ok so i was reading about chaos thoery and quantum physics...

[blackhole123]

And from what I understand about them (which is not very much) is that these two theories can not coexist. Again I know next to nothing about both of these but chaos theory says that you could theoretically predict any event if you know the initial conditions. Quantum physics on the other hand (and correct me if im wrong) says that you can only predict the probability of an event happening.

 

I may be wrong on both of these but which is more accepted in the scientific community? Right now it seems like chaos theory makes a lot more sense but that may just be because i dont really understand quantum physics very much.

[GutZ]

Errr..nevermind.

[blackhole123]

So how is chaos theory just a "theory"? It makes perfect sense. If something starts out some way it is going to end up a certain way. If you throw a baseball, depending on the initial conditions, if it is the exact same when you throw it again it is obviously not going to just randomly change.

[GutZ]

Sorry I shouldn't have posted. Liked I said I don't know much. I don't know if this will make much sense, but it does too me.

 

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/2-worlds.html

 

It's kinda late so you might not get a response from the experts here, and I have to be careful, which I now realize because wording is important, I can throw you off if I try to explain it myself.

 

Tommorrow I am certain you question will be answered.

[5614]

Chaos theory does not disagree with quantum mechanics.

 

Normally when referring to chaos you are referring to a deterministic system. Whilst this disagrees with QM, the non-determinism in QM is not noticeable at larger scales. So for example when dealing with the Solar system you can assume that it is deterministic and you can therefore apply chaos theory.

 

There is also another version of chaos theory, I think it's called quantum chaos (or something like that) and it's basically chaos theory for non-deterministic systems.

 

Hope that's clear.

[timo]

... it's called quantum chaos (or something like that) and it's basically chaos theory for non-deterministic systems.

Dunno if that was a typo. But "quantum chaos" of course is the term for chaotic quantum systems.

 

EDIT: Ok, it seems like that´s what you actually wanted to say. I have some problems with the assumption that non-deterministic <=> QM. If fact, I have problems with both directions of that equivalence. Neither do I agree that QM => non-deterministic, nor would I see why non-deterministic => it´s a QM system.

[timo]

And from what I understand about them (which is not very much) is that these two theories can not coexist.

There´s absolutely no problem these two would have with each other. In fact, I attended a lecture on "Quantum Chaos" a few years ago - that was about the point when I lost my respect to call that chaos stuff a real science.

The chaos-stuff in this sense is like statistical physics: You can do it for classical systems or for QM systems. No problem either way round.

 

Again I know next to nothing about both of these but chaos theory says that you could theoretically predict any event if you know the initial conditions.

Yes, basically every theory sais that. Chaos theory is about that small inaccuracies in the knowledge of the initial conditions lead to huge inaccurancies in the prediction of the event within relatively small time.

 

Quantum physics on the other hand (and correct me if im wrong) says that you can only predict the probability of an event happening.

That´s correct if by "event" you are talking about classical (non-QM) ... err .. events.

 

I may be wrong on both of these but which is more accepted in the scientific community?

Most certainly QM. But as I said, the two don´t exclude each other.

[swansont]

It's already been implied that chaos is just a class of problems. Even if you start with the statement that "chaos theory says that you could theoretically predict any event if you know the initial conditions" what chaos goes on to say that even a small change in those conditions can lead to wildly different results, stemming from nonlinear relationships. And QM says that you can't know the conditions (the quoted statement is classical in nature). No real contradiction.

[blackhole123]

ok, thanks for clearing that up everyone.