The question and this explanation were posted elsewhere, but initial answers disappeared from the site. I repeat it here hoping it will stay.
%%%%%%%%
There are several Nobel Physics winners that were honored for their contributions to QM. Many (a majority?) of professional physicists obtained their PhD with dissertations on some topic depending on QM.
The Nobel committee supported and made possible the spread of QM by giving the prize to the hardliners QM. They are not neutral.
Some of the characters in the history of QM already passed away, but many more are supporters and beneficiaries of QM and hold positions that depend on the maintenance of QM as a scientifically valid theory. The more reputable ones expect to enter, and remain in, the long term history of science thanks to their QM discoveries.
They heavily invested time and effort in assimilating the quantum doctrine, are deeply convinced of QM main postulates, and would have obvious conflicts of interests in the trial of any competing model.
Thus they may prefer to ignore, or decline, the call of duty as jurors to the court of science and remain happy thereafter, at least for the time being.
On the other hand, scientists should search the truth above all, at least in theory, so that the question implies a moral dilemma.
Daniel ,
All scientists are not neutral, each of us have preferences and incentives to adopt a particular theory (even though we want to deny our human condition and think of ourselves as platonic entities). QM as with any model(theory, worldview, etc.) in science is a trade off between its complexity, predictive power and how it integrates with the existing stock of scientific knowledge.
A crucial point in the development of a model that gives way to the replacement of a theory is the accumulation of discrepancies that eventually lead to incremental fixes that increase substantially the complexity of the model. It is at this point it is usually when new model can be presented in order to displace the old model, but it needs to be able to at least significantly improve the state of knowledge to be even considered and solve the inconsistencies with a simple solution. Under this scenario it is usual to still have individuals hold on to the old theory but eventually the new theory becomes dominant.
My answer to your question is that it depends on whether the new theory complies with the above description. If it does, then the incentives for adoption will be there for the establishment.
Daniel ,
All scientists are not neutral, each of us have preferences and incentives to adopt a particular theory (even though we want to deny our human condition and think of ourselves as platonic entities). QM as with any model(theory, worldview, etc.) in science is a trade off between its complexity, predictive power and how it integrates with the existing stock of scientific knowledge.
A crucial point in the development of a model that gives way to the replacement of a theory is the accumulation of discrepancies that eventually lead to incremental fixes that increase substantially the complexity of the model. It is at this point it is usually when new model can be presented in order to displace the old model, but it needs to be able to at least significantly improve the state of knowledge to be even considered and solve the inconsistencies with a simple solution. Under this scenario it is usual to still have individuals hold on to the old theory but eventually the new theory becomes dominant.
My answer to your question is that it depends on whether the new theory complies with the above description. If it does, then the incentives for adoption will be there for the establishment.
Of course not. And it is unlikely that any such replacement would be viewed as "correct" by scientists, the vast majority of whom (hopefully) understand and believe that this would just offer a new theory to be tested over time, as the current version of QM is presently.
@ Arturo Geigel
Thanks Arturo
I overlooked the Answer section for a long time, am reviewing all of it and trying some late amendments. Sorry for that. I fully agree with your reply to my question.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Emotional Psychology
- Happiness