I was talking to a graduate physics student about the issue of energy conservation in an expanding universe. I paraphrased the argument against energy conservation as follows -
Suppose we have a photon in outer space that is very far from earth. The universe is expanding (by this I meant that in...
You test the explanation "Earth causes objects to fall" by testing the predictions that are implicated by the explanation. But, successfully predicting outcomes still does not count as explanation. Explaining things has a different meaning than merely predicting things. The Earth scenario that I...
Why would it imply that because successfully predicting outcomes does not count as "explaining," that then there is no way to experimentally test anything that I would consider an "explanation"? Consider the following scenario: some hypothesis predicts that when I release an object some y...
It appears to me that even though you are rejecting the common explanation of "quantum objects interfering with themselves" you are invoking another explanation that is definitely not a physical one. Mathematical objects such as fields, and probability amplitudes cannot be reasonably said to...
In a double-slit experiment, if a beam of photons is fired, an interference pattern composed of photons will result. But, if photons are fired one at a time, an interference pattern will still result. Why is this? The only explanation that I've seen is that the photon interferes with itself. I...
Hello, I recently joined this website as a member. I am currently an undergraduate majoring in math, and physics. My main interests are quantum mechanics, and particle physics.