Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

Off Topic
61

[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
Gerg wrote:

Is the universe then a pre-set “creation”? If timespace is past, present and future set in motion, then what set this in motion? Which eventually brings us to Plato’s “prime mover”.

Or is the universe random happenings that fall into a measurable sequence that we perceive as “order”.

Time to break out the old books. Amazing how much stuff you forget from philosophy 101.

Don’t know much about History, don’t know much Philosophy. But I know that if you can rig your microwave to operate with the door open, you can rip a portal into the timespace continuum. But you need to be careful, because the intrinsic curvature of space-time itself could be a form of stored energy via the compactified dimensions and the Weyl curvature tensor. And this will promote Pole-shifting and hasten global warming. [/quote]

“You know…god spelled backwards is dog?”
“That’s deep, Ogre.”

62

[quote]digitalairair wrote:
Gerg wrote:
digitalairair wrote:
Gerg wrote:
digitalairair wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It seems counterintuitive that, as space and time really are spacetime, consciousness and physical reality are consciousnessreality. If that’s the case, is the universe the mind of God?

When you hear Einstein and Hawkins and many other scienctists talk about God, God doesn’t play dice, inside the mind of God ect, they are really talking about the universe, not the biblical God.

Spacetime is a fabric of reality. In general relativity, Einstein combined the 3 dimensional of space (up-down, left-right, front-back) with another dimension, the dimension of time, to make our physical world a 4 dimensional spacetime fabric.

All the physical objects: planets, stars, people, interact with this fabric which warps and curves to create what we all know as gravity.

According to general relativity, every event that took place and will ever take place since the begginning of time is “included” in this fabric of spacetime, which means that present, past, and future aka “flow of time” is nothing but an illusion created by human consiousness.

Everything is predetermined. Just as we can say we can move "over there’, and “over here” in space, we are just as inclined to say we can move from “now” to “then”. We cannot see Mars, but that doesn’t take away the fact that Mar exist. Mars is there, just not in front of us.

We can’t travel into the future, but that doesn’t mean that future events aren’t already in place, happeninng right now, we just hanv’t gotten there yet.

This theory however, contradicts with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is an escape for people who refuse to believe in determinism

(Einstein was a determinist, he refused to believe that the events in the universe happen by chance, he called quantum mechanics “spooky”, and famously stated that “God does not play dice”. He spent a good deal of his career trying to debunk the Principle of Uncertainty).

Is the universe then a pre-set “creation”? If timespace is past, present and future set in motion, then what set this in motion? Which eventually brings us to Plato’s “prime mover”.

Or is the universe random happenings that fall into a measurable sequence that we perceive as “order”.

Time to break out the old books. Amazing how much stuff you forget from philosophy 101.

Who the prime mover is depends on your religous or scientific dogma. If you are a deist, you believe that there is a Creator who designed the world and kicks the universe into gear.

However, this Creator doesn’t interact with the world directly. He doens’t create miracles and he doesn’t answer your prayers. He simply created the law of the universe, brings it into existence, and sits back and lets the rest of the world evolve on its own.

This belief might be comfortable for somebody who believes in both the Creator and evolution, but the more you learn about evolution, the more you realize that intelligent design and natural selection are imcompatible.

IF you are an atheist, then the question of who or what set the universe in motion does not have a definate answer. As we all know, space and time is created by the Big Bang, and Big Bang “banged” from a singularity, where all mathmetical equations and physical laws break down.

In fact, you can’t even begin to talk about or even conceive a singularity with your mind, because any thoughts, anything that you can ever think of must occupies a point in time and a region of space. So when Stephen Hawkins asked “What was God doing before he made the universe?”, he wasn’t expecting anybody to give an answer.

However, some theoretical physicists recently came up with a new idea regarding what bang the big bang. I’m not terribly familiar with it, so I apologize in advance if I say anything wrong. This theory came from M-Theory and String theory.

According to M- Theory, our universe is made up of many different dimensions, or membranes that are stretched out from tiny vibrating strings. In fact, there are infinite amount of membranes/universes out there, and those membranes are like waves in the ocean that glide and collide with each other.

Once in a while, two universes/membranes smash head on against each other and the result of such collision is a big bang. According to this theory, big bangs happens everywhere, and all the time.

The fact that there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, and that there are approximately 400 billion gallexies just in the observable universe make the thought of an infinite number of big bangs and universes mind boggling. It makes the best of us feel helpless and meaningless.

I was goig to try and read through your posts, except for two reasons:

I am exhausted, so I will attempt big thoughts tomorrow, and;

Your avatar is really distracting. Is that a statue, your wife, something you picked up just for shock value…? Sorry if I missed it on other threads, I’m just curious on the thought pattern there.

It’s a hyperrealism sculpture
[/quote]

…oh…

…okayyyy…

Beyond me, I guess.

63

[quote]Tithonus81 wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Tithonus81 wrote:
I tried explaining to my brother last weekend that “red” doesn’t actually exist in the physical universe. It’s a construct in our conscious. He couldn’t wrap his head around the idea.

“Red” exists as a wavelength of light. The experience of red (“redness”) does not seem to exist outside of our perceptions. It is the experience of red, and the corresponding experiential knowledge that is non-transferable, which is qualia.

This is what I meant. If I say the word red, the first thing that comes immediately into their head is probably not “Oh yeah, the band of light with 625-740nm wavelength.” You’ll see and experience “red” in your mind. In a Universe of blind subjects there is no such thing as red. It simply doesn’t exist.[/quote]

Or does it exisit and they just can’t experience it. They are, after all, blind.
I cannot see air, but yet if I am without it, I perish.

To wit, the lacking of the perception of a “thing” does not necesarily negate its exisitence.

64

[quote]digitalairair wrote:
Gerg wrote:
digitalairair wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It seems counterintuitive that, as space and time really are spacetime, consciousness and physical reality are consciousnessreality. If that’s the case, is the universe the mind of God?

When you hear Einstein and Hawkins and many other scienctists talk about God, God doesn’t play dice, inside the mind of God ect, they are really talking about the universe, not the biblical God.

Spacetime is a fabric of reality. In general relativity, Einstein combined the 3 dimensional of space (up-down, left-right, front-back) with another dimension, the dimension of time, to make our physical world a 4 dimensional spacetime fabric.

All the physical objects: planets, stars, people, interact with this fabric which warps and curves to create what we all know as gravity.

According to general relativity, every event that took place and will ever take place since the begginning of time is “included” in this fabric of spacetime, which means that present, past, and future aka “flow of time” is nothing but an illusion created by human consiousness.

Everything is predetermined. Just as we can say we can move "over there’, and “over here” in space, we are just as inclined to say we can move from “now” to “then”. We cannot see Mars, but that doesn’t take away the fact that Mar exist. Mars is there, just not in front of us.

We can’t travel into the future, but that doesn’t mean that future events aren’t already in place, happeninng right now, we just hanv’t gotten there yet.

This theory however, contradicts with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is an escape for people who refuse to believe in determinism

(Einstein was a determinist, he refused to believe that the events in the universe happen by chance, he called quantum mechanics “spooky”, and famously stated that “God does not play dice”. He spent a good deal of his career trying to debunk the Principle of Uncertainty).
[/quote]

fyi the idea of determinism in physics is basically extinct ever since Hawking stepped onto the stage, and a lot of your assertions are pure speculation or are just incorrect. Determinism as viewed by physics, that would allow for prediction on the sub-atomic level with certainty, completely breaks down in singularities, so universal determinism is impossible.

So before just saying that “everything is predetermined” know that this is a religious type belief, and not supported by physics. Einstein’s early theories redefined much of physics but general relativity fails at the subatomic level due to the uncertainty principle, and a plethora of other concepts, while it can make predictions on a larger scale with complete accuracy- just as Quantum Mechanics, one of the fundamental principles of which is the Uncertainty Principle, has done for particle physics.

Trying to unite these theories into a grand unified theory that accurately describes matter on the macro and subatomic level is one of the main focuses in theoretical physics right now.

If anyone is interested in this stuff and wants some perspective and interesting theories and research, “The Universe in a Nutshell” and “The Elegant Universe” are very good and sold in most bookstores.

I’ve been deeply interested in theoretical physics since I was 12 or 13 and have read dozens of books and papers. The actual math is quite horrible, but the theories are very interesting and stimulate the imagination.

65

[quote]Gerg wrote:
Or does it exisit and they just can’t experience it. They are, after all, blind.
I cannot see air, but yet if I am without it, I perish.
[/quote]

“It” exists, if we are talking about “red,” but the way it is experienced (“redness”) exists in the subject only.

What red looks like to you… how you actually see red, is entirely subjective and cannot be communicated to anyone else. And that experience does not exist outside of the subject, and is quite apart from the physical nature of the object seen, or even the light itself.

66

[quote]digitalairair wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It seems counterintuitive that, as space and time really are spacetime, consciousness and physical reality are consciousnessreality. If that’s the case, is the universe the mind of God?

When you hear Einstein and Hawkins and many other scienctists talk about God, God doesn’t play dice, inside the mind of God ect, they are really talking about the universe, not the biblical God.

Spacetime is a fabric of reality. In general relativity, Einstein combined the 3 dimensional of space (up-down, left-right, front-back) with another dimension, the dimension of time, to make our physical world a 4 dimensional spacetime fabric.

All the physical objects: planets, stars, people, interact with this fabric which warps and curves to create what we all know as gravity. According to general relativity, every event that took place and will ever take place since the begginning of time is “included” in this fabric of spacetime, which means that present, past, and future aka “flow of time” is nothing but an illusion created by human consiousness.

Everything is predetermined. Just as we can say we can move "over there’, and “over here” in space, we are just as inclined to say we can move from “now” to “then”. We cannot see Mars, but that doesn’t take away the fact that Mar exist. Mars is there, just not in front of us.

We can’t travel into the future, but that doesn’t mean that future events aren’t already in place, happeninng right now, we just hanv’t gotten there yet.

This theory however, contradicts with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is an escape for people who refuse to believe in determinism (Einstein was a determinist, he refused to believe that the events in the universe happen by chance, he called quantum mechanics “spooky”, and famously stated that “God does not play dice”. He spent a good deal of his career trying to debunk the Principle of Uncertainty). [/quote]

I don’t believe everything is predetermined. Time is a coordinate, just as height, width, and length. In fact, time is dependent upon the three other coordinates. Therefore, time is relative upon the changes within a specific reference frame.
Take the universe, for example. There is no way the future of the universe can be predetermined because it changes at a certain rate and time is dependent upon that rate. Time can not be ahead of these changes.

At the quantum level, you would see that nothing is determined. Particles can literately teleport from one position to another. The position and speed of a particle is not absolute (uncertainty principle). However, the implications of quantum physics usually does not interfere with the laws of classical physics, so most events on a macroscopic level will occur in a determined way.

67

[quote]actionjeff wrote:

I’ve been deeply interested in theoretical physics since I was 12 or 13 and have read dozens of books and papers. The actual math is quite horrible, but the theories are very interesting and stimulate the imagination.
[/quote]

the math is the theory. probability and calculus aren’t that bad.

68

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Gerg wrote:
Or does it exisit and they just can’t experience it. They are, after all, blind.
I cannot see air, but yet if I am without it, I perish.

“It” exists, if we are talking about “red,” but the way it is experienced (“redness”) exists in the subject only.

What red looks like to you… how you actually see red, is entirely subjective and cannot be communicated to anyone else. And that experience does not exist outside of the subject, and is quite apart from the physical nature of the object seen, or even the light itself.[/quote]

I can’t remember. Plato or Spinoza?

69

[quote]actionjeff wrote:
digitalairair wrote:
Gerg wrote:
digitalairair wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It seems counterintuitive that, as space and time really are spacetime, consciousness and physical reality are consciousnessreality. If that’s the case, is the universe the mind of God?

When you hear Einstein and Hawkins and many other scienctists talk about God, God doesn’t play dice, inside the mind of God ect, they are really talking about the universe, not the biblical God.

Spacetime is a fabric of reality. In general relativity, Einstein combined the 3 dimensional of space (up-down, left-right, front-back) with another dimension, the dimension of time, to make our physical world a 4 dimensional spacetime fabric.

All the physical objects: planets, stars, people, interact with this fabric which warps and curves to create what we all know as gravity.

According to general relativity, every event that took place and will ever take place since the begginning of time is “included” in this fabric of spacetime, which means that present, past, and future aka “flow of time” is nothing but an illusion created by human consiousness.

Everything is predetermined. Just as we can say we can move "over there’, and “over here” in space, we are just as inclined to say we can move from “now” to “then”. We cannot see Mars, but that doesn’t take away the fact that Mar exist. Mars is there, just not in front of us.

We can’t travel into the future, but that doesn’t mean that future events aren’t already in place, happeninng right now, we just hanv’t gotten there yet.

This theory however, contradicts with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is an escape for people who refuse to believe in determinism

(Einstein was a determinist, he refused to believe that the events in the universe happen by chance, he called quantum mechanics “spooky”, and famously stated that “God does not play dice”. He spent a good deal of his career trying to debunk the Principle of Uncertainty).

fyi the idea of determinism in physics is basically extinct ever since Hawking stepped onto the stage, and a lot of your assertions are pure speculation or are just incorrect. Determinism as viewed by physics, that would allow for prediction on the sub-atomic level with certainty, completely breaks down in singularities, so universal determinism is impossible.

So before just saying that “everything is predetermined” know that this is a religious type belief, and not supported by physics. Einstein’s early theories redefined much of physics but general relativity fails at the subatomic level due to the uncertainty principle, and a plethora of other concepts, while it can make predictions on a larger scale with complete accuracy- just as Quantum Mechanics, one of the fundamental principles of which is the Uncertainty Principle, has done for particle physics.

Trying to unite these theories into a grand unified theory that accurately describes matter on the macro and subatomic level is one of the main focuses in theoretical physics right now.

If anyone is interested in this stuff and wants some perspective and interesting theories and research, “The Universe in a Nutshell” and “The Elegant Universe” are very good and sold in most bookstores.

I’ve been deeply interested in theoretical physics since I was 12 or 13 and have read dozens of books and papers. The actual math is quite horrible, but the theories are very interesting and stimulate the imagination.
[/quote]

What I said was that according to relativity time doesn’t flow and things are predetermined, but as you pointed out, relativity breaks down in the quantum level, so I’m not talking about the entire universe, I’m talking about the law of the universe according to relativity. If you read Einstein’s quotations he stated that he believes in determinism, and it is that belief that he refused to accept the law (or lack of law) of quantum mechanics.

We live in the middle world, between the very small (quantum world, where nothing is certain) and the very large (cosmic world, world of gravity and relativity, where things are predictable). Our reality is a mixture of the two worlds, where we would always have a certain restrain from certain physical laws which govern and direct our actions to a certain direction, but I also believe in free will. Nothing is completely random and nothing is completely determined.

70

[quote]pike wrote:
digitalairair wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It seems counterintuitive that, as space and time really are spacetime, consciousness and physical reality are consciousnessreality. If that’s the case, is the universe the mind of God?

When you hear Einstein and Hawkins and many other scienctists talk about God, God doesn’t play dice, inside the mind of God ect, they are really talking about the universe, not the biblical God.

Spacetime is a fabric of reality. In general relativity, Einstein combined the 3 dimensional of space (up-down, left-right, front-back) with another dimension, the dimension of time, to make our physical world a 4 dimensional spacetime fabric.

All the physical objects: planets, stars, people, interact with this fabric which warps and curves to create what we all know as gravity. According to general relativity, every event that took place and will ever take place since the begginning of time is “included” in this fabric of spacetime, which means that present, past, and future aka “flow of time” is nothing but an illusion created by human consiousness.

Everything is predetermined. Just as we can say we can move "over there’, and “over here” in space, we are just as inclined to say we can move from “now” to “then”. We cannot see Mars, but that doesn’t take away the fact that Mar exist. Mars is there, just not in front of us.

We can’t travel into the future, but that doesn’t mean that future events aren’t already in place, happeninng right now, we just hanv’t gotten there yet.

This theory however, contradicts with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is an escape for people who refuse to believe in determinism (Einstein was a determinist, he refused to believe that the events in the universe happen by chance, he called quantum mechanics “spooky”, and famously stated that “God does not play dice”. He spent a good deal of his career trying to debunk the Principle of Uncertainty).

I don’t believe everything is predetermined. Time is a coordinate, just as height, width, and length. In fact, time is dependent upon the three other coordinates. Therefore, time is relative upon the changes within a specific reference frame.
Take the universe, for example. There is no way the future of the universe can be predetermined because it changes at a certain rate and time is dependent upon that rate. Time can not be ahead of these changes.

At the quantum level, you would see that nothing is determined. Particles can literately teleport from one position to another. The position and speed of a particle is not absolute (uncertainty principle). However, the implications of quantum physics usually does not interfere with the laws of classical physics, so most events on a macroscopic level will occur in a determined way.

[/quote]

The changes that you are talking about is the changes that an OBSERVER experiences. An observer’s experience of time is relative upon your movement in space, that is correct. HOwever, what you seem to be saying here is that everything is relative, and that is a common misunderstanding of the theory of relativity.

Physicist Brian Greene asks us to imagine the spacetime in the universe as a huge loaf of bread, every “moment” of “now” for each observer in reality is a single slice of this loaf of bread. Everybody, depends on their frame of referenece “slices” the bread at slightly different angles, and the faster you move, the greater angle you slice your bread. But here’s the catch. There is still something that is absolute, something that ALL observers can agree upon, and that is the totality of the bread itself. So if everybody is asked to put back together their slices, everybody would put together the SAME loaf of bread. Space for each observer is relative. Time for each observer is relative. But spacetime is an absolute entity that has an independent existence. So in a nutshell, according to the theory of relativity, things in the universe are “determined”, but each of us experiences it slightly differently.

71

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Gerg wrote:
Or does it exisit and they just can’t experience it. They are, after all, blind.
I cannot see air, but yet if I am without it, I perish.

“It” exists, if we are talking about “red,” but the way it is experienced (“redness”) exists in the subject only.

What red looks like to you… how you actually see red, is entirely subjective and cannot be communicated to anyone else. And that experience does not exist outside of the subject, and is quite apart from the physical nature of the object seen, or even the light itself.[/quote]

Anyone here familiar with the “Mary’s room” thought experiment? I found the whole qualia issue to be pretty frustrating after encountering that thought experiment and it seemed convincing that there must be some non-physical subjective something to be labeled qualia but I still had my doubts. Then I came across:
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/quinqual.htm
In which Daniel Dennet argues there is no such thing as qualia at all, and is incredibly convincing and hard to argue.

72

[quote]digitalairair wrote:

The changes that you are talking about is the changes that an OBSERVER experiences. An observer’s experience of time is relative upon your movement in space, that is correct. HOwever, what you seem to be saying here is that everything is relative, and that is a common misunderstanding of the theory of relativity.

Physicist Brian Greene asks us to imagine the spacetime in the universe as a huge loaf of bread, every “moment” of “now” for each observer in reality is a single slice of this loaf of bread. Everybody, depends on their frame of referenece “slices” the bread at slightly different angles, and the faster you move, the greater angle you slice your bread. But here’s the catch. There is still something that is absolute, something that ALL observers can agree upon, and that is the totality of the bread itself. So if everybody is asked to put back together their slices, everybody would put together the SAME loaf of bread. Space for each observer is relative. Time for each observer is relative. But spacetime is an absolute entity that has an independent existence. So in a nutshell, according to the theory of relativity, things in the universe are “determined”, but each of us experiences it slightly differently. [/quote]

I’ll agree that how each observer experiences time is different. This can be proved through the problem of simultaneity, etc. But, since time is dependent upon space (since it is the derivitive of the x,y, and z values), I don’t see how events can be predetermined. Time can only progress as space progresses.

73

Again, time is dependent upon space only through the point of view of the particular observer, but the observer and the spacetime fabric are independent entities. There had been a lot of convincing evidence to suggest that the spacetime loaf is real, and that it is an absolute entity for which all accelerated motions can be measured against. Every part of the spacetime fabric exists on the same footing as each other, thus past, present, and future exist simutanously.

The human mind composes its own artificial experiences and quality of time, independent of the laws of physics. Time has always been one of the least understood, but most familiar concepts out there, so I’ll leave it as it is.

74

I can now relate to my students when they say that their brains hurt! This thread makes me regret not studying Physics.

75

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I can now relate to my students when they say that their brains hurt! This thread makes me regret not studying Physics.[/quote]

Only some of it is physics. The majority is metaphysics.

76

I love this thread;

Can someone here (knowledgeable) give a suggested reading list on the various topics, theories, etc. I find this very fascinating.

77

Steven Hawking is a pretty easy read for dumbasses like me.

78

[quote]digitalairair wrote:
Einstein was an atheist
[/quote]

Your avatar is disturbing.

79

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Steven Hawking is a pretty easy read for dumbasses like me.[/quote]

+1. Hawking gets shit from a lot of people making more serious contributions to the field without getting the notoriety he has earned, but the reason for that is Hawking knows how to break it into pieces that any fairly intelligent person without an extensive science background can understand.

80

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I love this thread;

Can someone here (knowledgeable) give a suggested reading list on the various topics, theories, etc. I find this very fascinating.[/quote]

The best physics lecturer and teacher there ever has been and ever will be is Richard P. Feynman; his wit and style are unparalleled in the realm of physics education. You should read his series of lectures that many PhDs still reference when teaching.

Some of his better more theoretical discussions include “Six Easy Pieces” and “Six Not So Easy Pieces”. These works will provide a good understanding of the theoretical foundations that are necessary to engage in discussions like the one this thread offers.

Stay away from pop-science writers like Brian Green and Gary Zukov; though they are well meaning they both skate on the edge of science.

Carl Sagan was the first science writer to peak my interest in the origin and nature of the universe – “Cosmos” will always remain a giant among philosophical works.