Regarding decisions about plausibilities and prize money

The following explains our current thinking about ways to ensure that the probabilities are realistic and that prize money awards are equitable.

Plausibility vs. probability
We will be using these words interchangeably. Plausibility will mean the probability (from 0% to 100%) of agreement with the true, actual reality of nature. Of course the reality of photons and other parts of nature described by the qm view and relativity theory is very uncertain because the related verifiable evidence available to us can be interpreted in many mutually exclusive ways. Therefore, the sum of the plausibilities for the qm view and relativity theory will be less than 100%.

The potential problem of poor judgment of the plausibilities
It is easy to find smart people who have poor judgment about the plausibility of a particular belief and who are unable to improve their judgment due to a vested interest in the belief or some other reason. Possibly most of the people we know have some strong political, religious, scientific, or other belief that is important to them, that they are certain about, and that cannot be changed. The fact that other intelligent people have contrary beliefs does not affect their certainty. Certainty makes it impossible for people with mutually exclusive beliefs to study the evidence bearing on the beliefs and reach agreement on the plausibilities of the beliefs.

The history of science shows that people tend to think that the plausibility of currently popular theory is high. Well established theory tends to become fact if the theory is unchallenged. Ptolemy's geocentric universe theory shows that misleading evidence can cause misleading theory that, over time, can cause people to greatly overestimate the plausibility of the theory, which causes them to assume that contrary theory must be wrong, which greatly impedes the advancement of science.

The qm view provides strong evidence that relativity theory is a similar case of people greatly overestimating the plausibility of a popular theory. Many are now committed to spacetime theory as people once were committed to an Earth-centered universe. Surely this means that many physicists would not be impartial members of a jury charged with assigning realistic plausibilities to the qm view and relativity theory.


Finding impartial committee members
On the other hand many in the physics community are more interested in the search for a better understanding of our universe than in preserving established theory. Robert Dicke is a good example. His evolving beliefs were shaped by the changing evidence and thinking bearing on the beliefs. We wish he were here and willing to take time to learn about the qm view because he could quickly assess its bearing on the wide variety of phenomena in which he was interested and helped understand.

Committee members need to have a familiarity with relativity theory and the ability, curiosity, and time to obtain a good understanding of the qm view and how it explains the variety of phenomena to which it pertains. They need to have the intellectual humility that John Stuart Mill described as follows.

In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct ... Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion.

Probably people outside the physics community who are uncommitted to relativity theory are more likely to be impartial committee members. Mathematicians should be good candidates. They should be able to understand the theories and even contribute to a better understanding of the implications of the qm view. Philosophers of science having a good understanding of the evolution of physics and mathematics theory should be open minded and have ideas for improving the assessments of scientific theories.


What determines a theory's plausibility
Certainly the best evidence of a plausible theory is the theory's consistency with observed phenomena including experimental evidence. A plausible theory must agree with the observed phenomena. Any disagreement is reason to question the theory.

The fact that a theory has been popular for a long time or the fact that many people think it is proven does not mean that the theory is sound. Ptolemaic theory and many other obsolete theories support this assertion. This seems obvious, but it is not obvious to people who think that relativity theory has been proven.

Other characteristics of a theory have a bearing on it's plausibility, and we think that most of them are among the criteria listed in the table on the rules page. Perhaps there are still others that should be included in the table. We are open to suggestions.

The committee may want to use a much more thorough and detailed version of such a table when assessing the plausibilities. Different "weights" could be assigned to different criteria to reflect differences in their importance. A theory's abilities to meet each of the criteria could be rated and represented by numbers. Detailed explanations of these abilities or inabilities and the ratings could accompany the table. Such a table could make the decision process more objective and help committee members reach a consensus. An example of a system for determining the plausibilities of the qm view and relativity theory is explained here.

The probability of the qm view and the probability of relativity theory being in accord with nature also depend on the probability that neither theory is in accord with nature, although that probability may have no bearing on which theory is more plausible. The probability that neither is in accord with nature may be indicated by any other viable theories that have been proposed as alternatives to orthodox physics theories.


How can a report/claim show that the qm view has a lower plausibility than relativity theory?
In essence, any report/claim that shows that the qm view is inconsistent with logic or experimental evidence (at least more inconsistent than relativity theory) will meet the prize-winning criterion.

Any report/claim that shows that the qm view makes a prediction that disagrees significantly with natural phenomena or experimental results should make the committee's decision process easy. Sound scientific theories must agree with all the related and verifiable evidence.

Any report/claim that shows that the qm view makes predictions that disagree with one another would also make the committee's decision easier. It would cause us to doubt the qm view, but we currently doubt that such a report/claim is possible.

Any report/claim that shows that a quantum medium - - within which oscillating systems of energy manifest themselves as quanta of mass/energy - - is impossible will probably qualify for the prize.

The qm view makes predictions that have a significant bearing on how the universe may have evolved. (It has a bearing on big bang theory, dark mass/energy, and many other questions about how our universe evolved.) If it can be shown that our current universe could not possibly have evolved according to the qm view description of mass/energy, this would probably be decisive evidence.

Possibly other kinds of flaws can be found in the qm view that would significantly lower its plausibility and justify winning the prize.


The possibility of multiple report/claims winning the prize
Conceivably a report/claim could contain evidence that will lower the qm view's plausibility but not lower it to the relativity theory plausibility, and subsequently another report/claim will decrease the qm view plausibility below that of relativity theory. This would warrant dividing the prize according to the contributions of the two report/claims.


The decisions of the committee are final
The probabilities assigned by the committee can be appealed according to an appeal process to be established, and the committee may change probabilities based on new evidence and thinking. However, the committee's decisions regarding the awarding of prize money are final and cannot be appealed. Similarly, prior to the establishment of the committee, any decision we may make to award prize money will be final.


Disclaimer
By submitting a report/claim the submitters acknowledge that they understand that the people administering or otherwise participating in the qm view challenge and prize are not to be held responsible for any damages that may result from the submitters' participation.