Norman Samish wrote:

> I realize that there are unsolved problems in quantum mechanics that can be 
> solved by adding dimensions, whether spatial or time.  I also know that 
> added dimensions are describable mathematically, and that some (Tegmark) 
> hold that this makes them real.  However, as Jonathan points out with 
> respect to Geddes's speculation, extra dimensions are not yet testable. 
> Until they are, we can just as well invoke fairy dust - or God - or 
> whatever - to explain the QM problems.

If a theory makes predictions that are not testable, even in principle,
then it is not a scientific theory and we ignore it.

If a theory makes predictions that are testable in principle but not yet
in practical terms, one can still falsify it by demonstrating that it
fails retrodiction of experimentally demonstrated facts.

This latter was one concern I had about the referenced papers.  Barring
logical errors, his equations resulting from treating 3-space 3-time in
a "classical" way are able to explain particle spin, charge
quantization, the exclusion principle, wave function probabilities, and
a host of other things related to electromagnetism and gravity.  But do
they also imply things we have already experimentally demonstrated to be
false? (I personally don't have the training or skills to answer this
question.)

Even if a theory survives these two criteria--it makes predictions that
are testable in principle (even if not yet in practical terms), and it
is consistent with all known experimental facts--we can still rank it
vs. competing theories using Ockham's Razor.

I don't think we can equate Chen's Three Dimensional Time Theory with
God or fairy dust, as the God theory is not scientific and the fairy
dust theory lacks the explanatory power seen in Chen's papers.

So I'm back to my original questions.  On it's own merits, does Chen's
theory make predictions testable in principle, even if not yet feasible?
Does is retrodict known experimental facts?  Is it simpler in the Ockham
sense than prevailing theories?

The papers themselves do not address these questions. I'm looking for
others on the list to comment.

-Johnathan


Reply via email to