Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Measuring the immeasurable.

  1. Aug 18, 2009 #1
    If we cannot directly measure or observe C it doesn't mean C doesn't exist.

    If we can directly measure and observe A and B it always means A and B exists.

    Lets say it so happens that B becomes measurable and observable only and only when A and C somehow interacts and we don't know that.

    Let D = A + B

    D is then defined, measured and therefore existent by A and B.

    So we don't necessarily have to directly measure or observe C but it is still needed to get D.

    Would we know that something is missing in definition of D?

    Do You consider C to be significant?
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 18, 2009 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Try logic operators and see what you get.
  4. Aug 18, 2009 #3
    Assuming the universe operates logically, if D follows from A and B(which are true), then D is true.

    This is not scientific, but can you support that claim?
  5. Aug 18, 2009 #4
    No I can't, but I did my best.
  6. Aug 18, 2009 #5
    A, B, and D are ambiguous events. How do you add events?
  7. Aug 29, 2009 #6
    You make no sense. That's just contradictory.

    Anywayz, you can't prove that C exists. It's like trying to prove the theory of evolution, you can't prove it because not only is it untestable - it is based on other theory's.
  8. Aug 29, 2009 #7
    Only if D is my lunch.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook