Relativity and quantum physics, some musings

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
How can quantum physics really be random yet still lead to macro events which are deterministic? What does real randomness mean? And how does Heisenberg uncertainty combine with electrons spinning around a nucleus?

This is just some pondering. Is growing entropy the same or the result of the expanding of space-time? Is entropy the same as what we call time? Does entropy fuel time so to say, time as an unique sequence of events.




posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by QueenofWeird
 


i could be mistaken. i am not familiar with any of this. perhaps some information would be helpful.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by QueenofWeird
 


To answer your first question, I believe that is why the search for the unified theory of relativity is ongoing. I personally don't believe in randomness - I just think we don't understand the patterns at work.

With regards to entropy fueling time, I don't think that is the correct correlation. Time appears to be fueling entropy.

Some interesting points to muse over.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TLomon
 


I think the expanding of space-time leads to growing entropy. And that entropy and time are connected, at least pointing in the same direction.

As to the probability of the quantum world, what does true randomness mean?



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by QueenofWeird
 


I had a thread that posed a similar question. You may wish to review it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm glad that others are aware that there is an issue.






posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by QueenofWeird
 


I had a thread that posed a similar question. You may wish to review it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm glad that others are aware that there is an issue.





Thanks, I am now going to read it.

From your thread by mrkeen:
As somebody put it, in the 20th century physics ceased to be physics and instead became pure mathematics. That is the problem. When you step into the area of pure speculation, you distance yourself from the real physical world, and begin to build an inverse pyramid of knowledge, which is very unstable and needs crutches to be added here and there to maintain its balance. That's what is happening in today's physics. It became closer to science fiction, but unlike science fiction it is not human-oriented. People forgot that the main purpose of science is not to prove or disprove anything, but to study. Now physics has become a belief system, or even a church with priests, censorship, and even its own heretics. In the times of Aristotle and Plato everybody could establish a science school and explore the world from their own point of view. If not for this diversity we wouldn't even have the science as we know it today. It grew from this diversity, and every school made its contribution to better understanding of natural phenomena in later centuries. Even in the 19th century scientists had extensive arguments on various topics of physics. Now we claim we know everything and are just finding out details. So you build a giant device like LHC or send people into orbit just to 'find out details'? That's ridiculous. People even haven't been on Mars or Jupiter, Voyagers are still discovering new phenomena at the outskirts of the Solar system. Not a single probe has reached another star yet. And so on. What do you think modern physics will do when we receive data from a distant star? Re-check all the theories or add another crutch?

Funny enough I watched a youtube vid between Brian Greene and another physicist and the latter said that mathematics can be right but not bearing any relationship with reality.

This might mean that quantum physics have always been right in the predictions but still be not true to reality, maybe because of the questions we ask it to solve. Just an idea.
edit on 1-1-2013 by QueenofWeird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
To OP: that's because the universe is holographic but still enjoys the choas from the natural world of which it is a part.

sites.google.com...



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by QueenofWeird

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by QueenofWeird
 


I had a thread that posed a similar question. You may wish to review it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...






From your thread by mrkeen:
As somebody put it, in the 20th century physics ceased to be physics and instead became pure mathematics. That is the problem. When you step into the area of pure speculation, you distance yourself from the real physical world, and begin to build an inverse pyramid of knowledge, which is very unstable and needs crutches to be added here and there to maintain its balance. That's what is happening in today's physics. It became closer to science fiction, but unlike science fiction it is not human-oriented. People forgot that the main purpose of science is not to prove or disprove anything, but to study. Now physics has become a belief system, or even a church with priests, censorship, and even its own heretics. In the times of Aristotle and Plato everybody could establish a science school and explore the world from their own point of view. If not for this diversity we wouldn't even have the science as we know it today. It grew from this diversity, and every school made its contribution to better understanding of natural phenomena in later centuries. Even in the 19th century scientists had extensive arguments on various topics of physics. Now we claim we know everything and are just finding out details. So you build a giant device like LHC or send people into orbit just to 'find out details'? That's ridiculous. People even haven't been on Mars or Jupiter, Voyagers are still discovering new phenomena at the outskirts of the Solar system. Not a single probe has reached another star yet. And so on. What do you think modern physics will do when we receive data from a distant star? Re-check all the theories or add another crutch?

Funny enough I watched a youtube vid between Brian Greene and another physicist and the latter said that mathematics can be right but not bearing any relationship with reality.

This might mean that quantum physics have always been right in the predictions but still be not true to reality, maybe because of the questions we ask it to solve. Just an idea.
edit on 1-1-2013 by QueenofWeird because: (no reason given)


Very well written mrkeen,I don't often find myself on the taking what some may see as an anti science rant.Yet my education in engineering and understanding of physics are very much of the 'real physical world' branch of physics.I do have an interest in Quantum Physics and a certain level of understanding but I find it more and more straying into the realms of the conceptual.My interest and love of physics was always more about the practical applied side rather than the research side.

My brother is somewhat of a genius.His thing is pure mathematics,it's like a science,philosophy and religion to him,Everything begins and ends in mathematics and i'll be the first to admit he left me behind years ago.When it got to the point where I could no longer visualize it in my mind I was lost,I always needed something 'real' I could relate it to and a lot of modern mathematics and quantum physics seem to have lost touch with the 'real physical world'.

I do find myself agreeing to a point about how science is perceived to be becoming a belief system these days but I think the core is still true to the root idea of what science is meant to be but like every other aspect of life these days it has to have a media face which a lot of people think represents a lot of science.

It may be true or it may also be because of my own limited understanding of later quantum physics but it does seem to me to be straying right into the realm of the metaphysical.When you have documentaries on History or Discovery discussing parallel universes and that whole every possible outcome being played out in different dimensions I almost like I'm listening to modern 'priests' talking with convictions about things they cannot prove beyond what seems to be the pure mathematics of it,which isn't the same as real evidence.

As I said though that is my impression as I'll admit I'm not near qualified to talk with authority on quantum physics.

Btw I don't think their claiming to know everything and simply confirming details.They had their standard model and the LHC was designed and conceived to detect the particles they would expect to find if it held true,which apparently they have done.If you read into it beforehand there was differing opinion and others who almost hoped they wouldn't find it.

Again I would say don't mistake the necessary media face of science as representing all of science.Every area of life now seems to need it'smarketable personalities !!!



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tdeflo
To OP: that's because the universe is holographic but still enjoys the choas from the natural world of which it is a part.

sites.google.com...


Non locality may be a quality of the holographic film but not the image. So if our universe is holographic, ot must be the film itself.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by QueenofWeird
 


I think when we aren't using (nonessential) "crutches" - will be the day we graduate from Level 0 Civilization.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Mugen
 


Still we need to reconciliate regular science with quantum physics,.





new topics
top topics
 
5

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum