this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
28 points (91.2% liked)

Ask Science

8692 readers
113 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.


Community Rules


Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.


Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.


Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.


Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.


Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.


Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.


Rule 7: Report violations.Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.


Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.


Rule 9: Source required for answers.Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.


By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Say we have all the empirical evidence from 19th-century science prior to the observation of the wavelike diffraction of matter particles, plus 21st-century math and theory to construct an alternative explanation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

It would be pretty hard. There’s a reason quantum mechanics is the current explanation, and it doesn’t start with the Bell entanglement experiments.

Black body radiation would have some bizarre behavior without quantum mechanics.

The radiation spectrums of stars are also very dependent on quantum mechanics.

Some related phenomena such as transistors and phosphorescence are hard to explain without quantum mechanics.

A big one is chemistry is highly dependent on quantum mechanics. You could have a limited understanding of ionic compounds with just the Columbic force, but covalent bonds require quantum mechanics to explain.

Most of physics history is studying the edge cases and gaps in the current understanding, and filling those in. Quantum mechanics didn’t just appear suddenly; it was derived as an explanation for many previously unexplained phenomena in pieces my many different people over time.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 hours ago

If you did come up with an alternative explanation, you would have to reinvent just about everything. Ever seen what it would take for the flat earth idea to hold water? Yeah, that level of reinvention plus some more of that vibe.

But let’s say that in this alternate universe those wild models are actually true, valid and they end up producing a universe that looks like ours. Since it’s based on completely different physics, there will also be some strange differences. Even if those galaxies look like ours, it doesn’t mean that biochemistry or life would be possible.