carl0s Posted June 16, 2005 Author Share Posted June 16, 2005 If you want to look into it deeper have a read of in search of schrodingers cat and schrodingers kittens by John Gribbin. The second book has lots of different possible theories currently being persued by theoretical physicists. Very interesting stuff. I like the theories about how decisions are either made or predestined. Does the universe split into two when a decision has to made? Why does the observation of atomic reactions effect the outcome? Does particle wave duality really exist? If it's possible to simulate the smallest atomic reactions, would it be possible to simulate an entire universe given big enough resources. Would it be possible to fast forward and rewind that simulation to predict the future and look into the past? I'm reading the book and I'm up to page 60-someting (first book). Only reading a bit in bed. Soon as my eyes get heavy I let the sleep take over. Anyway so far it's just talked about atoms and what not. Particles and waves. Does it go onto anything larger than this, or is it all about the theory miniscule stuff that's just a little too small to deal with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted June 16, 2005 Author Share Posted June 16, 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. but the light was already reflecting off the car and was headed our way. we have just captured the light. If anything we might have stopped the light affecting something else, which we are in the path of. (ok, so maybe the guy behind us didn't get a suntan..) I understand the idea though, just think it's flawed in that example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted June 16, 2005 Author Share Posted June 16, 2005 i think the Internet is bad. We could make quantum-history here and once this BBS closes down it will all be lost to mankind forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Anyone see that Bears game last week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyrick Posted June 18, 2005 Share Posted June 18, 2005 Hi, Imo it wouldn't matter if everyone on this thread agreed on a certain viewpoint re. the universe and everything in it - there would still be a new theory in a few months or years time to mess us all up again. Have you noticed that every time someone comes up with a new theory there's a whole raft of publicity, books sold, tv shows etc. (people are getting rich with all this debate!) Everyone says how great it is and how it shows there is no creator etc. Suddenly it's 'fashionable' to be seen reading a certain book. Then after a while someone comes up with something slightly different and the whole process starts again! And have you noticed that the books are so in depth that you wonder if anyone in the world understood it? Loads and loads of information overload so that by the end of the book you're brainwashed into thinking that the author knew what he/she was talking about and that they must be right - then another book comes out and you start all over again! And the theories are getting ever more fanciful too - without a shred of hard evidence most of the time! And if the scientists can't agree on it how are we expected to? It's got to the point where it takes more faith to believe the theories, that are supposed to disprove a creator God, than it does to actually believe in Him! As someone once said: "It's amazing what people will believe in order not to believe what they don't want to believe in!" I've heard about scientists that set out to prove there is no God becoming believers. The rest are either dead or busy trying to outdo someone else's theory. Not exactly an open and shut case is it? Much of today's so called 'Science' is as much a religion as religion is and where's it getting us? Is the world getting better or worse? Oops: Ramble, ramble, rant, rant. I'll stop now before I become as wound up as Carl0s was! At least science gave us the Supra! Time to go wash the car! or this: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLicense Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 I'm reading the book and I'm up to page 60-someting (first book). Only reading a bit in bed. Soon as my eyes get heavy I let the sleep take over. Anyway so far it's just talked about atoms and what not. Particles and waves. Does it go onto anything larger than this, or is it all about the theory miniscule stuff that's just a little too small to deal with? Yeah it does go into the explanation of "larger" things. Just to understand the very big you need to understand the very small. Make sure you understand the principal of the experiment with two slots, and then you'll have a good foundation for the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLicense Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 And the theories are getting ever more fanciful too - without a shred of hard evidence most of the time! And if the scientists can't agree on it how are we expected to? It's got to the point where it takes more faith to believe the theories, that are supposed to disprove a creator God, than it does to actually believe in Him! Examples? All the theories that I've read about, and are plausable have sound scientific experimentation supporting them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyrick Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 Examples? All the theories that I've read about, and are plausable have sound scientific experimentation supporting them. If they're so plausable why do they keep changing every few years? Each time we're asked to throw out the old and accept the new. If something is true it will remain true. If not it will be shown up for what it is - which seems to keep happening. Forgive me for being so cynical but when we're talking about origins we get into speculation without real proof because no one was there to see it happen (the start of the universe or whatever) and no one will ever prove what actually happened. Even if an experiment were done that showed some sort of creation event you still have to prove that that particular process happened x amount of years ago. No one was there, so no proof - just speculation. These theories will remain just that, theories! And it winds me up a bit when these theories are presented as fact by tv shows and schools. My point is that this area of science (and some other areas imo) requires a certain amount of presumption and therefore faith to believe in it. Science is fast becoming a religion! . 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.