Yes. Much of science doesn't make sense.
Or does it?

Doesn't make sense to whom? Some examples please?

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

A good example could be the two slits experiment, as recently narrated in "Nature". Sorry, I cannot link it. But if you can get access to "Nature" please read it. It is contained in a book review.
Tullio
The "Nature" issue s that of August 7 and the title of the review is "Two slits and one hell of a quantum conundrum" by Philip Ball.

---

Yes, it's been understood for a long time that quantum effects do not make sense, according to our previous fund of experience, or 'common sense'. Still, quantum mechanics has an internal consistency, and has stood the test of time, having been exhaustively confirmed by science.

Yes, equations do work in our watches,tablets,computers and so on. But their interpretation is still a matter of discussion. A wave function in Schroedinger picture is something physical or simply a mathematical expression? And what makes it collapse to a particle when we measure it? There is a theory by three Italian physicists, Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber which puts forward a mechanism that is also cited by Roger Penrose in his book "Shadows of the mind". The author of the book reviewed seems to ignore it.
Tullio

---

Doesn't make sense to whom? Some examples please?

Sorry. Some more earthly problems interrupted me.
I mean science that cleary work despite that it against our "common sense".
And science that cleary work everywhere, eh... but not always.
Why is that?
Tullio has already mentioned examples in the quantum world.
Then there is the General Relativity with many examples.

Here is one of particular significance.
How can anything be created out of nothing?
Yet virtual particles exists proved by many experiments.
Virtual Particles: What are they? https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

So now we have that totally empty space is a field of something...

That space isn't really empty, since it has other particles it. Yes, a particle can appear where none was before, but only in a quantum mechanical system that already exists, containing spacetime, and energy fluctuations.

You "choose" to make it both a silly question, and also another answer, if not perhaps the same at other places either.

If trying to salvage a little here, and next continue, perhaps that of the battle of the sciences in the past, except for still not any church,
for any preaching either.

Perhaps even such a thing as "Modern times", could be relative of sorts, in that it could be at least a world in black and white, when also the
assembly line as well, for that of mass production of material, for also that of goods.

We could end up being still scientists, for also that of making it both Proof, and also Logic, for that of science, as previously mentioned,
except for of course not listen in to the sky either, for that of the faint signal, while it also could be that of undercover activity of sorts,
for at least your bedtime at night.

Have a look, and next also a go as well, except for perhaps no such thing as proving science, for also that of Vectors and Tensors, when we already should know.

Only the fact that science could still be for science, and next we also could be using that of a Methodology, for at least such a thing.
becomes of course the straightforward way, if not precisely so, or for sure, except for the fact that we do not find any Method of Proof,
for those things which could be still natural phenomena only, but next part of Religion, for also that of visiting the church.

As an example, we know that there could be a 43 arc second discrepancy in the orbit of the planet Mercury around the Sun,
only for that of Relativity, and next it becomes the Theory of Relativity here.

But next perhaps not implied here either, whether Newton was perhaps wrong, for also Einstein a bit more right, when next coming up with his Theory of Relativity.

I am also wondering how far you could count, by only making it Probability, for that of numbers themselves, making it rather enumeration.

Could we next make it the "Man in the street", as usual, for also a science which makes for nothing, or we perhaps do not know the details for?

While still a world of science, for also a couple of things being proven, also that of the unknown, or maybe even unproven, including that of possible alien civilizations.

Making it God, and it still is the Theological aspect here only, except for not any Religious ceremony either, for that of importance, or meaning.

If rather making it a Creator, in one way, or another, perhaps on a bit more correct way, because we already know that both randomness and chaos are side by side,
together with also perfect symmetry, making for a Universe we are part of.

It should not be "Money for nothing" either, when perhaps choosing to believe, rather than making it science, when perhaps at least much, or even many, for next also nothing.

If not wrong, science is there, only for us in order to also understand nature, and for this, still a nature which could be viewed in the context of science,
except for not still keeping its secrets either, for that of Mythology, and also a couple of "Mysteries, magic, and miracles".

That space isn't really empty, since it has other particles it. Yes, a particle can appear where none was before, but only in a quantum mechanical system that already exists, containing spacetime, and energy fluctuations.

Yes.
But the problem is that virtual particles and subatomic particles behaves like a partical or as a wave depending how you observe it.
The double split experiment illustrate that.
However those energy fluctuations that somehow create particles or waves/fields puzzles me.
If we visualize space like a bed sheet filled by energy evenly spread in it.
Why would the bed sheet suddenly going to "fluctuate"?
What mechanism start the fluctuations?
Doesn't that need extra energy to start it?

Come on moomin.

It it is not necessarily for only that of making a fool of you, for also next a silly one only of me, except for not any vice versa either.

Again down the drain, for what I meant to say, if perhaps yet another restart either, and at least I will need to think about that.

Come on moomin.
It it is not necessarily for only that of making a fool of you, for also next a silly one only of me, except for not any vice versa either.
Again down the drain, for what I meant to say, if perhaps yet another restart either, and at least I will need to think about that.

Det är bättre att du tilltalar mig på svenska så jag förstår. Din "engelska" meningsbyggnad förstår inte ens engelsktalande personer!
Läs detta http://www.satsdelar.se/mening.php innan du svarar.

We seek Proof, not for that of any Conscience, but rather for that of an understanding, for also that of a meaning.

It is almost like that of a betterment, when perhaps for that of science, and also for that of BOINC as well, except for still not any hidden meaning either,
which could perhaps be the answer.

Is next the Hammer and Feather experiment, being carried on the Moon, any Uncertainty Principle here, because only coming up in my mind?

Needs checking here, if perhaps not any thinking either.

Except for any long, versus short either, still that a "blunder" of sorts, could at least make you think here, except for still only science, for also its meaning.

We could be left at thinking that Laws perhaps also mean that of Proof, and in fact, I did not think, or reflect on that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscular_dystrophy

For those blood vessels, if you did not read, or catch that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law

Here should read Laws of science, if you did not catch that point.

Like "Delicate sound of thunder", and next also fine, except not any reason for Doubt, either, as well as also the mentioned Ambiguity, because still only nature here.

Should Doubt next mean a lack of Belief, for that of science, except for not any Religion either.

Two strokes here, except for not a single one either, and next also Doubt for that of Ambiguity, except for still not any Truth either.

Or is it that of twisting your mind here, except for not any heart either, when perhaps only about the Truth?

Again, down the drain for a couple of other things being mentioned, or perhaps said,
but here perhaps a sense of a juxtaposition of sorts, for next only science, when perhaps a given Truth, could be such a thing, for only that of science, except for not making any such Doubt.

Is it perhaps "either/or" here, for also "neither/nor", or perhaps only the fact that I could be a bit silly?

Ciould we not make it a "common denominator" of sorts here, and next also think, if not believe, that it perhaps could be science?

Could you make it a liar of sorts, for next also that of Doubt, if not any falsification either, and stilll think that it could be in the realm of science, for at least looking at a couple of things?

Mentioned before, but science perhaps does not come with that of any harelip either, but rather the moment of Truth, for that of making it also a given Proof as well, if not any possible either.

So, wish you were here, of course, for that of a given Truth, except for still not any Contradiction, or Doubt either, when it perhaps could be only still that of "Belief" itself.

So, here I am, next on only this Earth, and also a bit terse, except for perhaps not any God with me either, for what I could be saying.

Perhaps no such thing as evil versus good here either, but only a sense that both written and spoken words, could be telling about right versus wrong, except for not any "Truth" itself.

Again, prove yourself, for both right and wrong, and perhaps only Logic instead, except, or rather make it such a thing as "Law" here.

Really, I could be still having two eyes here, and perhaps not entering any church either, but should I next believe in Lucy as our ancestor, except for perhaps rather a Creator instead,
for that of also making it Creation?

Am I perhaps "dubious" in my opinion, for also meaning, except for not any Agnostic either?

Where could I perhaps make it any "concept" for that of God, except for not describing it either, for also that of a description?

Why not just "pick" on it, except for not any poke either, and also make it a subject?

Or is perhaps that only that of "prove", next also should mean "Hallelujah"?

Except for not any written, or stated "Laws", for that of science, for also making it that of statutory as well (needs checking).

Refer back to the question here of whether Einstein was perhaps right, for also wrong, except for perhaps not any "stupid idiot" either.

Could you next put a weight on a couple of things, except for not making it any measure, for that of measurability either?

What if Einstein woke up from sleep, and next also a dream, only to find that he perhaps also was wrong?

Any error here, except for not any flaw here, except for perhaps still being right, for also correct,
and next not any wrong either, for at least making it Proof, for that of also Truth, if perhaps still not any "Doubt" either.

So here perhaps "Correct", if not any making it any correction either.

So, to summarize, still both right and wrong, if not any true or false either, for also that of a left turn, except for not any cross either, for that of a "zigzag" of sorts, into that of any Heaven.

Again, or of course, we discussed the Method of Proof here, for also that of Probability, except for not thinking it perhaps was not any lie either, for also that of a bit of Doubt.

Hint: Or if it perhaps should not be that of any Creation here, for that of a story which perhaps could be told?

Never mind.

Becomes that of "Ambiguity" Laws here, and next to find these ones….

Except for still only "right versus wrong" for that of Einstein, except for not any "were" either.

Or, next value for such a thing, because only valuable?

The sooner the better, and next also the "shit" of it everything, except for perhaps still not any difference either, when perhaps still only about science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact

One of those, except for perhaps not any question mark either, because next only a fool of myself, for perhaps not making it any science either.

Do you "prove" such a thing as Existence, for next only Fact, except for not making it any elementary particles either?

Could you make it "fools and horses", here, for next also a couple of things in the sky, except for perhaps not any intelligence itself, or on its own either?

Should any "gift" from nature, be such a thing as stupidity, for also a genius, except for only such a thing as being there, and also be visible?

Or could you rather push me in the side, for also in the back as well, only for that of a thing perhaps not being possible?

Like that mentioned before, if you will, always that of a Method, for also that of a "will", except for still not any Atheism, or Agnosticism either, only for that of science.

Really, we could make it the Universe for what it is here, rather than it perhaps is not, for also that of a bit of pancake.

If we knew that the Universe was just flat, for also that of a pancake, we perhaps do not need to "prove" such a thing either, but rather a thing for that of our consideration, for also practice,
in that we could be still here, for also the Universe as well, except for still not any "Proof" either, for also that of a Method of Proof.

So, except for perhaps not any laughter either, do you need to "prove", when perhaps both Doubt, for also that of an Ambiguity, if not any Contradiction either?

Oh, I am not any expert, so why not "run for hell" instead, when perhaps this only the answer?

It is like that of "give", for next also giving, when perhaps only the Prayer, of sorts, if not any Commandment either.

Or perhaps only the twisted mind here, for also not having the key, when the tools of science could still be in front of you,. for also an answer for such, except for not any "Faith",
for that of a scientific God either.

Perhaps Einstein could be making it a "blunder" here, except for not any stumbling block either,
when we perhaps could be knowing all the details, for that of science, except for perhaps not the answer either.

Is next many, for also value, or worth, even more, or perhaps only less, when that of significance is being concerned,, and we next also could be valuing science, for what it perhaps is worth.

Look at PrimeGrid. for example, for that of a show which perhaps could be going on, for that of numbers, except for not proving any science either,
and next think that it also could be the whole answer.

For fun, but next only digging the earth, I need to consult an expert, for also an experienced one.

Next. it means only knowledge, except for not any gift from above either, meaning Heavens.

If you want to prove any such thing as Heavens, perhaps not any two large tooth in the middle of your cheek either, sorry to say.

What if perhaps Einstein was able to prove, for only the genius he was`?

Living versus dead. eh, and next only products of nature, except for not any soul, for that of any Afterlife, or Eternity, either.

So. why not make it Materialism only your way of life, for also way of life, except for perhaps not any Capitalism either?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Do you next imply or mean Creation, for that of Belief, or should it only be that of sorrow, for next only "Tears in the rain"?

The Saga continues, except for perhaps no such thing as "Proof" either.

Musicplayer..No matter what thread you enter, you ruin it!

Don't feel alone, no one understands music player, probably by design.

---

That space isn't really empty, since it has other particles it. Yes, a particle can appear where none was before, but only in a quantum mechanical system that already exists, containing spacetime, and energy fluctuations.

Yes.
But the problem is that virtual particles and subatomic particles behaves like a partical or as a wave depending how you observe it.
The double split experiment illustrate that.
However those energy fluctuations that somehow create particles or waves/fields puzzles me.
If we visualize space like a bed sheet filled by energy evenly spread in it.
Why would the bed sheet suddenly going to "fluctuate"?
What mechanism start the fluctuations?
Doesn't that need extra energy to start it?

The fluctuations are known as quantum fluctuations. At the minute scale of quantum phenomena, particles can spontaneously come into existence, or go out of existence. These pluses and minuses balance out, so no extra energy is needed. At much larger scales, these fluctuations, as a whole, give the impression that energy is evenly distributed at all times, and in all locations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought

This lady for you, if you perhaps did not know.

Swirl around, for also flying, if not losing the other either, for next only an idea.

But think of continuation, if you will, if perhaps not making it there either, but next also "From here to Eternity", for a couple of things, except for no such thing as mass transformation either.

Flip a couple of pages forward, and next also backwards as well, and except for not any formal Proof either, do we next have to make it through, for also carry it clean and through?

Presumably still "JPL", only, for that of Jet Propulsion Laboratory, except for not knowing what the heck is happening there.

A video being watched, is making a point of that of genetic reproduction, if not any life either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_9MKJCc3dw&list=RD1l0hIjmeeN0&index=16

Watch for yourself here, if not any listen either, but perhaps leave it to you here.

Sadly to say, but perhaps the elevator stopping in between two floors, of a story building, and next here myself only. to next only believe.

Next. any "scrap metal" of ourselves, because next only listening, and perhaps no.

Could you next make it the human race, for only humans only. except for not any unique. and perhaps no.

Or perhaps vomit, except for still not any no, for also saying so.

Any difference here between a water melon, and a burning rope, except for still only proving so?

Black beauty. except for perhaps not any such thing, for that of music either.

Just a thought here, except for not any blindly wrong either.

Giving it a thought, and next back at it.

Das Right. Seek help at once.

Das Right. Seek help at once.

+1

---