[預測]進而得到[觀測]的符合結果,就得到必定可信的理論?其理論必然正確?

我舉幾個例子:
1.伽利略之前,普遍人們相信重量越大,受重力後加速度越大,而實驗也確實得到同樣的結果.
但是,它是錯的,問題出在哪裡,不用我說,現在大家都知道.不過記得,以前的人不知道.
2.陰極射線被發現的初期,包含赫茲等物理學家,一度認為其為電磁波,實驗而[證明]是如此.但是,它是錯的,問題出在哪裡,可能就不是大家都知道的.
3.如果知道有強力的存在,而拉塞福用來撞擊金箔的能量也夠大的話,原子核恐怕沒那麼早被發現.

以上,我要表達的就是:[預測]進而得到[觀測]的符合結果,並不是正確理論的充分條件.
廣義相對論三大效應的[預測],雖經由[觀測]來得到符合的結果,都不一定是正確的,更何況[宇宙膨脹]這個由其推導的結果.

不好意思，接下來請容我用英文討論，我畢竟是在美國念書的，牽扯到細節的東西對我來說用英文比較好表達。

I assume that by listing Hertz's cathode ray experiment as an example you are attributing the error he made to him not being aware of ionization of gas molecules. However, several things need to be taken into consideration.

First, Maxwell's equations are written in the form that implies existence of electromagnetic wave and describes its characteristics in VACUUM, one factor that Hertz's, and subsequently Lenard's experiments, failed to take into account of. In other words, this is a fundamental error by not applying the underlying theory correctly.

Second, you can argue that Hertz and Lenard did not take that factor into account because they were unaware of the ionization of gas molecules. However, their contemporary Perrin conducted experiment that produced result contradict to Lenards', which was dismissed by Lenard because Perrin's result failed to explain the glow observed in Hert'ts and Lenard's experiments. Yet, Lenard provided no explanation as to the phenomena Perrin observed. As a matter of fact Lenard actually agreed there might actually be charged particles coming from cathode ray. He just did not explain how and why.

In contrast to Hertz's experiment, no evidence or observation that directly contradict general relativity has been found, and various independent observations and experiments have confirmed general relativity as you know. Same goes for metric expansion of universe, which was confirmed by cooling of cosmic microwave background if I remember correctly.

As for your first example, if you can provide the mathematical model and experimental details for the particular experiment conducted, I am confident that I can point out the fundamental logic error or experimental inefficiency that would render the experiment at least inconclusive using the mathematical and physical knowledge they had up to that point.

For your third example, let's just say that I am not interested in guessing Rutherford's thought process in a meaninglessly hypothetical situation. We are talking about history and science here. There is no "what would have..."

If you want to argue the soundness of scientific methods, I suggest you look into the errors made by people who applied it incorrectly somewhere along the way. If that's not enough to convince you, then I guess it's a personal belief thing, and I'm not gonna try to change your mind here. Based on that belief, it's pretty much the same as saying the whole foundation of modern science is flat out wrong, which, well we all know how ridiculous that sounds.

沒錯,赫茲等人的方向一開始就錯了,被[電磁波]所制約,但是,我要表達的並不只是如此.

電磁波不會因電磁場而偏移,但帶電粒子會,他們怎麼可能不知道?
正如你說的,他們當然也[猜]過陰極射線是帶電粒子,但是為何他們無法正確認定[陰極射線]的真面目,但是J.J.Thompson卻可以?

拿這個例子來和廣義相對論比,我要表達的是[實驗的設計將導致觀測的結果正確與否].
以廣義相對論為理論基礎的預測結果,要經由實驗或觀測來確認,第一個要考慮的問題是實驗設計夠不夠嚴謹.而實驗設計夠不夠嚴謹,很多時候,是無法得知的.

如果[宇宙膨脹]的預測和觀測,如同赫茲等人對[陰極射線]的錯誤預測和不夠嚴謹的實驗觀測,你認為,[宇宙膨脹]真的是正確的嗎?

我提的第一個例子也是如此,你現在當然可以指出實驗的邏輯錯誤,但是,當時的時空背景你是否考慮到?或許你在那個時代,也會是物理學界的先知吧,我承認我不會是.
也因此,你如果還要我提出[宇宙膨脹]謬誤之處,就表示你沒能理解我要表達的部分,多說也是惘然.

第三個例子,我要談的就只是[運氣].物理方面(其他領域也相同),許多的新知被發現,[運氣]十分重要.
拉塞福[運氣]就夠好,如果他阿爾法粒子的能量更高,阿爾法粒子更接近原子核,問題恐怕就更複雜.
對於[宇宙膨脹]觀測,[運氣]夠好嗎?你認為呢?如果情境如同被誤解的[陰極射線]呢?

波耳說過:我所表達的每一個句子,不應被理解為肯定,而應該是疑問.

其實,在這方面討論所持的態度,你我應該相去不遠,我一開始的發言,只是針對某網友對[宇宙常數]的資訊誤解之處,至於[宇宙常數]是否正確,我謹遵波耳的教誨,當然還是抱持的懷疑的態度,[宇宙膨脹],甚至其他科學新知都是.
只是,像這串前面引我言的那位仁兄,把科學界對[宇宙常數],[暗能量]的理解,比擬為[這些的所謂新理論, 一年沒有一千也有八百],你不覺得失當嗎?


PS:如果要討論,希望你用中文,因為你的見解有一定的深度,使用英文,或許會讓不少網友失去拜讀的機會.

加1
有些事想表達又表達不清楚
欠學啊

對PS很贊同
:ase

請容小的練一下翻譯,冒犯的話還請見諒...



我假設從赫茲的陰極射線實驗當做例子,您將她的錯誤歸因於他並沒有注意到氣體分子離子化的問題. 然而,實際上有數件事情必須納入考量


首先,馬克士威方程式的形式指出電磁波的存在,並且描述了其真空中的特性,另一個因素是,赫茲與接下來的雷納實驗都沒有成功將其納入考慮,換言之,由於沒有正確的應用支持理論,導致了最根本的錯誤


再者,你可以繼續爭論赫茲與雷納之所以失敗的原因歸因於他們沒有注意到氣體分子離子化的現象, 然而,他們當代另一位學者培林主持的實驗則獲得了與雷納背道而馳的結果. 但雷納沒有對培林的觀察提供任何的解釋. 實際上雷納也的確同意,陰極射線管中的東西有可能為帶電粒子,因此她沒有解釋前因後果.


與赫茲的實驗對照,沒有任何直接的證據與觀察可以反駁廣義相對論的發現,而也有數個獨立的實驗與觀察證實了廣義相對論就如同你現在所知道的一樣. 相同的準則套用在宇宙擴張上,如果我沒記錯的話,宇宙背景輻射的冷卻也是被證實的


如同你的第一個例子,假如你能提供任何數學模型或實驗細節足以證明你的特定實驗,我相信我能直接指出基本邏輯錯誤,或是實驗無效性,至少伴隨著不確定性的數學與物理認知


你的第三個例子,我就直說了吧,我實在沒興趣去猜拉賽福處理這些無意義的假設時腦海裡在想些甚麼,我們正在討論的是歷史與科學,不會有"假如當年..."


如果你想繼續爭論科學方法的blahblah~ 我建議你深入看看人們自古以來誤用造成的錯誤, 如果這些還不夠說服你,那我想這是個人思想的問題,而我也不會嘗試去改變你的想法,基於那些想法,那幾乎把整個近代科學的基石都推翻了一樣,Hmm,你我都知道那聽起來相當可笑



快速翻譯,有錯請指教~

學說畢竟是學說，
相當於穿了一件衣服的嘴砲 :D

老子曰：道生一，一生二，二生三，三生萬物，萬物負陰而抱陽，沖氣以為和。

:D :D :D :D