Recent content by francis20520

I know that general relativity fails in singularities like the center of a black hole or the big bang. GR also fails at fundamental particle levels like electrons, protons and neutrons etc. I.e. GR cannot explain interactions of various fundamental particles?? (Am I correct?) But these does...

I really like this answer. Mostly because it's put in non-technical detail. Just out of curiosity, so when the electron is emitted by the source there is actually no electron but a probability wave. For ones missing the slits, I suppose that this happens when the highest point in the...

I am aware of superposition. So, the electron "wave" is the probability wave function. So, that means the "wave" gives likelihood of the electron being detected at certain points. But what exactly is "detection"? Why doesn't the probability wave collapse at the double-slit plate? What's not...

This is dumb question, so please bear with me. In the double-slit experiment where they fire a single electron at time, as you can see the electron gun fires a single electron. Now the electron travels as a wave. Now my question is, why doesn't the wave collapse when the wave encounters...

But then, if elementary particles do not "exist" then how come macroscopic things like tables and humans exist? We know for sure that tables and other people exist. Another question is how does a light source emit photons when according to you those photons don't really exist until they are...

Are you saying that "protons exist" is not the same as "tables exist"?? Then how exactly do protons exist??

I am NOT a solipsistic. From my understanding of philosophy solipsism was successfully refuted long time ago. But of course Matrix scenario (i.e. world is a computer simulation) has not so far been refuted. But even if we are a in a simulation then that will be our reality. So simulation...

This view is not correct. I am not saying that science should know everything. My problem is that even the things you say you "know" (like electrons, protons etc, GR and QM etc) exist in reality, now under close questioning seem to be just mathematical models of reality, but not reality...

So what your saying is that the value in science is purely utilitarian. Science is useless in really figuring out anything about the universe. Because models of science can never 100% tell us how the universe actually works or what constitutes it.

I am bit confused. So you are saying that if say somebody asks you what is the smallest unit of matter you have discovered, you have to really say "We really don't know". Because according to your answers "science" actually does not know anything. It just models what it "thinks" is there...

But doesn't Bohmian mechanics require faster than speed of light messaging which violates GR? There is no experimental verification of Bohmian mechanics. So it's just a hypothesis. But QM is a theory which is verified by experiment. So I don't know whether your analogy is correct.

So are you saying that the "model" of the atom created by science is NOT the way it actually is found in nature? But then what else could it be? If a scientist say and verify by experiment that atoms exist what else does it mean than the model is modelling exactly how it is in nature? Or r...

@DrChinese , I have to disagree here. The main purpose of science IS to figure out how the universe works, what its components are, and how the universe got to be the way it is now. I find it preposterous and an insult to think that Einstein spent 10 years to "discover" GR hoping that some...

I am ALL for science. I am on the side of science and objective reality. I am trying to figure out why some quantum physicists say thing like "there is no objective reality". I am thinking that their experiments could be flawed or just wrong. But I am not a physicist so that is why I ask for...

I am also curious about this hidden variable issue. So, are these researchers saying that 2 observers will make different measurements or establish different facts about the same "thing"? Because from my understanding, if we rule out solipsism (which is obvious) there has to be "something" out...