Originally posted by AcolyteIs this the same idea ? im a little uncertain here
I disagree. Consider the following as a way of getting round the idea of indeterminacy:
Let X be the set of all possible worlds (which includes all the space and time in those worlds). We live in one of these, let's call it x, but [b]x is fixed and always has been.
We can narrow down X by conditioning on worlds that are consistent with our observa ...[text shortened]... asses are unmeasurable, in which case even our notions of events having probabilities are wrong.[/b]
"In response to the appearance of a new particle, a central unit might disappear and reappear elsewhere (how far?), expand or contract its field (to what extent?), move off in some direction (at what speed?), rotate on an axis (what axis?). Clearly if anything were possible (without constraints) the universe would be totally indeterminate thereby invalidating logic.
Planck's constant is the mechanism by which the universe maintains its logical consistency with respect to these parameters yet allows "action" to occur.
To let determinism coexist with its antithesis (indeterminism), any variable may change at the expense of some other such that Planck's constant remains stable at the value 1/R. This value now changes so slowly that the term constant is warranted.
The value 1/R is gotten by deriving it from known mathematical relationships (e.g. a=e^2/hc ; Gm^2/hc=~10^-39 ; Planck and/or Stoney 'natural' units, etc.) and by setting the gravitational constant at ~10^-39 in the 'unit' system of measure ",,,http://www.ebtx.com/ntx/ntx27.htm
I do wonder often about that, and the possibility that in a base h number system might determine the uncertainty and put a rational spin on the way we view the universe by eliminating the mathemetalphysical need for uncertainty.
jeez that was fun to write!
Originally posted by richispsychoAbsolutely right. Call it pseudo-randomness--or even, to take the subject into seriously controversial lines, pseudo-free will. We all suffer from the delusion that humanity is capable of knowing everything if we just try hard enough. That is so wrong, but how can we convince humanity of this? Rather fruitless. I'd rather go play some chess.
Ok.... I think Stang contradicts you but does no justify his conclusion.
If the future is deterministic (already decided by the past) we should be able to know everything that is going to happen (predict). However we cannot because we do not know (and cannot know) everything about the present state of the environment. Doesn't this make the future as good as random (at least to us)....
Originally posted by thesonofsaulHeisenberg certainly never stated any such general rule. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies only to subatomic particles and basically states that you can't simultaneously measure both the position and momentum of such particles. The HUP is, of course, not applicable to macroscopic objects i.e. what we see in the "real world".
No. Heisenberg stated that nothing can be truly studied. This is because to measure something, you must disturb it, and therefore what you were measuring has changed and is something else entirely.
Originally posted by no1marauderMy apologies. I was misinformed.
Heisenberg certainly never stated any such general rule. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies only to subatomic particles and basically states that you can't simultaneously measure both the position and momentum of such particles. The HUP is, of course, not applicable to macroscopic objects i.e. what we see in the "real world".
Originally posted by no1marauder..Actually it's position and velocity which cannot be measured at the same time.
Heisenberg certainly never stated any such general rule. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies only to subatomic particles and basically states that you can't simultaneously measure both the position and momentum of such particles. The HUP is, of course, not applicable to macroscopic objects i.e. what we see in the "real world".
Originally posted by richispsychoI agree with what you said earlier about the future being an unknown to humanity, because there is too much chaos in the past to plot the future. However, I would like you to justify your statement that the future is potentially changable. Or are you just stating the way you would llike it to be?
Regardless... The future (in my view) is still uncertain. (and potentially changeable).
Originally posted by howardgeeUMM, Heisenberg didn't agree with your statement:
..Actually it's position and velocity which cannot be measured at the same time.
The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.
--Heisenberg, uncertainty paper, 1927
See htp://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p.08.htm
Originally posted by thesonofsaulOk, I think that the future is uncertain and changeable because *draws large breath*
... However, I would like you to justify your statement that the future is potentially changable. Or are you just stating the way you would llike it to be?
If could you predict the future (not perfectly but accurately enough) you could use this prediction to slightly change your behaviour and alter the potential future you originally predicted. (I think this makes sense).
Whether or not this makes the future changeable (perhaps you where always going to predict your future and change your actions) Im unsure. I think deffinately maybe. However I am sure the future is uncertain.
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompGood point. Except that mathematically, there is no way to represent the "past" except as an imaginary number.
Isnt the very basis of relativity the idea that time must have a positive value (the fitzgerald-lorenz contraction) and that nothing in our universe can therefore travel back in time without taking an imaginary value? Wouldnt anything ...[text shortened]... faster than light have to be an imaginary object when at rest?
Hmmm...
As to "faster than light"... the frame is the thing. Of reference. The frame of reference might move or not. The term relative is only between any two frames. Reality has nothing to do with either... except if one assumes only one reality is possible or to be more concise... "all reality shares the same frame", or "Two and exactly two frames"
Puts a real pisser kink into the three body problem. <snark>
Originally posted by richispsychoI assume what you take "represent" to mean "to bring clearly before the mind," that is, the common definition. Assuming that, I will take a stab at it. We picture time as being any occurance of change between one slice of life to another. The more change the more time, and vice versa. Hence the feeling that time plods when doing a tedious task (very little change) and flies when having fun (a great deal of change, usually).
This is the question I really want answering people....
Or perhaps even more precisely how do we represent time?
I hope this helps.
1 edit
Originally posted by thesonofsaulDid you ever consider the meaning of "Quanta" as a packet?
I assume what you take "represent" to mean "to bring clearly before the mind," that is, the common definition. Assuming that, I will take a stab at it. We picture time as being any occurance of change between one slice of life t ...[text shortened]... aving fun (a great deal of change, usually).
I hope this helps.
All change is binary. Hence the term "Packet of One" or "Quanta".
If time exists... is it "Quantum" in nature? Is there a single least most value in which a packet of light progresses one unit of distance?
Or else... how do we measure it?
Slice? Sorry. That implies a good sharp knife.
Get down to ten to the minus 42 power. That is where it is at. Time and distance mean nothing. That is where science lives at this time.
Then say something profound. Such as "Time and Reality are Quantum In Nature... Because each can inevitably only be measured one 'hypo <edit> thetical guess <end edit>' at a time"
Even silly old SVW knows that to be true. And up till now, all I know is that Nothing is free. Imagine that.