Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-13-2010, 10:16 PM #1
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη
 
 
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NC
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη helped look for balloons
Quantum Physics

If one could discover how sub-atomic particles operate, wouldn't it be feasible to say that we could predict everything that may happen at any given time (since doing so would put an end to randomity)?
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 01-14-2010, 11:55 AM #2
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
the whole point of quantum physics is that it is probabilistic. We do know how sub-atomic particles operate(ish).

I mean, if you're asking if we can somehow remove the ish would it change things? no, since as stated, it's probabilistic. It's not like we can suddenly remove that element just by learning more.
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 12:24 PM #3
Gisgo09
vGisgo
 
Gisgo09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Livonia, MI
If we could find out exactly how everything works and what everything is made up of then yes we should be able to predict the future. That is if it's even possible to learn exactly how sub atomic particles work.
__________________
Assumption is the mother of all **** ups.
"Thats a lot of Romans over there." "Yes but not one of them is Gisgo." Hannibal Barca and general Gisgo before the battle of Cannae in 216 BC.

http://www.lurkerpb.com/
Gisgo09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 12:57 PM #4
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη
 
 
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NC
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη helped look for balloons
I don't see how it's not. There has to be some mathematical equation, or something that describes how sub-atomic particles act. Sub-atomic particles are the building blocks of everything. If they move randomly, everything in the world happens randomly. With no order. We know this not to be the case. They must follow something. I don't see how anything could be truly random.
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 01:44 PM #5
MVPaintballer
Mega Flagellator
 
MVPaintballer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: New Hope, PA
Annual Supporting Member
MVPaintballer is a Mega Moderator
MVPaintballer is a Supporting Member
MVPaintballer donated to help Peyton Trent
MVPaintballer supports Bob Gurnsey
MVPaintballer posts videos on PbNation
MVPaintballer supports our troops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle
__________________
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it on the internet.
MVPaintballer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 01:52 PM #6
ClawHammer
Kraft durch Freude
 
ClawHammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UAE
ClawHammer is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
The very act of observing and analyzing a particle will alter its position and speed. Thus your observations of the particles former position and speed cannot be used to calculate its future properties.
ClawHammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 02:26 PM #7
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη
 
 
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NC
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη helped look for balloons
Maybe I'll get it (to my dismay) when I go take quantum physics classes in college.
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 02:29 PM #8
JohnyGfunk
Back then it was chess
 
JohnyGfunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere
 has been a member for 10 years
Nothing is for certain all is probabilistic.
__________________
"I want to eat his children" Mike Tyson

My feedback +24 / -0

BUY MY STUFF: ALL MUST GO
JohnyGfunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 02:36 PM #9
ClawHammer
Kraft durch Freude
 
ClawHammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UAE
ClawHammer is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη View Post
Maybe I'll get it (to my dismay) when I go take quantum physics classes in college.
Look at it like this, in order to 'see' something you need to bounce an electron off it. When you do this you alter how the object is moving. If you are calculating very small particles then that single electron will have a huge effect on the travel that particle. The act of observation alters the position and speed of very small objects to the point where prediction of accurate future positions and speed is impossible.
ClawHammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 02:44 PM #10
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη
 
 
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NC
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη helped look for balloons
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClawHammer View Post
Look at it like this, in order to 'see' something you need to bounce an electron off it. When you do this you alter how the object is moving. If you are calculating very small particles then that single electron will have a huge effect on the travel that particle. The act of observation alters the position and speed of very small objects to the point where prediction of accurate future positions and speed is impossible.
OK. This was my problem, that I never knew you had to bounce an electron off of it in order to find out it's position.
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 02:57 PM #11
ClawHammer
Kraft durch Freude
 
ClawHammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UAE
ClawHammer is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
That's essentially how humans view their universe. All of our senses, every one, deals with how an object interferes with energy and matter around it.
ClawHammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 03:40 PM #12
nflvikings
It's fizzix.
 
nflvikings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Illinois
nflvikings is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη View Post
OK. This was my problem, that I never knew you had to bounce an electron off of it in order to find out it's position.
We don't bounce electrons off of it to measure it's position. We shoot photons at various wavelengths, and the velocity/position comes from how long or short the wavelength was.
__________________
Old Feedback
nflvikings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 03:43 PM #13
ClawHammer
Kraft durch Freude
 
ClawHammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UAE
ClawHammer is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
I used electron as an example to grasp the concept.
ClawHammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 04:19 PM #14
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
the point is that objective subatomic matter (independently of an observer) exists probabilistically until someone(thing) observes it.


I would say it's certainly possible that in the future we will develop a way to "predict" the motions of particles, but the reverse is also very possible. Quantum mechanics is definitely creating a paradigm shift, so our old ideas about predictability in a classical universe may simply be false at this level.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 10:10 PM #15
Umami
"That guy"
 
Umami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Inside the Beltway
Umami works for a Paintball manufacturer
Umami supports our troops
You guys are missing the point. The most widly accepted model in physics today isn't even that the photon alters the position or momentum of the particle.

According to the most widly accepted interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Copenhagen), before measurement a single particle (thought of as a delta function) simply doesn't exist. It's not that it's position is guessed by a probability distribution, it simply has no well-defined position or momentum. Only through the act of measurement does this wavefunction collapse, giving a definite position or momentum, as allowed by Heisenberg. Subsequent (immediate) measurements will yield the same value, repeatedly keeping the wavefunction collapsed to a single value. Only after allowing the wavefunction to re-distribute itself can you get different values.

The fact of the matter is that Quantum Mechanics tells us that at a quantum level, things are essentially random. For a period this deeply distrubed physicists, and they thought there was a "hidden variable" that we didn't understand. If you don't like this idea you're not alone, Einstein was one of these physicists, which is where the famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe" came from. However, as a result of some experiments and through some logic that I admittedly don't fully follow myself, it has been shown that there are no "hidden variables", and it is simply the strange nature of the quantum world for particles to have no well defined position or momentum until they interact with some external force.

Believe it or not, we don't know everything.
__________________
SOG
I am affiliated with Lurker Paintball. My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of LurkerPB.
Umami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 10:20 PM #16
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη
 
 
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NC
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη helped look for balloons
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umami View Post
You guys are missing the point. The most widly accepted model in physics today isn't even that the photon alters the position or momentum of the particle.

According to the most widly accepted interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Copenhagen), before measurement a single particle (thought of as a delta function) simply doesn't exist. It's not that it's position is guessed by a probability distribution, it simply has no well-defined position or momentum. Only through the act of measurement does this wavefunction collapse, giving a definite position or momentum, as allowed by Heisenberg. Subsequent (immediate) measurements will yield the same value, repeatedly keeping the wavefunction collapsed to a single value. Only after allowing the wavefunction to re-distribute itself can you get different values.

The fact of the matter is that Quantum Mechanics tells us that at a quantum level, things are essentially random. For a period this deeply distrubed physicists, and they thought there was a "hidden variable" that we didn't understand. If you don't like this idea you're not alone, Einstein was one of these physicists, which is where the famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe" came from. However, as a result of some experiments and through some logic that I admittedly don't fully follow myself, it has been shown that there are no "hidden variables", and it is simply the strange nature of the quantum world for particles to have no well defined position or momentum until they interact with some external force.

Believe it or not, we don't know everything.
Well, that does suck.

Just a fun question: If we knew that quantum particles operated according to a set principle, and one could thusly know anything that will happen at a given moment, could one "look" into the future to the exact point at which we would discover something, and then thereby discover it in the present world? Really bends your brain, but if it were possible, we could pretty much know everything.
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 11:53 PM #17
Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)
I am a doctor, seriously!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at Harpo industrial chem
Quote:
Originally Posted by ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη View Post
Well, that does suck.

Just a fun question: If we knew that quantum particles operated according to a set principle, and one could thusly know anything that will happen at a given moment, could one "look" into the future to the exact point at which we would discover something, and then thereby discover it in the present world? Really bends your brain, but if it were possible, we could pretty much know everything.
if humans had the capacity to derive such an equation and solve such an equation, or develop technology that would enable them to solve such an equation, then it would theoretically be possible to "predict" the future within a margin of error.

however when dealing with such tiny particles, assuming that we could extrapolate some large scale prediction ( ie, bill will go to the grocery store) the compounded error would be enormous and make any deductions moot.

this is assuming that we as a species have the capacity to derive such an equation which we dont, and that we have the capacity to solve such an equation which we dont.

so long as there exist P vs NP problems that encrypt the internet that we cant solve quickly we will NEVER be able to solve this atomic equation in the numbers required to predict anything really substantial.


as an example... assume that we have to solve this equation 10^20 times
(seems reasonable based on my mass and the mass of an electron)

and lets assume the equation is 99.9% accurate.

not good enough.... so lets say we only have to use this equation 10,000 times (10^4) and we have 99.9% accuracy.

that means our final accuracy is 0.0045%

meaning 99.9955% of the time our results will not be an accurate portrayal of reality.


and as has been previously stated, in order to measure particles their motion AND position can not be simultaneously recorded. and if their wave function is widely spread untill observed (even with a relatively tight wave function) the error is going to be far greater than 0.1%


basically, the proposition that the entirety of existance could FEASABLY be predicted by some equation is a question that has no base in reality.

feasable..... not even close.

interesting philosophical thought experiment.... sure.
Dr.Phil.McGraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2010, 10:54 PM #18
sniperx117
Resident A-rab
 
sniperx117's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NY
We need a science sub forum...
__________________
We Real Cool
We Left School
We Lurk Late
We strike Straight
We sing Sin
We thin Gin
We jazz June
We Die Soon
sniperx117 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 01:05 AM #19
JohnyGfunk
Back then it was chess
 
JohnyGfunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere
 has been a member for 10 years
I would also like a science sub-forum
__________________
"I want to eat his children" Mike Tyson

My feedback +24 / -0

BUY MY STUFF: ALL MUST GO
JohnyGfunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2010, 08:03 PM #20
Genre
I just want to be free.
 
Genre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Even if all of physics was deterministic, you would not be able to predict the future. Since I cannot think of a perfectly closed system that actually exists, one could not predict what would happen in any given area of space without predicting what would happen absolutely everywhere else in the universe. Since it is completely impossible, given my understanding of computing, to create some sort of computer that can simulate the entire universe, no, we could not ever perfectly predict the future.

My claim that no computer could perfectly simulate the entire universe at the same time is based on a few things. First, the act of predicting the future would inevitably predict the future, and for the machine to predict its own results would be impossible since to do so would require that it already new its own predictions. Also, since we are talking about predicting absolutely everything about the universe, the machine would have to be at least as big as the universe itself, which obviously doesn't make sense. To simulate the events of an area of space perfectly would require at least an equal amount of space for the actual computer to exist in. I don't think it is possible, regardless of the level of technology, to simulate exactly the motion/properties of an electron in less than the space that the electron takes up, for example.
__________________
Originally posted by Frank112916: "what makes an initiation of force 'illegitimate'? Why can we not initiate force is some ways but not in others if it makes us better off?"

"Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost." - F. A. Hayek

Reason
Genre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2010, 09:04 PM #21
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genre View Post
Even if all of physics was deterministic, you would not be able to predict the future. Since I cannot think of a perfectly closed system that actually exists, one could not predict what would happen in any given area of space without predicting what would happen absolutely everywhere else in the universe. Since it is completely impossible, given my understanding of computing, to create some sort of computer that can simulate the entire universe, no, we could not ever perfectly predict the future.

My claim that no computer could perfectly simulate the entire universe at the same time is based on a few things. First, the act of predicting the future would inevitably predict the future, and for the machine to predict its own results would be impossible since to do so would require that it already new its own predictions. Also, since we are talking about predicting absolutely everything about the universe, the machine would have to be at least as big as the universe itself, which obviously doesn't make sense. To simulate the events of an area of space perfectly would require at least an equal amount of space for the actual computer to exist in. I don't think it is possible, regardless of the level of technology, to simulate exactly the motion/properties of an electron in less than the space that the electron takes up, for example.
there's a wide margin between theoretically perfect predictions and perfect predictions "in practice". Just like "random". You have essentially proven that theoretical true perfect prediction is logically contradictory. However, you haven't touched on something that is 90%+ correct prediction. Is there anything that says we can't come that close?
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump