Date: May 25, 2013 1:43 PM
Author: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Can an indetectable thing physically exist? (in principle)

On 5/24/13 5:16 PM, David Bernier wrote:
> On 05/24/2013 04:29 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 5/24/13 12:32 PM, David Bernier wrote:
>>> Suppose (for example) that wave function
>>> collapse in the "standard"/standard interpretation
>>> of Quantum Mechanics was governed by absolutely
>>> indetectable things.
>>>
>>> An indetectable thing is one that's even more discreet
>>> than neutrinos: it doesn't interact at all with the world.
>>>
>>> Does it make sense to postulate (as a thought experiment),
>>> the physical existence of indetectable things?
>>>
>>> David Bernier
>>>

>>
>> Wolfgang Pauli postulated around 1930 the existence of a neutrino
>> to explain how beta decay could conserve energy, momentum, and
>> angular momentum.
>>
>> Nothing had been detected and was to remain the case for several more
>> years. Did the idea make sense? Well yes, but it could have been
>> wrong. Later it turned out to be right.
>>
>>

>
> On a related topic, one could ask whether fields
> (electric, magnetic or gravitational) were
> discovered, or rather invented ?
>
> But I fear we might get lost in philosophy...
>
> David Bernier
>
>


Good question, however.