Einstein And Niels Bohr

[Smurf]

i was watching a programme on sbs about Einstien's unfinished symphony.. well it raised some very interesting points that einstien proved that time is relative etc (i wont go into the details). but there was a time when he clashed with quantum mechanics. his view was that the universe and everything can be predicted and stuff. but quantum mechanic's view is that it is all down to probability.

well i for one say that everything can be predicted and is all cause and effect. i just don't believe in probability.

what about you guys?

[scameter]

Well i honestly believe entirely in the uncertainty principle of quantum physics, which essentially says that with every situation there are inumerable possible outcomes. But, i also believe in evolution and natural selection, which i think is inherent of two things: life and logic. Huamnity happens to be a conduit for both, and most of the time we can also have neither life nor humanity. But, logic seems to exist in everything as a necessity to continue existence, which seems to be the "plane" of life, kindof like it's area for persistence. It is where "existence" lays, and life and humanity are attachments to it. And without life or humanity, there is merely logic and existence. And, as a note to those favoring of logic like myself, logic can be imbued with humanity and life if either/both are assimilated into it. But existence merely remains as it is; necessary, and usually very present, but can become invisible with the complete control of life and humanity, which is the idea. :)

[Smurf]

yes but i still think that everything can be predicted. that probability supports pure randomness which can't exist, there is always a reason for everything, quantum physics are saying that there is probability because they just do not have the equipment to measure the causes at such a small level of which quantum mechanics is situated.

if you flip a coin you are able to predict what it will do using physics. the force on the one side of the coin will cause the coin to rise in the air and rotate on an axis. then fall back down to earth due to gravity and the bounce around a bit to reveal a head or tail. using a slow speed camera you are able to capture this cause and effect sequence.

[scameter]

Smurf:if you flip a coin you are able to predict what it will do using physics. the force on the one side of the coin will cause the coin to rise in the air and rotate on an axis. then fall back down to earth due to gravity and the bounce around a bit to reveal a head or tail. using a slow speed camera you are able to capture this cause and effect sequence.

...and then a small gust of win comes in and causes the coin to turn one more time than what perfectly-controlled physics could preditct. Honestly, i don't have enough faith in either humanity or the absolute no-change of nature. Humanity is fallible of course, and nature is random. Which is why i like the Uncertainty Principle of quantum physics.

[Smurf]

ah yes but that small gust of wind could have been provoked by the wind currents and pressure systems. it is not a question of nature or humanity just the facts.

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: Well i honestly believe entirely in the uncertainty principle of quantum physics, which essentially says that with every situation there are inumerable possible outcomes.

That is not what the Uncertainty Principle says. Link: Here is what it really says (http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/) (click on Uncertainty Principle).

smurf: his view was that the universe and everything can be predicted and stuff. but quantum mechanic's view is that it is all down to probability.

Einstein did not hold that the universe can be predicted/computed. This particular view belongs into the 18th century. Yet, Einstein was a realist and therefore he posited definite (though unmeasurable) qualities for subatomic particles. According to Einstein, nature itself is not probabilistic, which basically means that probabilistic descriptions are incomplete.

Cheers, Thomas

[Smurf]

Yeah i did some looking around and researching and realised that what i thought was completely different to the real thing! :lol: but now i know , i thought that quantum Physics was suggesting that it was completely random but i now know otherwise, Sorry Guys :)

[scameter]

Yes Thomas, there is alot of quantum physics and mechanics to the Unicertainity Principle, but i just wanted to post it's essential, philosophic viewpoint. Should i post it's quantum version formula too?

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: Yes Thomas, there is alot of quantum physics and mechanics to the Unicertainity Principle, but i just wanted to post it's essential, philosophic viewpoint.

If you said that randomicity in nature is the point of the Uncertainty Principle, you would have missed the point with certainty. :D And that would be a pity. The principle itself just expresses a peculiar relation that informs us of the impossibility of a measurable subatomic world. This is quite an astonishing fact in itself (for classical physicists anyway), but quantum mechanics makes no philosophical pronouncements beyond that. It does not posit random forces, nor non-determinism. I think the (false) notion arises from the famous Einstein quote about God and dice. The truth is, there are different ontological interpretations of QM, of which some are non-deterministic, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, and others are deterministic, such as the Many Worlds interpretation. Whether reality is wholly deterministic or not, is not really a scientific question, but a philopsophical one.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

But even so philosophy and science cannot be seperate if they are to be whole. And too, if indeed the Uncertainty principle is as you describe, then would it not also constitute what i said? If a subatomic world is immeasurable, then would that not mean that it has acute, invisible fluctuations and thus is not completely certain?

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: But even so philosophy and science cannot be seperate if they are to be whole.

Very true. The boundaries between science and philosophy are not sharp. There is the field of logic, which belongs to both, since logic is the foundation of mathematics, which is the foundation of science. And there is the field of "metaphysics" that surrounds scientific fundamental reserach like a halo. All scientific theories are ultimately based on certain metaphysical assumptions. Quantum mechanics is an especially interesting example, because it incited some scientists to formulate anti-realist views of reality, which constitutes a remarkable deviation from the realist consensus among the scientific community.

scameter: if indeed the Uncertainty principle is as you describe, then would it not also constitute what i said?

No.

Sorry for being fussy.

scameter: If a subatomic world is immeasurable, then would that not mean that it has acute, invisible fluctuations and thus is not completely certain?

It basically means that the definite state of a particle, such as an electron, is unknowable, and that it can be expressed only in probabilistic terms. There are a number of ways to interpret this fact. If you interpret it like Bohr and Heisenberg, it means that nature itself is non-deterministic. If you see it from Einstein's point of view, it means that particles do have definite (deterministic) properties and that we are missing something. If you interpret from the viewpoint of string theory, it means that particles are not ultimately real entitites.

Hence, the philosophical interpretations are varied. Interestingly, Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem did a similar thing in the world of mathematics. It was published in 1931, only four years after the discovery of the Uncertainty Principle. While QM made a philosophical dent into materialism/realism, mathematical formalism hit rock bottom with Gödel.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Hmm...I think i'm seeing what you're saying Thomas. I still don't really see why my view couldn't be essentially the same as Uncertainty Principle, but i wont argue with you on that point. I am not a physicist, i've never even taken physics in school(yet), but i am inquisitive of everything, and thus too want to know about it. And i do consider myself a philosopher of sorts, because after this past summer of nearly constant philosophical study and speculation i have begun to see life with a philosophical viewpoint, as the dictionary defines a philosopher "One who approaches life with a calm and rational attitude", which i now do. But, does this mean that philosophy is less intelligent and thus too more understandable than science or math? And what exactly is string theory. I've heard alot about it, but i've never completely understood it. I think it's that there is a string of information of a sorts in praticles that vibrates to make the essential "music" of existence. But how can it say particles do not exist? And what more is there to string theory than what i just said about it, or is that even valid to it? <_<

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: But, does this mean that philosophy is less intelligent and thus too more understandable than science or math?

Intelligence is not the issue. Science and philosophy have very different epistemic approaches to knowledge. Both are knowledge building, but science relies on relatively formal methods, where corroboration through empiric data plays a key role. Philosophy is generally more speculative and broader. If you want to know more about this topic, you should investigate the scientific method and the philosophy of science. Try these starting points:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Science

Pay special attention to scientific/epistemic methods such as induction, coherence, falsifiability, and Occam's razor.

scameter: And what exactly is string theory.

String theory is a new development in fundamental physics motivated by the search for a TOE that unites gravitation with quantum theory. Particles are replaced by one-dimensional objects (strings) that have multiple higher dimensions rolled up in themselves. I can't really describe it adequately in a brief message; it is not exactly a straight-forward topic, as you might imagine. I can recommend the book Elegant Universe by Brian Greene on that subject. He is a very competent writer.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Ok, thanks Thomas i'll try out those sites. :) And, how can anything be one dimensional, especially if it a string of rolled up information? And i read in one of Stephen Hawking's books, he's very good btw, about quantum gravity. What exactly is that? And i also have one of Green's books, not the Elegant Universe, it's called something else i'll find it and tell you it's title. And too, sorry for all the questions, what is this new thing called illusionary theory or physics? I saw it in a magazine, didn't investigate with much thoroughness but it said on the cover that it explained gravity as an illusion. I thought gravity was the magnetic balance of the two poles in combine with the moon's own gravity? This is all very interesting by the way Thomas, i'm very thankful for your help. :) Oh and do you think, since intelligence is irrelevent in my preference for philosophy over science, that i just prefer philosophy over science and just think on a more philosophcial grounds, or that i just haven't studied enough of science enough to think in that way? Because to me, the unfortunate thing is is about most philosophy knowers, scientists, and mathematicians is that they merely memorize facts and then apply them; they don't actually think philosphically or scientifically. I like the dictionary's definition of philosopher, "One who approaches life in a calm and rational manner." :)

[todd]

Actually scameter wasn't quite terribly wrong.
The uncertainty principle means that the position and moment ( let's say energy) of a particle cannot be determined with accuracy at a certain moment in time. We can only determine one or the other. This is mainly explained by the limits of our observation methods used today, and in the future we may surpass them. But if you consider that "truth" about a particle means to have both these information available (knowing the present status, the future of the particle can be predicted), then he may have a point, meaning that in reality the status of that particle is always "uncertain", and nothing can be really known with accuracy.
Recent studies have transformed the Heisenberg inequality in an equation, proving that the level of uncertainty is in fact constant.
For details:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2209
For more information you can check this document (requires advanced math)
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/...107/0107149.pdf (http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0107/0107149.pdf)

[Thomas Knierim]

todd: The uncertainty principle means that the position and moment ( let's say energy) of a particle cannot be determined with accuracy at a certain moment in time.

Sorry, that's momentum, not the classical momentum (product of mass and velocity), but the quantum momentum which is an operator on the wave function.

todd: We can only determine one or the other. This is mainly explained by the limits of our observation methods used today, and in the future we may surpass them.

On the contrary. The limit is theoretical and cannot be surmounted by practical methods, such as improvements of the measurement process.

todd: ...he may have a point, meaning that in reality the status of that particle is always "uncertain", and nothing can be really known with accuracy.

Yes, but that is not what scameter said. Indeterminacy is not non-determinism. Scameter concluded non-deterministic properties of nature (randomness) from indeterminate quantum states. That is a logical error.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

May i ask you something Thomas?

[todd]

Thomas, the uncertainty is given by the observation method, by the need of interaction in order to determine the physical particle. For example by the fact that you need a photon to be emitted in order to know something was there and this is what the principle is based on. The observation today means interaction which alters the status of the particle.
dE*dt>=h/4*pi
This is not a measurement error but an objective limit of observability using photons or other quantum physics particles.
If we can find sub-quantic particles that we can observe this limitation will fall.
***and the momentum is defined as h/lambda, but it is still J*s/m.

[Thomas Knierim]

todd: This is not a measurement error but an objective limit of observability using photons or other quantum physics particles.

That's pretty much what I meant with theoretical limit. It is not conceivable how something can be observed without emitting photons. I guess then there is no disagreement about this point.

todd: If we can find sub-quantic particles that we can observe this limitation will fall.

Hmm, I think I cannot understand that. What do you mean with sub-quantic particles?

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Thomas: That's pretty much what I meant with theoretical limit. It is not conceivable how something can be observed without emitting photons. I guess then there is no disagreement about this point.

Why?

Thomas: Hmm, I think I cannot understand that. What do you mean with sub-quantic particles?

I'm not sure, but i think he means particles beyond-underneath the quantum world, possibly like the strings in string theory.

And for my question: If you truly think that we know just about everything there is to know about this solar system and also the fabric of reality, and even if you think we don't do that, then why do you do as you do, liking and studying things such as philosophy and science and applying logic so? :)

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: And for my question: If you truly think that we know just about everything there is to know about this solar system and also the fabric of reality, and even if you think we don't do that, then why do you do as you do, liking and studying things such as philosophy and science and applying logic so?

Sorry, scameter, I don't understand the question. Our knowledge about the universe is miniscule compared to our ignorance.

Cheers, Thomas

[todd]

Hi Thomas,
Despite the fact that our religion opinions are different, I think we have somehow the same background and we both use the black box thinking model.
Once again, I see in the quantum theory just a theoretical system modeling solution that is able to give us the experimental output results for a specific known set of inputs, in concordance to the objective reality. But we both know that the model itself is just an approximation of the reality, and we do not know, or ever be able to know all the inputs affecting the system.
With every new input, the system status equation changes, and with every unpredicted output the accuracy of the model fades. Whenever we hit a certain accuracy threshold, the whole theory that the system is based on, is starting to shake, and we develop new equations (theories) for its status.
The quantum theory is building our reality today but in essence I personally find it to lack verosimility, and I would prefer a continuous model of matter/energy/space. Why does energy builds up in quanta, where is inertia coming from, what is gravity and how energy is transferred without photons?

[scameter]

I know that Thomas, and that's not what i'm asking. I'm asking that if you believe that logic is individually it, the only applicable facet of humanity to life that actually solves things and is definite, then why do you do as you do applying it and living continuously? Logically, that is pointless.

[Smurf]

hmm i think he has you there Tom :P

[Thomas Knierim]

todd: Despite the fact that our religion opinions are different, I think we have somehow the same background and we both use the black box thinking model.

Black box thinking? I guess you could call it like that. I think that knowledge in general, and scientific knowledge in particular, is about creating mental maps. From the ancient Greek weather gods to contemporary physics it’s all about mental mapping. The maps themselves do not actually exist in nature. But they have one crucial property: predictive power.

Mapping quality is proportional to the accuracy of the predictions. Insofar, QM fails at the uncertainty principle, because it concludes that accurate predictions (such as predictions for particle trajectories) are impossible. On the other hand, QM is extremely successful in other areas (quantum electrodynamics, quantum field theory) and its predictive power rendered in those fields makes up for its “shortcomings”.

todd: The quantum theory is building our reality today but in essence I personally find it to lack verosimility, and I would prefer a continuous model of matter/energy/space.

But, why? For esthetical reasons? For ontological reasons?

I think verisimilitude is a problematic concept in science, because it presupposes a platonic ideal. If you understand knowledge as map, the form and shape of the map (its esthetic properties) are irrelevant. There is only one property that matters: predictive power.

scameter: I'm asking that if you believe that logic is individually it, the only applicable facet of humanity to life that actually solves things and is definite…

Scameter, I’m afraid I still don’t get what you mean. Logic is at the foundation of knowledge. But you need much more than logic to build knowledge. Besides, there are many logics. As we have seen in the last century, classical bivalent logic is not universally applicable. There are some fields of research which require other logics.

If you ask whether I propose physical/logical reductionism – that’s not the case.

Cheers, Thomas

[todd]

What I meant by black box is a general system.
Modern mathematics has a field called systems identification and modeling. Basically, everything is a system that can be looked upon as a black box.
There is no need to know its internal structure. From the system's response to all the known inputs, the system status equations can be deducted, and thus future response to a known set of inputs can be predicted.
A theory is nothing else but a set of equations established a priori, and later tested to confirm the predicted system response.

[scameter]

No am asking that, even if it does have different dimensions, why do you use logic so?