Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Physics is broken!

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
We need to admit that at a very fundamental level, the science of Physics is broken.

The relationship between Quantum Physics and Newtonian/Relativistic Physics is more like a divorce on the grounds of "irreconcilable differences".

In the Quantum world, everything is stochastic in nature. Everything arises from the forces of randomness and probability. Effects can be un-caused, a fact which we can measure and verify, but not explain, because there is NO explanation.

In the Newtonian/Relativistic world, everything is deterministic. Cause leads to effect, action to reaction and even the tiniest loops in causality are forbidden.

These two states are mutually exclusive (if one is right, then the other must be wrong) and the doublethink of holding both as true has gone on so long that I think most Physicists have long forgotten the messiness of the divorce.

We know that they both still love each other at the core, but it's just that they can't stand to be around each other!

When scientists are faced with something about which they have not established a full understanding, they often start by defining the boundary conditions. Like when you do one of those giant jigsaws, corners and straight edges are a good place to start. But after two generations of knowing about the conundrum, doing the maths, doing the experiments, observing & building theories, we don't even know the boundary conditions.

Where does the quantum world stop and the N/R world start?

From what does the distinction/division arise?

Until we have the answer, the science of Physics is broken.

I'd be happy to share your thoughts on this.

Cheers all.




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   


Where does the quantum world stop and the N/R world start?



Where atoms form.

I agree that it's a little confusing, and it kinda makes you
when you are not a bonafide pHd holder of MIT, but hey, us layman sometimes gotta show our respect for the other guys.

The very fact that beneath the atomic layers, the properties of that space being different is not that confounding.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Science itself is broken. Despite the way the 'hooray for our side' Higgs-Boson parties made it seem a short while ago.

Science advances funeral by funeral. When the 'old guard' has finally died off and taken their taboos and prejudices and pride with them, science will be able to begin healing.

edit on 28-11-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I not sure it holds together as you go up in scale either as the Dark Matter theory seems to be changed daily to balance out the big bang theory, as you can only modify gravity so much. Which, as with the magnetic field, is only understood as far as its interaction on matter.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Saying "it's broken" instead of saying "we don't know enough about it" is rather ignorant.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


So... if they are getting divorced and we are all the children of science, I hope it's the Newtonian parent who pays child support and that it's Quantum parent who takes us out to play in the park.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Could it be that N/R has been an illusion all along. Starting to get past the illusions which is difficult and painful and onto the realities.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
Saying "it's broken" instead of saying "we don't know enough about it" is rather ignorant.


What we do know is a dichotomy that indicates that somewhere, a major theoretical construct has to be entirely un-learned to allow us to advance.

They cannot both be right.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Are atoms immortal? Are the atoms that make up us and everything around us - perpetual? Sure, atomic structure can be stopped and split with a release of great energy as well as being fused with a resultant great energy, but we are not subjected to an atom shattering event every day.

Will an energy that keeps atoms and molecules together be discovered? Better than the definition we have now of the three forces? I don't know...



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
When you look at a TV screen really close up you'll see a bunch of fuzzy colors. When you move back to see the bigger picture you'll see a structured image which makes sense.

These different perspectives are not mutuality exclusive.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Could it be that N/R has been an illusion all along. Starting to get past the illusions which is difficult and painful and onto the realities.


Absolutely.

But it is just as likely that quantum theory is the culprit. Or even that both are wrong.

The one possibility we know MUST be incorrect (that they are both right), happens to be the prevailing accepted belief?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Have you ever considered that out of entropy and disharmony, order and arrangement arises?

That, if our universe is finite, then there are only a finite number of actions any atom (or subatomic particle) could take?

I'm not a scientist, and I don't claim to be on the cutting edge of science, but I know that if our universe is finite (as is one current belief) then there can never be a truly stochastic element within it. While something may seem completely random, or chaotic, like Hyperion (the moon of Saturn), it really is not, because eventually all of it's atoms will either fall into a distinct pattern, or begin repeating their entire pattern over again. In fact, the Poincaré recurrence theorem even supports this theory, both through normal physics, and quantum mechanics.

I think it's less of a divorce, and more about a new cousin that is still being introduced. Science will work it out, but it takes time. And jumping to ridiculous theories, like those from "What the BLEEP do we know" or other pseudo-scientific mockumentaries are not going to get us there any faster.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Kind of got sidetracked a little. Are you really asking if the laws of physics can be changed or even broken? 20 years ago I would have answered an exuberant NO! Today, with technology moving forward exponentially daily, I will say that it is just a matter of time.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
When you look at a TV screen really close up you'll see a bunch of fuzzy colors. When you move back to see the bigger picture you'll see a structured image which makes sense.

These different perspectives are not mutuality exclusive.


Yes but the views of a TV screen at various distances is a part of a continuum. There is no essential, conceptual disagreement between the views.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by Ghost375
Saying "it's broken" instead of saying "we don't know enough about it" is rather ignorant.


What we do know is a dichotomy that indicates that somewhere, a major theoretical construct has to be entirely un-learned to allow us to advance.

They cannot both be right.



The right seeker of truth will not care about previous conditioning and will find new things. Einstein is a great example of that. But stuburn people like that is less usual that the followers of indoctrination.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
When you look at a TV screen really close up you'll see a bunch of fuzzy colors. When you move back to see the bigger picture you'll see a structured image which makes sense.

These different perspectives are not mutuality exclusive.


Yes but the views of a TV screen at various distances is a part of a continuum. There is no essential, conceptual disagreement between the views.



But, a TV screen is an optical illusion, phosphors igniting in sequence as to fool our vision, our mind, into "seeing" something that if time were changed would look unintelligible to a person. I don't believe there is a "continuum" there, we must use another example.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
When you look at a TV screen really close up you'll see a bunch of fuzzy colors. When you move back to see the bigger picture you'll see a structured image which makes sense.

These different perspectives are not mutuality exclusive.


Yes but the views of a TV screen at various distances is a part of a continuum. There is no essential, conceptual disagreement between the views.
If it were possible to see a continue zooming in on a particle it would be a smooth transition. As you got smaller and smaller things would start to get more and more "fuzzy", in the sense that they don't appear to have any certain structure or position. There would not be a point where things jump suddenly from sensible objects to nonsensical quantum object. Even some macro-scale objects can be measured exhibiting quantum characteristics under the right conditions. Quantum mechanics isn't necessarily something restricted to small particles. If you move down into sub-cellular scales you'd probably start to see some weird quantum phenomena. Everything is made from quantum objects which have strange properties, but those objects build up into things which appear to make sense. It's an illusion in a sense. Just like the TV screen, the pixels build up to make something which makes sense.... but it's just an illusion caused by flashing pixels.

To state it another way, the view of close up pixels and the view of the whole screen are both two different perspectives at opposite ends of the spectrum. If you just had those two perspectives without a good idea of what is in between then you'll most likely come to the conclusion that those two perspectives can't possibly be describing the same thing because they are so different, but the reality is they are describing the same thing. If you look at quantum mechanics and then look at typical classical physics you will have trouble understanding how they work together if you don't grasp the many layers in between.
edit on 28/11/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


If the subject matter that we are observing is quantum in nature, according to some experts of QM, the observable matter would "act" in relation to what our minds wanted it to. It is conceivable that we could construct an image using QM and our minds onto the TV screen. That sounds unbelievable and I can't believe I wrote it...



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Have you ever considered that out of entropy and disharmony, order and arrangement arises?

That, if our universe is finite, then there are only a finite number of actions any atom (or subatomic particle) could take?

I'm not a scientist, and I don't claim to be on the cutting edge of science, but I know that if our universe is finite (as is one current belief) then there can never be a truly stochastic element within it. While something may seem completely random, or chaotic, like Hyperion (the moon of Saturn), it really is not, because eventually all of it's atoms will either fall into a distinct pattern, or begin repeating their entire pattern over again. In fact, the Poincaré recurrence theorem even supports this theory, both through normal physics, and quantum mechanics.

I think it's less of a divorce, and more about a new cousin that is still being introduced. Science will work it out, but it takes time. And jumping to ridiculous theories, like those from "What the BLEEP do we know" or other pseudo-scientific mockumentaries are not going to get us there any faster.

~ Wandering Scribe


The stochastic nature of quantum physics does not refer to the number of states possible (which are always finite) but rather to the randomness of the selection of state. For example, a quantum bit (qbit) in quantum computing models can indicate four possible states but the absolute selection of any particular state can be defined as truly random (absent of any repeating pattern).

I also am slightly repulsed by the inelegancy of infinities and randomness but if this is the actual case then the foundations of quantum theory are indicated to be the side of the relationship that is at fault.

What I am suggesting is that it will not all pan out with the inclusion of a 'bridging' theoretical module (the un-introduced cousin), but that the current situation cannot be 'bridged', hence some of our accepted 'fact' is in truth, fiction and must be scrapped.

I totally agree with regard to junk science stemming from misunderstanding of simplistic metaphors as was most of the stuff in "What the Bleep... ". I do hope you don't think I was referring to that level of rubbish.

edit on 28/11/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightFlight

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
When you look at a TV screen really close up you'll see a bunch of fuzzy colors. When you move back to see the bigger picture you'll see a structured image which makes sense.

These different perspectives are not mutuality exclusive.


Yes but the views of a TV screen at various distances is a part of a continuum. There is no essential, conceptual disagreement between the views.



But, a TV screen is an optical illusion, phosphors igniting in sequence as to fool our vision, our mind, into "seeing" something that if time were changed would look unintelligible to a person. I don't believe there is a "continuum" there, we must use another example.


Sorry, just had to post it, a snippet from the U2 song "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" going through my head: "... when fact is fiction and TV reality...





new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join