04 Aug 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf time does not apply it is because there is a disruption in space/time.
I don't see how it does.
It is interesting that you say it can have a position in space but not in time. Kazet says the opposite is the case. Why are you two not debating it?
I say you are both right (and wrong).
Space and time are linked. You can't have one without the other or it would not make sense at all.
If they were not, two objects could be in the same place at the same time and we all know our universe is more orderly than that. Think about it.
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainI never said time does not apply.
If time does not apply it is because there is a disruption in space/time.
It is interesting that you say it can have a position in space but not in time.
After further research, I believe the uncertainty principle states that you can have a position in space but as a result not know the momentum. ie the better you know where something is at a given time, the less you can predict its future location.
I say you are both right (and wrong).
So where are we wrong?
Space and time are linked. You can't have one without the other or it would not make sense at all.
If they were not, two objects could be in the same place at the same time and we all know our universe is more orderly than that. Think about it.
I am not disputing it nor does anything I have said go against that.
How about this view:
The mathematics of the mechanics of the universe are such that it is impossible to accurately predict either the future or the past.
eg, an atom emits a photon. The direction the photon will be emitted cannot be predicted based on the known state of the atom. Hence we cannot predict the future. The question here is whether the direction the photon is emitted is truly random and causeless, or whether it is based on state stored in the atom that we can never know.
Similarly, if a photon is absorbed by an atom, we cant always be sure how the photon got there. If there was more than one path from the source of the photon to the destination, we cannot tell which path the photon took. The information regarding which path it took is lost upon absorption.
So the question then becomes: did it take all possible paths, or just one path that we can never know?
And the most important question is: if the different ways of viewing this are mathematically equivalent, then who cares?
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou and Kazet made statements that are opposite to each other. Perhaps you should be debating him.
I never said time does not apply.
[b]It is interesting that you say it can have a position in space but not in time.
After further research, I believe the uncertainty principle states that you can have a position in space but as a result not know the momentum. ie the better you know where something is at a given time, the less you can predict its ...[text shortened]... estion is: if the different ways of viewing this are mathematically equivalent, then who cares?[/b]
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12469
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainIf you mean the many-worlds theory, no, I don't, and I don't see how you can conclude that from my observation that quatum particles aren't really just a hybrid of a macro-object and a macro-wave.
Richard,
I am not sure, but it sounds to me that you think it may be possible that Hugh Everett III was right all along. Is that the case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12469
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainI would suggest that if you weren't yet familiar with Heisenberg uncertainty, you may not be equipped to devise a new theory concerning quantum particles quite yet. As much for yours as for the theory which was the original subject of this thread, it would be better first to get the fundamentals right and then to start fiddling with novelties.
That tends to support my theory that waves (in a vacuum) are disruptions of space/time.
Richard
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by Shallow BlueThis is what Kazet wrote.
Erm... no. No, they didn't.
Richard
There are several ways to measure the position of an electron, but the important point to realize is that an electron never has a definite position. It is spread out over space.
04 Aug 11
There is a very good book on quantum mechanics that I think that many people that are commenting on this thread could read:
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/0131118927
You really don't have to know much Physics do get it, but you do need to get some calculus and linear algebra under your belt (even though he reviews this topic on what I'm sure may be a new prism for most of the people that are writing on this thread) and you sure need to actually read the book and do the exercises to get something out of it.
Heck, if some you guys are interested in actually learning the first bits (no pun intended) of introductory quantum mechanics is actually about I have an idea that might be worth testing.
The ones that are interested just say I do and I'll get back to you.
05 Aug 11
Originally posted by adam warlockI would never buy that book at that price.
There is a very good book on quantum mechanics that I think that many people that are commenting on this thread could read:
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/0131118927
You really don't have to know much Physics do get it, but you do need to get some calculus and linear algebra under your belt (even though he ...[text shortened]... might be worth testing.
The ones that are interested just say I do and I'll get back to you.
I recommend "the Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin. It is a great book for 15.95
I recommend you read page 284
05 Aug 11
Originally posted by adam warlockI am not a supporter of string theory either.
The fact that I'm not a supporter of ST is of any inconvenience to your suggestion?
Ps: You don't have to buy the book at that price, you just have to buy the book.
The book is about a lot more than string theory.
In fact, his book convinced me that ST (while kind of interesting in theory alone) is not worth the time.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12469
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainExactly. That is a refinement of Kazet's statement, not its complete opposite.
This is what Twhitehead wrote.
More accurately, it is spread out over space-time. Its position in space can be very definite at the expense of uncertainty in time.
Richard
07 Aug 11
Originally posted by adam warlockYeah, good book. It was mandatory for my introductory quantum mechanics courses.
There is a very good book on quantum mechanics that I think that many people that are commenting on this thread could read:
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/0131118927
You really don't have to know much Physics do get it, but you do need to get some calculus and linear algebra under your belt (even though he ...[text shortened]... might be worth testing.
The ones that are interested just say I do and I'll get back to you.