This entire discussion (as do most in this forum) seems to evolve about scientific reasoning and the burden of proof. Since physics (in its most basic definition) is the observable reaction between particles, it must be 'observed' through any or all of our 5 senses. Your reasoning (and definitions) may start off in your dreams, but it has to come out and be observed sooner or later.
By keeping this caveat in front of our efforts at all times we use scientific reasoning and approach defining the physics of our universe in several ways:
A) We observe a physical interaction between known particles and then build a sound, mathematical model to define this observed interaction. If the next observed interaction does not behave exactly as our model defined it to do, we isolate the variable(s) and adjust the equation to accommodate the observed interaction. When we develop just such an equation (such as F=MA) that we prove to be 100% accurate with our observations AND our predictions for future observations we have gone from Theory to Fact. This is called science.
- If we develop a model that cannot accommodate an observed interaction, but we thought it should, we [need to] come up with a different model for that interaction and/or reclassify that interaction.
We conceive a desired interaction between known particles, based on the observed interactions of those particles, and then we hypothesize a mathematical model to predict this future observable interaction. We then test and develop this model to the point of usefulness, and then use this model to duplicate those observed interactions for our own device; the atomic bomb comes to mind. This is called innovation.
C) We conceive a desired interaction between known particles of an unobserved interaction and then form a hypothesis on how to make that previously unobserved interaction between particles become observable. We then develop this hypothesis to the point where we can develop a model that can be tested for an observable interaction. When that interaction is observed we call it invention.
D) We conceive a desired interaction between hypothetical particles of an unobserved interaction and then form a hypothesis on how to create the model that will make that interaction between these hypothetical particles observable. We then develop this hypothetical model to the point where we can test it for an observable interaction. This is called imagination. (Remember, Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge...and he was right). When the model becomes real and the results become observable then we call it discovery.
3 variables (Observable, Known and Model) with 4 outcomes (Fact, Theory, Hypothesis or Conjecture) and 4 approaches (Science, Innovation, Invention, Discovery). (There may be other sub-variations of these methodologies but I'll keep it simple for now).
Now, the laws that govern these physical definitions are the foundation for science, and while somewhat malleable, they are absolute in their construction:
1) It has to be observable. That is a Fact. If it cannot be made observable it remains a theory.
- If you haven't observed it before, you have to make it observable. If your models can't, and can never do that, it's not even hypothetical; it remains in the realm of conjecture until you do.
2) It has to be based in a model with real particles that can be observed. The particles may be hypothetical in the early stages of the model, but if the model says they behave as real particles do, and these models can make them observable, then we can call it a Theory.
And last, BUT MOST IMPORTANT,
3) Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This is a law that should govern all that we do and its a Fact. (If it wasn't a fact we would not have reached a steady-state of existence after 14 billion years). If you think otherwise then you are working in the realm of Magic or Religion. (YOUR REALM MAY BE REAL, but it's still Magic or Religion.)
- If any part of your definition(s) depend on a hypothetical particle that [by definition] cannot be observed (some types of WIMPS, BOSONS, QUARKS and other such sub-atomic particles come to mind) then it remains forever in the realm of conjecture [and not to be taken seriously].
In all of your scientific reasoning, logic progressions and theoretical discussions make sure you abide by these rules. They are flexible, but they are not speculative or undeniable. Violate any of them you will find that you cannot validate your opinions, point-of-view, reasonings or efforts.
Remember, Ignorance should never get a point of view, a viable opinion or even a seat at the table.
Now, go back and review your discussions, arguments, theories and hypothesis' and see if you abided by these rules. If you didn't, but still believe you have a valid opinion, then you are fooling yourselves. And those of us that abide by these rules can pick out those that don't almost at first glance.
Edited by MikeBrace, 17 April 2019 - 07:40 AM.