On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote:
> James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Close. It is the most widely-accepted *interpretation* of currently >> accepted physical theory that was falsified. The theory itself is subject >> to many interpretations, otherwise known as "*conjectures*" in more >> rigorous fields such as mathematics. >> > > Correct. Although I think everyone agrees that conjecture was solidly > based. Even F&P themselves were astounded at the results. > > In a sense, cold fusion disproves this conjecture, or this instance of it. > But most theoreticians I know prefer to say it shows the limitations of > present theory. It shows that the theory does not extend from plasma to the > solid state lattice. That does not mean the whole theory goes down the > tubes. It means the theory applies to a special case, rather than begin > universal. > > Along the same lines, special relativity did not "disprove" Newtonian > physics; it showed that at a significant fraction of the speed of light you > have to modify Newtonian physics. The difference is not observable at > ordinary speeds, and you cannot discover it until you know that the speed > of light is invariant. So it makes no sense to say that Newton was "wrong." > You can't be "wrong" about an observation no one has made yet! > Not to be pedantic but I think that one could reasonably state that pre-Maxwell Newtonian physics could reasonably be treated as an axiomatic system that had theorems -- not conjectures -- about conditions at relativistic velocities that were subsequently falsified by experiment. I think this is where the difference between a conjecture and an hypothesis comes into play. Conjectures are about the outcomes of formal proofs. Hypotheses are about the outcomes of experimental conditions. Hypotheses may be based on theorems or conjectures.
