Newtonian Mecahnics work in the microscopic world as well as with high speeds.

[Proton Head]

Not trying to insult anybody or anything, but I think that some of you have a hard time buying this, since you have read an article or two about new physics, and like to show off and stuff with how "vast" your knowledge is etc., but please try to understand that this is not an "attack" on the very usefull theory (that's something my capabilities fall veeeeeeery short off), instead this is an attack on the view on what information can be aquired through what we call physics.

[Proton Head]

Not trying to insult anybody or anything, but I think that some of you have a hard time buying this, since you have read an article or two about new physics, and like to show off and stuff with how "vast" your knowledge is etc., but please try to understand that this is not an "attack" on the very usefull theory (that's something my capabilities fall veeeeeeery short off), instead this is an attack on the view on what information can be aquired through what we call physics.

[VendingMenace]

I can't show whether or not the world is deterministic' date=' but that's my point, nobody can show it.

Oh, ok. Sorry about that. I thought you were saying that you could show the universe was deterministic. I am sorry for assuming that.

Let's take the uncertainty principle for example. In reality there is no uncertainty. There is the interaction of the universe. The uncertainty only arises once a third party (humans) tries to make claims about the change in the universe.

Ok. So i think physisics know that the universe just interacts as it does. But what the uncertainty priciple says is that there is only so much that is possible for us to know about at anygiven time. Indeed that there is only so much for ANY observer to know about at any given time. It is a statement about how precisely a certain set of quantities can be measured.

 

So, indeed, there does exist uncertainty -- even only if it is for our own measurements. Saying that uncertainly does not exist is irresponsible. For clearly it is a limitation that is quite real for us.

 

Of course, the interesting (and metaphysical) thing emerges when you try to define what an "observer" is. It could very well be that the universe's other particles are also observers, and then the universe itself would be constrained in its interactions by the uncertianty principle.

 

I really don't see what problem you have with the universe having an uncertianty priciple. As you said yourself; "There is the interaction of the universe." Why must it be that the universe's interaction cannot include and be constrained by such uncertainty? I see no reason to require that there is no uncertianty.

 

Do you realize what physics is about? It's about giving arbitralily divided parts of the universe, measurable by our devices, mathematical quantities whose change follows the rules of mathematics (numbers).

Probability calculation on the other hand is only a trick which is used with large masses of events, to predict the outcome of a situation even when the prerequisites are unknown.

I am afraid that i don't get what you are driving at here. Could you please explain more? Thanks

All this quantum quantum is just the outcome of the fact that we have arbitrarily divided the world, something which really cannot be done as is coming clearly evident now that we are trying to define smaller and smaller objects.

Yes, quantum effects are much more readily apparent as you decrease the mass/energy/size/ect of the system. But just because these properties normally emerge at a different level than you are used to living at does not mean that that they don't exist. Without quantum, how do you explain the line spectrum of stars or the work function of a metal, both of wich are macroscopically observable?

Why can't we define the exact place and state of the electron? The answer is quite simple. Because there's no electron. It's a particle we came up with after some observations and now it's in use as it is found helpfull.

??

This just seems quite silly.

Why can't i predict what you will do tommorrow morning? The answer is simple. YOu don't exist. Proton head is just a construct that i came up with becuase the idea is helpful.

But you do exist. The validity of my assinging you as Proton head, is repeatedly verified by the usefulness of that construct.

Perhaps electrons do not exist in exactly the way that we describe them right now. IN fact, most assuridly we are wrong. However, this does not mean that there are not electronically negative particles in the universe. If there were not, then how would be account for discrete changes in charge?

I know you seem to have a problem with discrete things, but i will get to that next.

The universe is continuous.

It most certainly is not. Again, i point you to the line spectrums of the stars. Or to the fact that the universe is not just one large baseball. IN fact, on our world alone we have many baseballs. If the universe was completely continous, there would be no way for seperate baseballs (or seperate anything) to exist. It would all be one large globby thingy. If discreteness can exist on a macroscopic scale (ie. seperatable, countable, objects) why would one disregard it on a microscopic and moleculare level?

 

Any methods to try and accurately define the universe from the inside will fail, as it's intervening. Inside objects (humans) are forced to use division methods.

Why does measuing from inside the system yeild our results invalid?

 

Even though such methods help advance our capability of building even greater machines, its plain dumb about trying to draw the type of conclusions about it that some people are doing.

Well, i am sure that some people do make stupid claims about the universe, baised on physics. However, i am not quite sure that non-determinism is one of them. I see no reason whatsoever that one would need the universe to be deterministic. A universe that is ruled by statistical laws would work just as well as one ruled by newtonian laws. And the former would not be deterministic.

But in the end, i suppose it is impossible to PROVE one way or the other. I guess there will always be uncertianty in people's minds and they will just end up believing what they choose to (or are forced to -- in a deterministic universe).

 

 

[VendingMenace]

I can't show whether or not the world is deterministic' date=' but that's my point, nobody can show it.

Oh, ok. Sorry about that. I thought you were saying that you could show the universe was deterministic. I am sorry for assuming that.

Let's take the uncertainty principle for example. In reality there is no uncertainty. There is the interaction of the universe. The uncertainty only arises once a third party (humans) tries to make claims about the change in the universe.

Ok. So i think physisics know that the universe just interacts as it does. But what the uncertainty priciple says is that there is only so much that is possible for us to know about at anygiven time. Indeed that there is only so much for ANY observer to know about at any given time. It is a statement about how precisely a certain set of quantities can be measured.

 

So, indeed, there does exist uncertainty -- even only if it is for our own measurements. Saying that uncertainly does not exist is irresponsible. For clearly it is a limitation that is quite real for us.

 

Of course, the interesting (and metaphysical) thing emerges when you try to define what an "observer" is. It could very well be that the universe's other particles are also observers, and then the universe itself would be constrained in its interactions by the uncertianty principle.

 

I really don't see what problem you have with the universe having an uncertianty priciple. As you said yourself; "There is the interaction of the universe." Why must it be that the universe's interaction cannot include and be constrained by such uncertainty? I see no reason to require that there is no uncertianty.

 

Do you realize what physics is about? It's about giving arbitralily divided parts of the universe, measurable by our devices, mathematical quantities whose change follows the rules of mathematics (numbers).

Probability calculation on the other hand is only a trick which is used with large masses of events, to predict the outcome of a situation even when the prerequisites are unknown.

I am afraid that i don't get what you are driving at here. Could you please explain more? Thanks

All this quantum quantum is just the outcome of the fact that we have arbitrarily divided the world, something which really cannot be done as is coming clearly evident now that we are trying to define smaller and smaller objects.

Yes, quantum effects are much more readily apparent as you decrease the mass/energy/size/ect of the system. But just because these properties normally emerge at a different level than you are used to living at does not mean that that they don't exist. Without quantum, how do you explain the line spectrum of stars or the work function of a metal, both of wich are macroscopically observable?

Why can't we define the exact place and state of the electron? The answer is quite simple. Because there's no electron. It's a particle we came up with after some observations and now it's in use as it is found helpfull.

??

This just seems quite silly.

Why can't i predict what you will do tommorrow morning? The answer is simple. YOu don't exist. Proton head is just a construct that i came up with becuase the idea is helpful.

But you do exist. The validity of my assinging you as Proton head, is repeatedly verified by the usefulness of that construct.

Perhaps electrons do not exist in exactly the way that we describe them right now. IN fact, most assuridly we are wrong. However, this does not mean that there are not electronically negative particles in the universe. If there were not, then how would be account for discrete changes in charge?

I know you seem to have a problem with discrete things, but i will get to that next.

The universe is continuous.

It most certainly is not. Again, i point you to the line spectrums of the stars. Or to the fact that the universe is not just one large baseball. IN fact, on our world alone we have many baseballs. If the universe was completely continous, there would be no way for seperate baseballs (or seperate anything) to exist. It would all be one large globby thingy. If discreteness can exist on a macroscopic scale (ie. seperatable, countable, objects) why would one disregard it on a microscopic and moleculare level?

 

Any methods to try and accurately define the universe from the inside will fail, as it's intervening. Inside objects (humans) are forced to use division methods.

Why does measuing from inside the system yeild our results invalid?

 

Even though such methods help advance our capability of building even greater machines, its plain dumb about trying to draw the type of conclusions about it that some people are doing.

Well, i am sure that some people do make stupid claims about the universe, baised on physics. However, i am not quite sure that non-determinism is one of them. I see no reason whatsoever that one would need the universe to be deterministic. A universe that is ruled by statistical laws would work just as well as one ruled by newtonian laws. And the former would not be deterministic.

But in the end, i suppose it is impossible to PROVE one way or the other. I guess there will always be uncertianty in people's minds and they will just end up believing what they choose to (or are forced to -- in a deterministic universe).

 

 

[1veedo]

I really don't see what problem you have with the universe having an uncertianty priciple. As you said yourself; "There is the interaction of the universe." Why must it be that the universe's interaction cannot include and be constrained by such uncertainty? I see no reason to require that there is no uncertianty.

I think its more along the lines of ‘God does not play dice.’ I don see anything wrong with the universe being deterministic, however, this determination would be largely *undefined*. One thing to remember is that our universe probably ‘came from nothing’ and that statement alone offers a very strong argument for quantum views because quantum theories have proposed several valid models for "our universe from nothing" and I highly doubt MOND addresses anything before the big bang.

Why does measuing from inside the system yeild our results invalid?

One major point of quantum theory is that any observer has to be physically part of the system he is observing. If one’s interaction with the system were not accounted for then measuring it would be inaccurate. However, even though quantum mechanics doesnt "recognizes" this, it does fits quite well into the theory (uncertainty principle is one). Quantum mechanics is very subjective.

[1veedo]

I really don't see what problem you have with the universe having an uncertianty priciple. As you said yourself; "There is the interaction of the universe." Why must it be that the universe's interaction cannot include and be constrained by such uncertainty? I see no reason to require that there is no uncertianty.

I think its more along the lines of ‘God does not play dice.’ I don see anything wrong with the universe being deterministic, however, this determination would be largely *undefined*. One thing to remember is that our universe probably ‘came from nothing’ and that statement alone offers a very strong argument for quantum views because quantum theories have proposed several valid models for "our universe from nothing" and I highly doubt MOND addresses anything before the big bang.

Why does measuing from inside the system yeild our results invalid?

One major point of quantum theory is that any observer has to be physically part of the system he is observing. If one’s interaction with the system were not accounted for then measuring it would be inaccurate. However, even though quantum mechanics doesnt "recognizes" this, it does fits quite well into the theory (uncertainty principle is one). Quantum mechanics is very subjective.

[Tom Mattson]

Newtonian mechanics are perfectly applicable in relativistic and quantum worlds.

 

No' date=' it isn't. Newtonian mechanics fails to predict the deflection of light in the presence of a massive body, and it fails to predict the lifetime of a hydrogen atom. The former is a manifestation of the relativistic world, and the latter a manifestation of the quantum world.

 

You're right about Newton working at high speeds though. But the definition of momentum has to change from p=mv to p=gmv in order for Newton's 2nd law to hold.

[Tom Mattson]

Newtonian mechanics are perfectly applicable in relativistic and quantum worlds.

 

No' date=' it isn't. Newtonian mechanics fails to predict the deflection of light in the presence of a massive body, and it fails to predict the lifetime of a hydrogen atom. The former is a manifestation of the relativistic world, and the latter a manifestation of the quantum world.

 

You're right about Newton working at high speeds though. But the definition of momentum has to change from p=mv to p=gmv in order for Newton's 2nd law to hold.