| |
Example of system for quantifying and combining
the factors determining the theories' plausibilities
The following table includes seven factors bearing on the plausibility of the qm view (Pq) and the
plausibility of relativity theory (Pr). Each factor is represented by a letter.
For example, S represents the simplicity of the theory and how easily it can be understood. This factor
ranges from 1.0 for a theory that is very simple and logical and easily understood to .3 for a theory
that is so complicated that without advanced knowledge of physics and math it cannot be understood.
Certainly such a complex theory is not necessarily wrong, which is why the range for S is
1.0 to .3 rather than 1.0 to 0.
Factor S and the others in the table have been discussed above and elsewhere on the qm view website.
People will differ in the numbers they assign to S and the other factors. Someone unfamiliar with the
qm view might initially give it an S=.3 rating but give it an S=.7 after becoming familiar with it.
(To be conservative, we give the qm view and relativity theory the same S=.7 rating although
we believe that spacetime theory is actually considerably more complex and difficult to understand.)
The factors can be combined to yield an overall plausibility factor, PF, and in the following equation
the factors are simply multiplied, as shown.
PF = A · V · E · S · C · Rp · Rc
We made a judgment of what the factors should be for the qm view and for relativity theory.
Based on our 14 numbers, the above equation results in PF=0.25088 for the qm view and PF=0.02257
for relativity theory. Then, when we multiply each of these numbers by a number (3.6569) that results
in Pq+Pr=1, we get Pq=0.91743 and Pr=0.08257, which indicates a much larger plausibility for
the qm view.
If this seems like an unrealistic difference in the plausibilities, we could try adding the factors and
divide the sums by 7. When we did this for the qm view and relativity theory and then multiplied
the two results by whatever number gave Pq+Pr=1, we got Pq=.5743 and Pr=.4257.
Therefore, adding the factors tends to result in less difference between the calculated plausibilities
than multiplying the factors. The qm view challenge is interested in determining the most realistic
plausibilities, and we believe that multiplication best simulates the reality. This is because one very
low factor can significantly lower all the other factors via multiplication but not by addition.
Factor A should have a dominant effect and be able to reduce the plausibility to zero.
Other factors should have less influence on the outcome, and this can be accomplished via the wording
and numbers on the chart.
How did we arrive at Pq=.91 and Pr=.08, and do we think this is realistic? Yes, we think this is realistic
until someone can provide evidence to the contrary. And we think that others who understand the consistency
between the qm view and the physical evidence will agree. Our low Pr is not due to factors A, V, S, or Rp.
Pr is low because our E, C, and Rc ratings for relativity theory were all .4, and our ratings for the
qm view were 1, .8, and .8 respectively.
Our E=.4 for relativity theory reflects the fact that the theory does not explain logical physical causes
for the observed phenomena it predicts. It does not explain any physical causes unless we
expand the definition of "physical causes" to include relative velocity and "curved spacetime."
In our judgment, relativity theory describes a mathematical reality rather than a physical reality.
In this respect relativity theory is like Ptolemaic theory which describes an imaginary mathematical
reality and lacks plausible physical causes for the phenomena it predicts. Ptolemaic theory resulted in
an imagined physical cause; "heavenly matter" that for unknown reasons moves only in circles.
Is it not true that the following hypothesis or statement is consistent with the verifiable historical
evidence? It is highly probable that all mysterious, inexplicable phenomena have logical physical causes,
and that finding the causes often requires searching for centuries or much longer.
The qm view shows that it is not necessary to depart from this hypothesis and create an artificial
spacetime reality. In the qm view, relativity theory is obscuring the physical causes of the phenomena
that relativity theory predicts, which explains our E=.4 rating.
We expect that C=.4 and Rc=.4 for relativity theory will seem reasonable to others who take the time to
study the information on this website. Some may think that the above chart and/or equation need to be changed
in one way or another, and we are open to suggestions. Reasonable people should be able to agree on a good
system to accurately reflect the evidence and its influence on the plausibilities. The above system is only
an example and surely a better system is possible.
|
|