- #1
einsteinian77
- 208
- 0
I've heard that if one of these theories is correct then the other must be wrong. What exactly is the conflict between these two theories?
Last edited:
Now, as I said before I am no math wiz, but I do know that a probability equation that yields a probability of "p>100%" is incorrect.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Well...
Actually, in my understanding of QM, it is not required that one work with normalized probability distribution functions (pdf); i.e. it doesn't have to add up to 100%. The probabilities are actually relative probabilities, so if f(1) = 2 and f(2) = 6, then the odds of the particle being at point 2 are three times as much as it being at point 1.
For many pdf's, you can divide by the overall total to get a "real" pdf that has the property that it adds up to 100%, but some of them cannot, such as plane wave states.
Originally posted by einsteinian77
I've heard that if one of these theories is correct then the other must be wrong. What exactly is the conflict between these two theories?
And these total up to values greater than 100%? If f(1) is infinite and so is f(2), then you've done something wrong, yes?
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Same thing here; if you get infinites, that would mean that you need to try and apply some other snazzy technique to get the real answer.
(I believe "renormalization" is related to this)
Originally posted by einsteinian77
I've heard that if one of these theories is correct then the other must be wrong. What exactly is the conflict between these two theories?
Originally posted by marcus
First, here is some physics folklore. To make it easy to talk about, assume Planck scale units (c = G = hbar =1)
Imagine an uncharged nonrotating black hole with mass M = 1.
Originally posted by Alexander
You must be joking. You can't neglect spin of elementary BH because graviton has a spin (=2, I believe).
That is why your futher conclusions are wrong.
Originally posted by einsteinian77
I've read a lot of books on general relativity and I am pretty sure i know what the theory is offering. However, I am not exactly an advanced mathematician so can't understand stand all of it completely. What I am curious about is how matter actually "bends" space-time or in other words what is it that matter is doing that bends space-time?
Originally posted by einsteinian77
I've read a lot of books on general relativity and I am pretty sure i know what the theory is offering. However, I am not exactly an advanced mathematician so can't understand stand all of it completely. What I am curious about is how matter actually "bends" space-time or in other words what is it that matter is doing that bends space-time?
Originally posted by einsteinian77
I'm not trying to sound overly confident in my theory but i don't necessarily want to post a potentially correct theory on the internet without knowing that I will get the full recognition for it.
Are you professional scientist, specifically theoretical physicist? If not, then you don't have even snowballs chance in hell to gain any kind of recognition. Scientific hierarchy protects itself very strongly against unitiated. And for a good reason.Originally posted by einsteinian77
I'm not trying to sound overly confident in my theory but i don't necessarily want to post a potentially correct theory on the internet without knowing that I will get the full recognition for it.
Originally posted by einsteinian77
I'm not trying to sound overly confident in my theory but i don't necessarily want to post a potentially correct theory on the internet without knowing that I will get the full recognition for it.
Conflict between theories refers to the disagreement or contradiction between different scientific theories or hypotheses that attempt to explain the same phenomena.
The consequences of conflicting theories can include confusion and uncertainty within the scientific community and the general public. It can also hinder progress in understanding and solving problems related to the phenomena in question.
Scientists handle conflicting theories by conducting further research and experiments to gather more evidence and data. They also engage in debates and discussions with other scientists to critically evaluate and refine their theories.
Yes, conflicting theories can be resolved through the accumulation of evidence and data, as well as the development of new theories that can reconcile the conflicting ones. It is also possible for one theory to be proven to be more accurate and accepted over the others.
Addressing conflicts between theories is important because it allows for a better understanding of the phenomena being studied and can lead to the development of more accurate and comprehensive theories. It also promotes critical thinking and scientific progress.