It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Velocity and Positions.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 01:09 AM
link   
If we were to somehow know the exact velocitiies and positions of all the particles in the universe, wouldnt that mean we can predict the future.

Now, I know ppl are gonna say that u have to take the Uncertainty Principle into hand, but isnt that just denying to the fact that we dont have the technological equipment to do it??...

This kinda brings up the whole idea of omnipotency, as a being such as God would have the ability to do that. Could this be wat is meant when they say God is all knowing??




posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Well if you know the velocities and positions of all particles in the universe then the only thing for certain would be that you knew the positions and velocities
. You would also need to understand the effect of gravitational forces on the movements since these objets for the most part don't move in a straight line. And IF you knew that then all you would know is when two objects were going to impact each other. We can calculate to some extent now when two objects are going to collide. As our monitoring equipment gets better and our computing power gets better that ability will expand. But it really has nothing to do with telling the future or omnipotance.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I actually agree with your line of thinking. See, I don't believe in predetermination. I believe we are free-moral agents. Therefore, I believe that God knows the outcome, and that there are possible different outcomes, but also the probabilities of those outcomes, but that God does not intervene. He just knows and watches and waits...because he knows velocity and position at the same time
.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Don't forget gravity



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 03:10 AM
link   
If we did know the velocities and positions of all particles, there would still be even more information that would be needed. Gravity is one element Indy, what about radioactive decay, which causes loss of information(Entropy)? Nuclear reactions aside, there may still be circumstances that could invalidate predeterminism by particle-wave duality.

Let's take photons for example, under certain observations the photons become particles(discreet matter), which given the above circumstance would allow us to track light anywhere in the universe. On the other hand, under other observations the photon collapse into light waves(optic energy), our knowledge of that beam of light would be lost, except what we could learn from it's wave properties (wavelength, amplitude, chroma, etc). Let's look at a possible third scenario, what if we were able to use quantum entanglement on half of the stream of photons. Then from half of the stream that is untangled, make half of them into a waveform, record info. Observe and record the latter half of non-tangled photons, record info. The other half that is to be entangled we would leave the circumstances so as to keep them in a particle state, one third of these would be entangled with another third for eventual quantum teleportation. This would leave a final third as a control group to compare against the teleported photons.

In summary, by the previously mentioned application, we would be able to know it's normal particle behavior at a specific instant, we would be able to know it's waveform behavior at a specific instant as well. Finally we could also make discreet changes in the entangled set and modify their distance at an instant, to see if there is any correlation to it's position by comparing it to it's original non-teleported control group. I chose the photon as an example since it is not necessarily matter 100% of the time, but comparatively mundane.

Schrodinger's Cat for that special moment might be a tad worried!



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 03:47 AM
link   
What you describe is Newton's universe. If we know everything about the universe today, we can predict what will happen any time from now, because the universe follows the laws of nature.

This view is no longer accepted because of quantum mechanics. We can't know everything about the universe today, because of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation.

Because we know of things like radioactive decay and quantum tunneling only the chance at which they will occur, we can't predict when exactly they will happen. This makes predictions impossible.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 05:00 AM
link   
This is an afterthought I had. Interferance by observation would be the key factor keeping this from happening. It is not a matter of imprecision that keeps us from knowing a universal set of states. The microcosm and the macrocosm are not entirely symetric in regard to natural laws.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I'm having a hard time swallowing quantum mechanics because I believe the word "random" is a word given to the output of a process of which you do not have prior knowledge. It really does not exist.

Let me explain. I spent several years working with data compression, a process by which a state of low informational entropy is converted to a higher state of informational entropy by adaptive mathematical means. The high entropy state of information is considered to be near random, and statistically it is near random and exists at a state of near equilibrium.

Providing you have the correct algorithm, you can bring the high entropy state back to the lower entropy state. The only time you end up with something truely random is if you lose the algorithm or the lower entropy state information.

This is really fundamental. A simple thought experiment; I place a coin in my hand and ask you which side is facing which way, there are only 2 possiblities so you have 50% probability of correctly guessing it. The process by which you may guess it correctly would be considered random. I on the other hand saw which side was placed upwards into my hand, so for me it's 100% deterministic. If I flipped the coin I need only calculate all the forces involved to figure out which way it will land. Of couse, this process would normally be considered random and incalculable because of all the factors involved.

Why would the process of radioactive decay or the quantum state be any different from this process, and by what experiment could you ever prove it otherwise? Only by studying the quanta from its beginning to its end state.

The output of the universe should have been 100% deterministic from its inception.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Electric, what you describe is called the 'hidden variable hypothesis' or Bell's hypothesis:


The hidden variables hypothesis assumes that far below the quantum level lie deterministic parameters, unseen to the observer, that control the observed quantum numbers.


You can make the universe deterministic this way, but fact is that it is currently impossible to measure the hidden variables if they exist. Statistically, the randomness is a just as good explanation as hidden variables. Then, using Occam's razor we can cut out the hidden variables out of the picture:


The Copenhagen view of understanding the physical world stresses the importance of basing theory on what can be observed and measured experimentally. It therefore rejects the idea of hidden variables as quantities that cannot be measured. The Copenhagen view is that the indeterminacy observed in nature is fundamental and does not reflect an inadequacy in present scientific knowledge. One should therefore accept the indeterminacy without trying to "explain" it and see what consequences come from it.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Einstien said it best when he said: "God doesn't play dice".

How is it that our universe can be controlled by complete randomness. That seems a little too bizarre. There should be some kind of underlying, fundamental proccess that we havent seen/proven yet.
Doesnt randomness require some kind of guideline??...

If our universe was completely controlled by randomness then how is it so stable(for the most part, think of our earth). Why isnt it complete chaos??..How can order in this scale be controlled by random acts of quantum mechanics in a much smaller scale. How can my body be controlled by probablilities and chance??



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Setting aside the quantum aspect, the computational power needed to calculate all the positions, velocities and all the interactive forces would be, at the least, virtually impossible to come up with. In fact it would probably greater than utilizing all of the entire known universe. The universe itself is the current position and velocity interim calculation, now to predict all future movements and the force interactions is going way beyond that. If you had 100 universes perhaps you could come up with a pretty good estimate of what was going to happen a few seconds out.

Now throw into the mix that idea contrary to Einstein's of the Universe NOT being a closed system. For the most part the Universe is a closed system, but I am quite sure at certain points and times it opens/bleeds to and from that dimensionality beyond our familiar 3.

It's an interesting if fantastic idea. Over a limited domain, with incredible computational power, a crude model might be produced. It would ofcourse have to have all 'predictions' include a previso that it works barring significant unpredicted anomolous events.

I suppose it illustrates how we operate, with our minds, in the Universe. Our mental tools are almost exclusively simplistic abstractions. Like cartoon descriptions of the world around us. In fact the level of even the atomic [forgetting sub-atomic] granularity of the Universe is something we simply cannot comprehend. The machine you speak of would probably work as a hierarchy of abstraction(s). With the simple root node present branching down into some level of granularity towards the atomic. The recalibration of the chosen depth level, and the resulting approximate changes in our conceptual abstraction level that would be what we were interested in.
.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join