What are unproven, yet working theories called?

[NMFTM]

A person might have X problem to solve. The person then devises Y theory to solve it. Y theory solves X problem completely. But then, later on a person has Z problem which the same type of problem as X problem, but Y theory doesn't successfully solve the problem.

It's like trying to figure out how to solve a math problem, finding a way to solve it which works, but then realizing that the way you came up with only works on that math problem and not on of a similar type. Like a solution for solving 2+2 only works for solving 2+2 but not all addition problems involving whole numbers in general. So, it's not a law of mathematics. Only an "anomaly". Or, only a law on mathematics when dealing with that one very particular problem.

I remember watching a documentary (I think on the Science Channel) about some guy who came up with an incorrect model of the solar system that said that the Earth, other planets, and Sun orbited in such a way that we today know is false. Or something along those lines. But, the methods he used to reach that conclusion worked out perfectly mathematically and on paper. Does anyone know what I'm thinking of?

I'm asking because quantum mechanics is technically only a theory even though everyone acts like it's an indisputable fact. But I can't really get my mind around the idea that there are random events like the theory claims. I think that it's only logically consistent that every event is caused by a chain of other events going back to the infinity (or the beginning of the universe) and that even though some events may seem to be random, it's only the inability to correctly take all variables into account that makes them seem random. Even though QM seems to solve a lot of problems, that doesn't mean it's necessarily correct. Just like the guy in the preceding paragraph's model of the solar system.

This may sound very cynical. But the idea that there are random events seems like an excuse by scientists to justify them throwing their collective hands up in the air when it comes to certain things by claiming that the events are random. Instead of trying to actually figure out why those certain events happen. Or, have an excuse ready as to why they can't understand them so it won't seem like they've hit a roadblock and aren't making as much progress as quickly as they think they should be.

Although, I will say that I'm not necessarily 100% opposed there being some random events. I try to suspend judgment when it comes to everything and keep just a tiny sliver of doubt in my mind that anything is really as it seems, even when it comes to things that seem almost for certain. So, I could be completely wrong about this.

So, that ends my ignorant rant. I'd like to hear people's thoughts and opinions. Hopefully the thoughts and opinions of people who are smarter than me.

[Sef]

What are unproven, yet working theories called?

A Theory. If a theory is proven, then it is a fact. If you get technical with the definition, then a Hypothesis is the word that you are looking for.

From Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory)

—Synonyms
1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis

[handy]

Theories.

Which admittedly makes it all that much harder for the lay person to assign a value to what the scientists are up to.

[mendhak]

... even though everyone acts like it's an indisputable fact.

There may be a few reasons to do this:

1) They don't understand the distinction between theory and fact
2) All of quantum physics is based on a framework of theories. Theories are usually built on top of other theories so if a base-theory is proven, then it helps strengthen the higher-up theories and of course if something is disproven, the whole thing falls apart.

For example, Newton's theory of gravity was incomplete, and got superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity. There have been lots of demonstrations towards strengthening Einstein's theory and although it is not yet a fact, observations allow eggheads to use it for a lot of their work. Even Newton's theories are still being used for generalized calculations.

Randomness isn't necessarily scientists throwing up their hands. The context of the randomness can also mean that it's a phenomenon not yet understood. The context in quantum physics is that the randomness is actually a probability function, I think there's a difference there as if it were left to randomness, no further pursuits would be necessary or would occur.

[rigao]

Some have pointed out this, but I'll say it another time: every physics theory is this, a theory. It is not a fact.

QM is a working theory as it is relativity. They are not facts in any way. This theories will be used until proved wrong, or, until a better theory comes to play.

That said, I find QM disturbing too. I've never believed in it either. I always thought there where some hidden variables which we don't know yet, which will rule out chance from the schema.

BUT then, science happened. I was studying an experiment where two electrons are sent in opposite directions with correlated spins (if one is UP, then the other must be DOWN), and QM states they have each a 50% chance of being UP, but the moment you look at one of them, then the other collapses into the opposite spin (instantly, you know, even if they are year-lights apart). At first I thought the same as I always thought: there is something we don't know, and the wave-function does not collapse into one spin, but the electron always have had this spin but we just didn't know. But then, I continued with my readings and it seemed that in this particular kind of experiment, there is a measurable difference between the two theories (one, QM, the other, that there are hidden variables that we just don't know). The experiment where done and it was proven that it was QM which correctly predicted the result. I could not understand much of the technical part, thought.

I remember reading it in Sakuray's book on QM, but I won't remember which chapter it was (I tell you the author because maybe you are interested in reading this as well).

So, at the end of the day, QM is the theory which works the best. It is sad, but this seems to be the truth.

An interesting thing that might catch your eye is string theory.

It makes a very valid theory which predicts the same things which QM predicts, but with a ton of dimensions. Interestingly, it does not make a single different prediction from QM, hence it is impossible to disprove it (if you do not disprove QM too), so it is a wonderful theory on paper, with tons of math, but which no experimental ground. I've read some where that when we can reach like 50TeV it might be possible to make an experiment which has different results in string theory than in the standard theory. Now we have 7TeV, so it is still a long long way for this theory to be able to actually explain something.

PS: Your thread tittle would be much better like:

"What are disproved, yet used theories?"

Which will be theories we know are false but we still use. The one most known is Newton theory of gravitation, of course. We know it is false, but it is so good an approximation to our best theory when there are no very very strong gravitational fields (or speeds so close to light speed) with a fraction of the computational cost of relativity, that it is very useful.

[handy]

It really should NEVER be forgotten that some scientific theories contain fact.

If you don't believe go stick your hand in it? :lolflag:

Apart from the FACT that we are all using computers & communicating with each other. The foundations of this technology is based in scientific theory...

Forgive me please, but tonight I'm not feeling subtle or sensitive. :)

[Bachstelze]

It really should NEVER be forgotten that some scientific theories contain fact.

If you don't believe go stick your hand in it? :lolflag:

Apart from the FACT that we are all using computers & communicating with each other. The foundations of this technology is based in scientific theory...

Forgive me please, but tonight I'm not feeling subtle or sensitive. :)

You're comparing apples and oranges. Theories do not contain facts, they try to explain them.

[matthew.ball]

The whole scientific process is essentially* just conjectures and refutations.

You assume something only to use that as a basis to discover other "anomalies". Sometimes we find a contradiction, which tells us the original assumption was false.

In general, this is how science progresses. But this is not necessarily always the case. If you're interested, check out Hume's "problem of induction" (which Popper basically solved with conjectures and refutations). This naturally leads into deductive vs. inductive reasoning.

Basically, we'll never really have an "objective" truth, just closer and closer approximations to what constitutes the truth.

The example referred to above (by rigao) is Conway's Free Will Theorem. Which basically says if a sub-atomic particle has free will, so do we.

The common misconception of quantum mechanics is applying it to the macroscopic level of reality. Which just won't work, and is in fact the whole premise behind the famous Schrödinger's cat example.

Basically, there is a quest to unify all of physics, from the macroscopic level (galaxies and stars), to the microscopic level (atoms and quarks).

Where General Relativity describes the macroscopic level to varying degrees of success, Quantum Mechanics describes the microscopic level to varying degrees of success. However, these two theories are incompatible with each other. This leads to three views of physics:

1. Those who believe GR is correct and thus QM is wrong.
2. Those who believe QM is correct and thus GR is wrong.
3. Those who believe both are wrong.

Before there was GR, we had Newtonian mechanics, which describes the overlap between the two reasonably well, but falls apart over large and small scales, so while it gives a decent approximation, we know it isn't correct.

While riago explained most of this, one issue I have with his post, is that string theory can never be empirically confirmed. Purely for the fact we can only observe what is in three dimensions (and string theory needs 11 or 12?). However, from a mathematician's perspective, it's not difficult to jump into higher-dimensions. If you're interested in different dimensions, check out the film "Flatland" for a description (and understanding) of how to conceive of these higher dimensions.

[Zorgoth]

One thing is that I am not quite certain that QM qualifies as *a* theory. A professor I had was adamant that rather than a theory it should be called a framework for theories to work in. Presumably because it is not an entirely unified/constant theory.

Also, GR as a complete framework for explaining the universe is wrong, but I do not know if I would go so far as to say that there being QM makes GR "wrong." GR is still probably the low-energy limit.

And for the OP, those are, as at least one other poster has mentioned, called... theories.

But scientists don't "prove" theories like mathematicians prove theorems. When they do prove a theory, it is assuming some postulate that cannot be proven. There is inherent uncertainty in science.

[rigao]

While riago explained most of this, one issue I have with his post, is that string theory can never be empirically confirmed. Purely for the fact we can only observe what is in three dimensions (and string theory needs 11 or 12?). However, from a mathematician's perspective, it's not difficult to jump into higher-dimensions. If you're interested in different dimensions, check out the film "Flatland" for a description (and understanding) of how to conceive of these higher dimensions.

I myself never studied any string theory, so what i said and I'm going to say is just what I've heard, which may perfectly have no ground at all.

Anyway, here it goes:

Even if we can only experience 4 dimensions, this does not mean we are not in a 13 dimension world (I think this is the dimension number that can fit all the string theories that have been created). We still are a in those dimensions even if those 9 more are so small we don't notice them.

The point is that the string theory is beautiful from a mathematical point of view, but right now, it cannot be tested empirically (hence it does not makes practical predictions, so first, it is useless, but second, it cannot be disproved).

But, and this is a big but, I do think it is theoretically possible to test string theory, just that we haven't reached enough energy in the particle accelerator (think of this as of the search of the Higgs bosson, until now we simply had not enough energy to find it. Now, if we do not find it, the standard theory is in a lot of danger).

I quote this from wikipedia: "One such unique prediction is string harmonics: at sufficiently high energies—probably near the quantum gravity scale—the string-like nature of particles would become obvious. There should be heavier copies of all particles corresponding to higher vibrational states of the string. But it is not clear how high these energies are. In the most likely case, they would be 10^14 times higher than those accessible in the newest particle accelerator, the LHC, making this prediction impossible to test with any particle accelerator in the foreseeable future."

It seems that the energy required to falsify string theory apart from QM is far higher than I thought.

Anyway, I must fly now.

[matthew.ball]

Well, technically, the term "quantum mechanics" refers to a family of different theories - each which gives different results depending on context. But usually when one speaks of QM they speak of the Copenhagen interpretation, which is why in it's colloquial use it denotes a single theory.

Edit: I'm not a physicist, and I'm not a mathematician. I'm just an undergraduate philosophy student with a deep interest in science. I am most probably wrong; I've only spent the last few years studying this (with a particular interest in the philosophy of astrophysics), what I wrote is basically my own interpretations of the few courses I have done, and I certainly don't consider myself an authoritative figure on the subject.

[cloyd]

Scientific theories explain facts. To be called a theory, they have been tested and been shown to explain a large number of facts, and to not have many facts which would indicate that they are false. When more facts come available, and a theory is shown to be inadequate to explain the known facts, then it is abandoned, replaced, or modified. Science is more about theories than facts. But, as someone else said on this forum, science has some built in uncertainties. Theories are never proved, just shown to be supported or unsupported.

Really, I think the basics of philosophy should be part of everyone's education, and that dab of philosohy should include a unit on the philosophy of science . . . it is necessary for understanding our technological culture. We should learn the basics of philosophy just like we have to learn geography. It is basic information for civilized people.

[NMFTM]

Thanks for all the replies. This is the only thread I can think of where every response was completely on topic as well as interesting and informative. I'd reply more (maybe I will later) but I'm currently only here to put off doing some work.

I've actually recently acquired a documentary (really, more like a series of lectures) on QM which I plan on watching when I have the time.

Really, I think the basics of philosophy should be part of everyone's education, and that dab of philosohy should include a unit on the philosophy of science . . . it is necessary for understanding our technological culture. We should learn the basics of philosophy just like we have to learn geography. It is basic information for civilized people.
I agree, I've recently started following stoicism and it seems like a pretty consistent and logical philosophy to follow. Both from a scientific (e.g. stoic physics) standpoint that the universe (cosmos) can be separated into two distinct categories. The active (logos) acts on the passive (matter) to create pneuma. Which makes up everything that we experience from the sun giving off energy, to comets and asteroids orbiting various celestial bodies, to the creation and evolution of life and what makes up the phenomenon that we experience as consciousness, rationality, and free will. Although, I'm not completely sure if I'm sold on the idea that just because the universe created living and rational beings that the universe it's self is a living and rational being as some stoics believed.

Also, a lot of their other ideas, such as determinism, non-dualistic physics (monism) which for example says that there is no separation between the the mind and body even though most people think of them as separate entities. Since the mind is made up of the same things as the body is. Which is in turn made up of the same things as everything else in the cosmos, etc. And other ideas, like the idea that ideas don't actually exist in reality and are only concepts that we experience as various reactions in the brain.

More importantly, I think the ethical aspect of stoicism as well as many of their psychological "tricks" (e.g. negative visualization) about how to think about things are a great way to attain happiness.

Even though humanity may have made strides in our ability to utilize technology to accomplish various tasks since the days of Socrates. I don't think it's by contrast really made that big of strides in our ability to understand the cosmos or meaning of life. Even though we've all grown up around advanced technology doesn't mean it'll necessarily make us happier. People today are probably about as happy as the people in Socrates's day were despite even the poorest of most Westerners living in such a way that was in many ways superior to how emperors lived back then. I've come to the conclusion that technology is neither good or bad, but is indifferent. A person with the right attitude could be happy under any circumstances. A poor person who found out that they had a disease that would kill them in a week could be happier than a rich person who lived in good health for 100 years.

But, if philosophy were forced on students as apart of their schooling it would probably loose most of it's impact. I was never all that interested in art or music when it was forced on me in school. But, a year or two after graduating I started to develop an interest. I'm not saying that philosophy is something that can't be taught. But, it needs to be actively sought after by people. Otherwise it just becomes like any other aspect of academia where people just memorize (cram) what the professor says so they can get good grades on the exams and then forget about it as soon as the test is over and go on with their lives as if they hadn't taken the philosophy course at all. Although, never having attended a college level philosophy course I can't say for certain whether it's necessarily like that. But, judging from the way most other subjects in formal schooling are taught, I'm fairly certain that philosophy is no exception.

Even if the philosophy you decide to follow has flaws (which, they all do. Some more than others) it's still probably better than not following any philosophy at all and just kind of living life without any sense of purpose. Even if doing so means that you might miss out on some aspects of life that you might have otherwise enjoyed. The positives probably outweigh the negatives in most circumstances when it's all said and done.

[Bachstelze]

Scientific theories explain facts. To be called a theory, they have been tested and been shown to explain a large number of facts, and to not have many facts which would indicate that they are false.

Fixed that for you. If you find a single fact that contradicts the theory, then the theory can be labeled as false (which does not mean useless, sut still false). Of course, you do the experiment several times, to make sure the fact is indeed a fact, and not an experimental mishap, but one suffices.

EDIT: Or, of course, you could say: "the theory is true, except when it is not true." Non-scientists often use this trick: "Mac users are stupid", and then when you find one who is smarter than you, "Mac users are stupid, except those who aren't." :p

[cubsfan53]

Work around.


;)

[handy]

You're comparing apples and oranges. Theories do not contain facts, they try to explain them.

:lolflag: Well, that's your theory! :)

I always find it difficult to explain something without somehow encapsulating it...

Apples & oranges is a very poor example, as they are both fruit of a tree, usually of much the same shape & size.

I've always thought it strange that people use that terminology. :confused: Though I do understand that an apple does make a very poor orange. ;)

More appropriate terminology for indicating the incomparable nature of two things would be something like water & rock I think. I'm sure that you could come up with a better pair. :)

[Chronon]

Facts correspond most closely to something like highly repeatable observations or measurements. A theory seeks to account for empirical data (facts).

A theory can never be proven. It can only be shown to be adequate (or not) for a given set of data. In mathematics, proof can refer to a series of logical steps that show that a given statement is conditionally true based on the assumption of truth of certain starting axioms. However, when trying to construct some theory for reality we don't have the luxury of simply positing the truth of our axioms and so we can't ever obtain the sort of logical truth to which mathematicians may be accustomed. Instead, we take data and make observations and seek to find a theory that fits the data/observations. We trust certain sets of axioms if they lead to a theory that closely corresponds to our observations.

[Chronon]

Fixed that for you. If you find a single fact that contradicts the theory, then the theory can be labeled as false (which does not mean useless, sut still false). Of course, you do the experiment several times, to make sure the fact is indeed a fact, and not an experimental mishap, but one suffices.

EDIT: Or, of course, you could say: "the theory is true, except when it is not true." Non-scientists often use this trick: "Mac users are stupid", and then when you find one who is smarter than you, "Mac users are stupid, except those who aren't." :p
I agree.

Your edit seems reminiscent of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

[renkinjutsu]

I think it would be called a theorem .. That's the closest word I can think of. Google's definition of "theorem" is a theory that has been proven by other theories.. So there is no conclusive proof that the theorem or the theories backing it are absolute, however, they are still used in modern day science and mathematics.

[bouncingwilf]

In my day a tentative (unproven) theory was a hypothesis, a theory was - well just that a theory, and established obvious "facts" were axioms.

[lisati]

I sometimes like to think in terms of "working hypothesis." When new data comes in that appears to contradict your working hypothesis, you review it and either revise it (your hypothesis) or discard it.

Having read the bulk of the thread so far, I might go get myself a coffee before I manage to confuse myself.

[handy]

I sometimes like to think in terms of "working hypothesis." When new data comes in that appears to contradict your working hypothesis, you review it and either revise it (your hypothesis) or discard it.

Having read the bulk of the thread so far, I might go get myself a coffee before I manage to confuse myself.

So is your view that increasing the level of caffeine in your blood stream to alleviate confusion, a fact, (due to the observance of caffeine's effect over an extended period of experimentation, which we could call empirical evidence), or is it a theory or a theorem? Both of which would by definition be perfectly acceptable by some of those with the scientific bent of nature as being the functional equivalent of a fact in certain sets of circumstances. ?

Though this is of course just an hypothesis...

[lisati]

So is your view that increasing the level of caffeine in your blood stream to alleviate confusion, a fact, (due to the observance of caffeine's effect over an extended period of experimentation, which we could call empirical evidence), or is it a theory or a theorem? Both of which would by definition be perfectly acceptable by some of those with the scientific bent of nature as being the functional equivalent of a fact in certain sets of circumstances. ?

Though this is of course just an hypothesis...

It's more like taking a break, so that I don't end up involved in a discussion that could end up going over my head. :D

[handy]

It's more like taking a break, so that I don't end up involved in a discussion that could end up going over my head. :D

Well, that was me trying fool people that it hadn't already gone over mine.

Good try I thought. :lolflag:

[lordhaworth]

I won't be able to write better words than Feynman here...

see e.g. http://www.fotuva.org/online/frameload.htm?/online/science.htm

www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=26985

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4



It is necessary to teach both to accept and to reject the past with a kind of balance that takes considerable skill. Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers of the preceding generation.




It should not be "science has shown" but "this experiment, this effect, has shown." And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments--but be patient and listen to all the evidence--to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.






When someone says, "Science teaches such and such," he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, "Science has shown such and such," you might ask, "How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?"




Basically, "fact" is a strong word. Physics at present is only "so right". But this is not a bad thing, we look forwards to the next paradigm shift

[Austin25]

There are no facts, only theories. Except maybe for math.

[lordhaworth]

There are no facts, only theories. Except maybe for math.


I guess math is self contained fact... It is the nature of it.
Undeniable proof gives a "fact".

Physics using "fact" is a bit more difficult. I would recommend reading about Roger Penrose's "3 worlds". The link below has a picture which is helpful but not a very good description (you probably need to see The Emporers New Mind or The Road To Reality)

http://cambridgeforecast.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/three-worlds/

[Oxwivi]

Science = theory.

Period.

[ssam]

Science = theory.

Period.

that's "just a theory" :-)

and for some more lulz
http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity
http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

[Oxwivi]

Science being theory is a fact!

:KS

Is there anything we know that is fact?

[handy]

Science being theory is a fact!

:KS

Is there anything we know that is fact?

Hand in fire =

[koleoptero]

What are unproven, yet working theories called?

Conjectures.

[Oxwivi]

Hand in fire =
It could be simply a way our brain perceives it. Have you ever read about the possibility of the Matrix world being true in reality? Well I'll be, that's another theory as well, that we perceive using brain.

[handy]

It could be simply a way our brain perceives it. Have you ever read about the possibility of the Matrix world being true in reality? Well I'll be, that's another theory as well, that we perceive using brain.

Since The Backyard sub-forum was closed I do my very best to control myself in the Cafe. I rarely cross the line & start talking about the various energy centres (chakras) that exist in everyone, or rave on about the various qualities of sensory experience available via each.

Nor do I foolishly attempt to expound on the impossible to relate to experience of being the conscious unity of all creation that resides in the crown chakra (as people tend to think you are a fruit loop if you do).

So really I tend to think that the subjects you bought up in your reply are far too left field for anyone here to take seriously.

But lets enjoy them anyway. ;)

[endotherm]

Op:
I would only point out that one tenant of the deductive reasoning and thus the scientific process, is that you cannot prove, you can only disprove. in order to prove somthing, you must test it infinitely, against every possible permutation, including all the possibilities that the tester cannot conceive of.

as such, a unproven but widely accepted theory, is known as a "Law". a Law is just a theory that has stood up to a good bit of testing without being disproven.

[handy]

Ah! endotherm?

Until we meet again.

;)

[endotherm]

Ah! endotherm?

Until we meet again.

;)
indeed, hail and well met.