Physics Discovery: 99.99995% Confidence Level and Quantum Mechanics

AI Thread Summary
Physicists require a confidence level of 99.99995% for claims of discovery, ensuring a high probability of reproducibility. This standard aligns with the "5 sigma" requirement, where a result must be at least five standard deviations away from the hypothesis to be considered valid. The discussion raises questions about whether quantum mechanics (QM) meets this stringent criterion, particularly regarding experimental attempts to falsify it, such as loophole experiments. While the 5 sigma standard addresses statistical errors, it does not account for other potential sources of error. The conversation emphasizes the importance of rigorous standards in validating scientific discoveries.
Rade
At the reference link below is this statement--
Physicists have agreed that claims of a discovery must have a confidence level of 99.99995 percent, indicating a 99.99995 percent chance that the result can be reproduced.
Is this view held, and in what publication was this 'agreed to' ? And, does theory of Quantum Mechanics meet this criterion--that is, have experimental attempts to falsify QM (say, loophole experiments) reached a CL of 99.99995 percent ? Just asking, not trying to cause heartburn.

Reference Link: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/dnal-wht032306.php
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rade said:
Is this view held, and in what publication was this 'agreed to' ? And, does theory of Quantum Mechanics meet this criterion--that is, have experimental attempts to falsify QM (say, loophole experiments) reached a CL of 99.99995 percent ? Just asking, not trying to cause heartburn.

This probably (didn't check) comes down to the "5 sigma" requirement before something can be called a result.
If a measurement is performed with known *statistical* errors, it's kind of a convention that a hypothesis is rejected when it is 5 or more sigma away from it. But this only talks about the statistical error (mostly due to counting statistics). It doesn't say anything about other potential sources of error.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
Back
Top