Slashdot Mirror
New Discovery Disproves Quantum Theory?
An anonymous reader writes to tell us the Guardian is running a story that has quite a few physicists up in arms. From the article: "Randell Mills, a Harvard University medic who also studied electrical engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claims to have built a prototype power source that generates up to 1,000 times more heat than conventional fuel. Independent scientists claim to have verified the experiments and Dr Mills says that his company, Blacklight Power, has tens of millions of dollars in investment lined up to bring the idea to market. And he claims to be just months away from unveiling his creation." The only problem is Mills' theory is supposed to be impossible when using current rules of quantum mechanics.
http://science.slashdot.org/science/02/12/07/22522 59.shtml?tid=126
http://science.slashdot.org/science/02/06/07/21592 10.shtml?tid=134
What makes this case interesting is the length of time this "hoax" has persisted. The funding means nothing; a company with a large budget doesn't care to gamble with the amounts claimed. The validations of his energy claims are the most significant. Many laboratories have found anomalies in reproduced experiments (and some have failed). His theory does not have nearly as much support - nearly every qualified physicist I have given his book to has politely said he's wrong. His derivations just don't make sense.
Some of the more open minded physicists then said that doesn't mean he's wrong. There may be energy produced that current physics can account for, and at worst QM would need amends. This speculation is really irrelevant if he is claiming a product- all we have to do is wait a while and see how it pans out.
Company website: http://www.blacklightpower.com/ (download theory book for free)
I'd venture to say that QM has come too far to be "disproved"... it could certainly be refined or integrated into a superset of a theory. But it simply describes too many observations with too great a precision and accuracy for it to be wholly wrong. Even if there exists new and unaccounted for forces, states of matter, or effects, QM describes too accurately what we've measured so far that QM would probably become the starting point for the next bigger theory.
E pluribus unum
You can argue with this all you like, but the fact is
This sounds a lot like "La, la, la, I can't hear you."
f you think you can disprove intelligent design, you don't understand the 'theory.'
I don't have to disprove it. The burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory. ID isn't a theory, anyway. It's just throwing up one's hands and saying "God^H^H^HSome really smart being must have done it." That ain't science.
ID posits that life didn't just appear, but was orchestrated/designed/set-into-motion by some intelligent source while evolution declares that it just happened.
"Just happened" is an absurd summation of what evolution is about.
(Really, what science means by this is that they don't know, but it obviously happened, and these materials are needed, so they must have been there when it happened. But we weren't there when it 'happened' so we can't say for sure if anyone was stirring the pool with a stick or not, but we'll say there wasn't.
Direct experiment is not the only means of verifying scientific theories, and the claim that it is is a canard dreamt up by ID/Creationism proponents. If the theory predicts that certain things should be observed in nature, then those observations are confirming factors. You can disprove evolutionary theory: Just find, say, hominid fossils in strata older than dinosoaurs.
The whole "you weren't there" thing is nonsense. I notice that the religious never find that a problem with their creation stories. If science is only restricted to what happens in a lab, say goodbye to astronomy and geology.
-this being taught as 'fact' in schools is what irks many, especially when the scientific community insists evolution is solid and doesn't give any credence to any other ideas, even when they are just as possible/probable.)
But these other ideas aren't as possible or probable. The theory of evolution is supported by actual, real evidence. ID isn't even a scientific theory. People like Behe keep saying it is, but when pressed, all they can say is, "Well, it looks to us like it was designed." End. No more investigations. He even admitted in court that ID is only scientific if the definition of science were extended so broadly that it included astrology!
If their theory is scientific, how can it be falsified? What experiment or observations could show it is wrong? ID can be confirmed by anything at all, so it's useless.
Evolution happened. In that sense, it is a fact, and all that remains is to explain how it happened. Without evolution, modern biology makes no sense. It is the unifying principle of biology, and if you want to discard it, you have to discard biology as we know it. All those miraculous drugs, all the research on stem cells, all of it goes out the window.
What really irks many about statements such as I just made is that the idea of evolution is odious to them for reasons having nothing to do with science. They just don't like it, and strain to find a "scientific" way to discredit it. Problem is, none of them have. I dare you to find anything, any evidence whatsoever in favor of creationism/ID (yes, they are the same thing). Even if you consider them as separate ideas, all their champions do is try to say evolution is wrong for this or that reason.
How about this: State the scientific theory of Intelligent Design. Give us something that can be confirmed by evidence or disproven. There is no such thing.
Imagine if all science was done the way ID proponents want it done. We'd see a phenomenon, like, say, gravity. Then we'd say, "Hmm. It's really hard to see how this could be. So God or Elvis or some alien makes it go." Then it would be settled. Great.
Quantum physics, on the other hand, can be disproved here and now, if and only if, something outside the 'laws' of quantum theory is discovered to work..
And all that has to happen is that something has to be demonstrated and replicated. Hasn't happened yet.
I don't have time to keep going around about this. If you want the last word, be my guest.