TLicense Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Was it Einstein who said "God does not play dice" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian C Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Everything in the universe is goverened by scientific principle, which is always predictable. Wrong as a wrong thing A system as simple as three orbital bodies interacting with each other are impossible to predict over time, and that's at the classical Newtonian scale of the universe. Get into the quantum scale and you have no chance! -Ian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Heisenberg's uncertainty principle proves that nothing is predetermined anyway!! How can any of our current knowledge be used to say anything concrete if we can't work out how to get the most basic information on the movement of atomic matter!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian C Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Heisenberg's uncertainty principle proves that nothing is predetermined anyway!! How can any of our current knowledge be used to say anything concrete if we can't work out how to get the most basic information on the movement of atomic matter!!! The uncertainty principle is known to most people as "you can either know where something is or how fast it's going but not both". It's not because we can't "work out" how to do it, it's a factor of spacetime. To absolutely nail down to the Planck level of where a particle is, you must take a snapshot of it's location in the smallest amount of time. This gives you positional information that is 100% accurate (for that moment in time). But like a photograph, this tells you nothing about the particle's momentum and direction of travel. If you measure the direction and velocity, you have to do this over some interval of time in order to measure a change of position. This gives you 100% accuracy on speed and direction, but means you only know where it's been, not where it is now. You can predict from this where it's going to be in the future, but not 100% accurately. So you can't be 100% accurate on both position, direction, and speed all at the same time. That's what Heisenberg was on about. It's nothing to do with predetermination though. -Ian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRoy Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Why do you allways feel more tired when you get up, than when you went to bed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 The uncertainty principle is known to most people as "you can either know where something is or how fast it's going but not both". It's not because we can't "work out" how to do it, it's a factor of spacetime. -Ian err... no it's not. You can measure where a car is, how fast it's going and in what direction (crap example I know). It's only technology limiting us - I was replying to Aji really, saying to measure a particle you have to disturb it and therefore change what you were attempting to measure. You've oversimplified it far too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian C Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 err... no it's not. You can measure where a car is, how fast it's going and in what direction (crap example I know). It's only technology limiting us - I was replying to Aji really, saying to measure a particle you have to disturb it and therefore change what you were attempting to measure. You've oversimplified it far too much. Heh. Ironically, you've just oversimplified it too much. You are thinking on the macro scale, the uncertainty principle is based on the Planck scale, i.e. quantum levels. Besides, if you take a photo of a racecar that is so fast a shutter speed the car looks stationary, you can say exactly where it is on the track - but how can you say how fast it's going... If you've got a blurred image and you know the shutter speed you can work out how fast it's going, but now the blurred image means you can only say roughly where it was within a certain area when the photo was taken... Amazingly one of the best books I've read on this stuff is Darwin's Watch as it covers loads of fun universe related things in an weasy to digest form -Ian I'm leaving the typo in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Was it Einstein who said "God does not play dice" It was Einstein that said this, in response to Heisenberg. I suspect that he is correct, but as has been mentioned at the moment not only the technology but also physical laws are preventing us from finding out where a partcile is and when. It's something to do with the fact that to measure something you have to interact with it in some way. On the Planck scale this means hitting it with some kind of wave or another particle. The problem is that the measurement has an inherent "resoltuion" which is linked to the wavelength of the wave, or the particle-wave. At the Planck level the distintion gets blurred between what is a partcile and what is a wave, so this applies to both. This effectively means that there is a lower limit to what you can measure because you cannot force the "resolution" to be high enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian C Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Yeah, that too -Ian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Here's a better way of putting it: "A photon that throws light on an electron needs a short wave-length to determine its position accurately. But shorter wave-lengths have higher energy and give the electron a kick that creates an uncertainty in its momentum. A longer wave-length disturbs less its momentum but is a less precise observation of position. It's not just a question of disturbing the momentum of a particle the more accurately it is measured for position, and vice versa." Taken from here. I've read "The Elegant Universe". It really is as close as I think you can get to being spoon-fed physics right from Newton's apple up to M-theory in terms that the layman can understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyefi Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 most of this planets top physics geniuses believe in some kind of intelligence in the creation event, in other words a god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJI Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 tbourner - well if you take your example of a car and look at it on an atomic level. To measure the car's position one way to do this would be to take a photo. Now for light to enter the camera you must have had light reflected off the car. The get light to reflect off the car you need to shine light on to it.... this is in effect firing billions of photons at the car which at an atomic level is causing a pressure on the panels of the car. This pressure no matter how minute is causing a force to act on the car's direction and position and by the time the light has entered the camera the car is in effect in a different position and more importantly in a different position to where it would have been if you were to have not shone any light in the car. You have to visualise all this on a minute atomic level to see what I'm trying to get at. (Well it's not what I'm trying to get at.. its what is written down in physics books). But in essence you have disturbed the car in both its position and its direction by taking a photo of it. e Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 tbourner - well if you take your example of a car and look at it on an atomic level. To measure the car's position one way to do this would be to take a photo. Now for light to enter the camera you must have had light reflected off the car. The get light to reflect off the car you need to shine light on to it.... this is in effect firing billions of photons at the car which at an atomic level is causing a pressure on the panels of the car. This pressure no matter how minute is causing a force to act on the car's direction and position and by the time the light has entered the camera the car is in effect in a different position and more importantly in a different position to where it would have been if you were to have not shone any light in the car. You have to visualise all this on a minute atomic level to see what I'm trying to get at. (Well it's not what I'm trying to get at.. its what is written down in physics books). But in essence you have disturbed the car in both its position and its direction by taking a photo of it. e oh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris aka fonz Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Why did i start reading this thread ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I always assumed Heisenberg was talking about particles in particular (heh heh), and it wasn't that relevant to 'big' things!! Oh well just call me dumb arse!! Didn't this thread start with how big the universe is, I changed it to how small a string is!! cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supragal Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Quite franky the whole entire subject freaks me out totally, same as death! AHHHH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 tbourner - well if you take your example of a car and look at it on an atomic level. To measure the car's position one way to do this would be to take a photo. Now for light to enter the camera you must have had light reflected off the car. The get light to reflect off the car you need to shine light on to it.... this is in effect firing billions of photons at the car which at an atomic level is causing a pressure on the panels of the car. This pressure no matter how minute is causing a force to act on the car's direction and position and by the time the light has entered the camera the car is in effect in a different position and more importantly in a different position to where it would have been if you were to have not shone any light in the car. You have to visualise all this on a minute atomic level to see what I'm trying to get at. (Well it's not what I'm trying to get at.. its what is written down in physics books). But in essence you have disturbed the car in both its position and its direction by taking a photo of it. e What a load of bollx! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getrag Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 What did Democritus say, "there are atoms and empty space, all else is mere opinion." We have had great scientists but who says we have had the minds yet that can come close to explaining where we are. Also, do we have a huge inability to comprehend "nothing." What if the Universe does have an end.....after that there is no time or space. I remember the programme on where we came from, it was quite good. How basic elements in the atmosphere, namely nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, when affected by lightning could form amino acids, our building blocks. By biggest and strongest opinion, however, is just that.....an opinion. We dont know what is out there and no matter how hard they shout or convincing they sound, it is merely opinion.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig David Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Craig... I tend to agree that every decision the universe does NOT split also, but to say that everything was predetermined is where I dissagree. To say that means that the whole current theory of quantum mechanics and the working of probability is not worth the paper its written on. Surely if you have probability then its not predetermined. Otherwise you'd have sure fire simple equation maths which would explain everything. Einstein in his quest for the perfect equation I think had a similar view. He didn't like quantum mechanics as it was based on probability.... but it's quantum mechanics which brought the world into the electronic age. And it explains so much more than what any of Einsteins equations do. I think there are simply just somethings which will never be explained by an equation. I say this because of the fact to record something you end up disturbing it. To read the position of an electron you must fire another electron at it to deflect its path. Until we can physically read and measure quarks and strings instead of simply using probability then we will have to work wwith current M-theory or whatever else seems to fit the observed universe. Not convinced my theory is at odd with quantum theory (quantum theory as far as I know in simple terms is = everything / energy form can be divided into simple parts (discreet 'quanta') so light is a stream of particles rather than an electromagnetic wave as classical physics would have us believe). Yes, you can't read the position of an electron without altering it but this is true of all science (re. Lloyd Morgans Cannon - can you watch a monkey and not effect its behaviour? No). But an action leads to a consequence. Everything is goverened by rules which are consistent. I think if chaos theory tells us anything it's this. We can't understand all the rules or every action in the universe but it's all predictable and governed by the laws of physics (which we only understand in part). The universe is like a big test tube - a swirl of chemistry. (don't men to sound arsey - I appreciate the chance to discuss these things - the Mrs is never interested. And I'm no physicist / scientist so I could be well wrong on a number of points.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig David Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Was it Einstein who said "God does not play dice" This is my point. There is no natural random - simpy predictable events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roboldham Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Science is not a description of reality, it's only an approximation of what you see. The (un)fortunate by-product is that once you have understood something then you have only really discovered what you don't yet know.... There - at last, something scientists and religious folk can agree on. R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitelightning Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Anyone posting in the topic with reasoned arguments should be ashamed of themselves. Its obviously a ploy to weed out the uber-geeks and it has worked ! My contribution will therefore be an unsurprising . . . "Woof!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted June 3, 2005 Author Share Posted June 3, 2005 Anyone posting in the topic with reasoned arguments should be ashamed of themselves. Its obviously a ploy to weed out the uber-geeks and it has worked ! My contribution will therefore be an unsurprising . . . "Woof!" Well it has got very in-depth, and certainly has got to the point of technical 'theory' discussion, but there's something more to the point of the whole discussion. Every now and then I (and indeed many others) consider 'the universe' and with this consideration comes a strange feeling. A very wierd sensation, hence the need to discuss. Once we start discussing, that feeling goes, but it'll come back again, periodically. So is no-one up for being my spiritual guide on a chemical-induced psychic exploration? Chemistry skills required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 My contribution will therefore be an unsurprising . . . "Woof!" I'm beginning to believe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitelightning Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 "Woof!" I believe you will find more spiritual guidance in my one word than all the comments made on this thread to date Homework will be: "Woof . . . discuss." I expect at least a paragraph on its spiritual implications padawans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.