should have been exposed as a ungrad or grad student. I would rate Godel's theorems, a topic I know interests you, as the most important thing that I had to "discover" on my own.

Regards,
George
 
  • #28
McQueen said:
Tbone , yours is the only post that immediately addresses the direct question I had posed , which is why , if light can propagate through glass through the process of the rapid absorption and emission of photons by the electrons of the atoms which make up the glass , can’t light propagate in a similar way through metals ?

For some odd reason, I seem to have to re-explain this over and over again. (See, for example https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=795179&postcount=22)

When atoms form into solids, a lot of their individuality disappears as far as the bulk properties of the material is concerned. You do not get a "conduction band" from single atoms. You get it when a conglomerate of atoms get together, their valence bands overlap and hybridize, and voila! You get these continuous bands! The same can be said with insulator and glass. When they form a solid, you now have to consider one very important factor that has a lot to do with the material's property - the PHONON structure!

The tranparency of many dielectric is dictated by the phonon structure. If that phonon mode is available, then chances are, the material will absorb a photon with that particular energy. The lattice vibration that can either convert this into heat, or cause another transition. If the vibrational mode is not available, the ions will simply get displaced and retransmit the same energy since it cannot sustain that mode!

I will repeat this one more time. There is a HUGE field of study in condensed matter physics that deals with optical conductivity through matter. Techniques such as FTIR, Raman scattering, etc. are examples of the application of the knowledge of how "light" interacts with materials. So I would strongly disagree with the idea that we don't really know how these things work. If we can actually use it to study other things, this is the clearest indication that I know of that the principle behind it is very secure.

Zz.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
George Jones said:
In grad school. I learned about this neither in the QFT courses that I took nor in informal discussion. Later, I just happen to stumble upon it during random page flipping - needle in a haystack type of thing.

Same happened to me, in fact. I learned about the existence of Haag's theorem on s.p.r. What's funny is that if you look up "Haag" in Weinberg's account on QFT, it isn't even mentioned!
 
  • #30
Zapper said:
So I would strongly disagree with the idea that we don't really know how these things work. If we can actually use it to study other things, this is the clearest indication that I know of that the principle behind it is very secure.
Thanks for the link , it was useful. It was not my intention to imply that we did not know why light cannot propagate through metals , I just wanted to stimulate some thought on the subject. The structure of materials does have a lot to do with the different properties of materials. In the example you had pointed out , carbon with an identical atomic structure as Graphite is an insulator while graphite conducts , so it all comes down to structure. The same holds true for magnetic properties. Coming back to the second half of my post , is there any news yet on the experiment I had referred to viz-a-viz locality/non-locality.
 
  • #31
ahrkron said:
i.e., the article is not about a high end, controversial, multimillion dollar experiment, but about how to confirm in school a well established, well known result: that QM is a better description of nature than classical physics.

I'd say it this way: qm is a better predictor of quantitative experimental results wrt certain setups than classical physics.

The word "description" implies a qualitative apprehension of the thing being described. Qm doesn't provide this.

The rigorous definition of photon that produces those better predictions doesn't give me any good idea of what sort of qualitative phenomenon (beyond the level of its mathematical and instrumental manifestations) a photon might correspond to in nature.
 
  • #32
McQueen said:
Using the same equipment and altering the polarity of the first spatially separated photon should always result in an opposite polarization of the other photon.
Thus if the detector at A clicks the detector at B should never click and vice versa. The infrastructure is in place , yet the experiment , which would be conclusive has never been performed. Why? The proof of non-locality , if it exists , would be conclusive with regard to many issues vital to QM , including FTL interactions , the Wave function etc., Can , the experiment quoted in this post , with its statistical approach , be given due credence in the face of this huge lacuna ?
I don't understand what you're getting at here? What do you mean by "altering the polarity of the first spatially separated photon"?
 
  • #33
statements:

quamtums awesome, quantums great;
quantum mechanics is incomplete.

If you're expecting it to be the Grand Theory of Unification, then you'll probably be disapointed, especially if you're one of those who compares physics logic to other things you may experience in life (which is easy to do if physics is your life).

question:

What ever came of Einstein's work on the GTU before he died? I watched a vague show by Brian Greene that (if I remember correctly) somehow associated string theory with Einstein's last work.

I've also heard of M-theory, which seems like a patchwork between the different accepted theories (qm, gr, string, etc).
 
  • #34
Sherlock said:
The rigorous definition of photon that produces those better predictions doesn't give me any good idea of what sort of qualitative phenomenon (beyond the level of its mathematical and instrumental manifestations) a photon might correspond to in nature.

Unless you hold the position that the word "photon" refers precisely to this set of instrumental manifestations, in which case the phenomenon is fully described by the mathematical machinery of QM.
 
  • #35
ahrkron said:
Unless you hold the position that the word "photon" refers precisely to this set of instrumental manifestations, in which case the phenomenon is fully described by the mathematical machinery of QM.
As fully as is currently possible anyway -- which, in my estimation, doesn't allow quantum theory to be called a description of nature. The 'nature' of quantum phenomena is still pretty much a mystery, wouldn't you agree?
We use analogies from our experience of macroscopic events to assign some physical meaning to, and give some description of, the nature of quantum phenomena. But this leaves us with complimentarity, wave-particle duality, wave function collapse, etc. -- and, for me at least, the feeling that what is happening *in nature* isn't really that well understood yet.
 
<h2>1. Does a controversy still exist in the scientific community?</h2><p>Yes, there are many ongoing controversies in the scientific community. These can range from debates about the validity of certain scientific theories to ethical concerns about certain research practices.</p><h2>2. What are some examples of current scientific controversies?</h2><p>Some examples of current scientific controversies include the debate over climate change, the use of genetically modified organisms in food production, and the safety of vaccines.</p><h2>3. How do scientists address controversies?</h2><p>Scientists address controversies through rigorous research and peer review processes. They also engage in open and respectful discussions with their colleagues to evaluate evidence and come to a consensus.</p><h2>4. Is it common for scientific controversies to be resolved?</h2><p>Yes, it is common for scientific controversies to be resolved over time. As new evidence is gathered and analyzed, scientists can come to a better understanding of a particular issue and reach a consensus.</p><h2>5. Are controversies necessary for scientific progress?</h2><p>Controversies can be beneficial for scientific progress as they can lead to new ideas, perspectives, and research. However, they should be approached with caution and based on solid evidence to avoid hindering scientific advancement.</p>

1. Does a controversy still exist in the scientific community?

Yes, there are many ongoing controversies in the scientific community. These can range from debates about the validity of certain scientific theories to ethical concerns about certain research practices.

2. What are some examples of current scientific controversies?

Some examples of current scientific controversies include the debate over climate change, the use of genetically modified organisms in food production, and the safety of vaccines.

3. How do scientists address controversies?

Scientists address controversies through rigorous research and peer review processes. They also engage in open and respectful discussions with their colleagues to evaluate evidence and come to a consensus.

4. Is it common for scientific controversies to be resolved?

Yes, it is common for scientific controversies to be resolved over time. As new evidence is gathered and analyzed, scientists can come to a better understanding of a particular issue and reach a consensus.

5. Are controversies necessary for scientific progress?

Controversies can be beneficial for scientific progress as they can lead to new ideas, perspectives, and research. However, they should be approached with caution and based on solid evidence to avoid hindering scientific advancement.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
589
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
661
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
938
Replies
24
Views
1K
Back
Top