Uncertainty Principal and calculating the future :p (Question)

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Supaiku
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Future Uncertainty
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle on the possibility of predicting the future with a hypothetical super-computer. Participants explore the intersection of quantum mechanics and determinism, questioning whether the future can be known or predetermined.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that a super-computer capable of predicting the future would imply a deterministic universe, which contradicts the principles of quantum mechanics.
  • Another participant notes that quantum mechanics fundamentally challenges the notion of a deterministic universe, emphasizing the impossibility of knowing a system's exact state with arbitrary precision.
  • A later reply questions the assumption that lack of control over one's future is obvious, suggesting that determinism is a complex and philosophical topic.
  • Some participants argue that the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics means there is no way to circumvent the uncertainty inherent in predicting future states.
  • There is a humorous remark about the unpredictability of elections, linking it to the principles of quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on determinism and the implications of quantum mechanics. While some assert that the uncertainty principle prevents precise predictions, others question the philosophical implications of determinism and the nature of control over one's future. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of time and its relationship to determinism, indicating that further understanding is needed. There are also references to philosophical implications that are not fully explored within the scientific context.

Supaiku
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Wouldn't it be neat if you could build a computer good enough (ignore this current day impossiblity) to hold and calculate everything you need to be able to tell the future? Obviously (um... right?), there's also more physics we need to figure out before we could actually be able to do somthing like that (again, ignoring that the computer couldn't be made).

Well, I think that ideas pretty neato. But the other day a friend of mine mentioned something called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal. Somthing about not being able to tell the exact location and momentum of an election at any given moment or somthing like that. And I guess that pretty much screws that theory up if you wanted to be really uber-precise with it.

Anyways, I was wondering about that and If it does in fact screw somthing like that up and if there are any theories on how to um... get around it or somthing?

I'm just a senior in hichschool (AP Physics... ) so I'm sort of hoping for general concepts sort of explanation.

Can anyone do that? Or maybe just point me in the direction of an 'advanced physics for dummies' website/book or somthing? Or just a good place to start? :-p
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, you are right. Quantum mechanics prevents you to built such a computer. Imagine every thing you can principally create a super-computer like that. That implies your future is determined. Not only your future, your mind and your thought also determined. That means you have no control of yourself, which obviously not true.
 
You have very accurately hit the nail on the head with QM.

Classical scientists - Einstein being the most notable and most vocal - believed fundamentally in a deterministic universe. A universe where, in theory at least, if you knew exactly where every molecule in a system was and where it was going, you could, again, in theory, predict both the past and the future states of the system.

The revelation that QM brought to the universe - that it is impossible in principle (let alone in practice) to determine the exact state of a system to an arbitrary level of precision - was one that shook Einstein's world, troubling him deeply til his dying day.
 
"That means you have no control of yourself, which obviously not true."

Alas, this is not obvious at all, though it's certainly an undesirable concept to accept.

Just because you think you are reading this of your own free will doesn't mean it hasn't been the culmination of a set of deterministic chemical/atomic events.
 
vincentchan said:
Yes, you are right. Quantum mechanics prevents you to built such a computer. Imagine every thing you can principally create a super-computer like that. That implies your future is determined. Not only your future, your mind and your thought also determined. That means you have no control of yourself, which obviously not true.


I deffinatly appears that way. But then again we don't completely understand time, which I think is key to being able to say that for sure (there could be more).
I don't think it's clear that things arn't pre-determined. If it were that wouldn't be such a philosophical topic with so many theories.

So part of the question is answered, how about the other part? Any theories - accepted or not about how to get around this or why it might not be true?
And it seems like it's just a problem as far as DETERMINING the state of things, so it seems like it doesn't actually discount the possiblity of a certain future... This isn't exactly a philosophy forum so maybe we should skip the second part of what I just said.
 
Last edited:
No, there's no way of "getting around this". This is how the universe is. It is probabilistic and non-deterministic. In short, there is no way to pre-determine stuff to an arbitrary level of accuracy, and this is not because of some technical inability.
 
Supaiku said:
Somthing about not being able to tell the exact location and momentum of an election at any given moment or somthing like that.

Yes of course, QM is the nemesis of every political scientist.

Whoever said elections were predictable?
 
and QM is the love of all open minded scientists
 
FUNKER said:
and QM is the love of all open minded scientists

Huh?
Darned word limits[/color]
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Question about Commutators and Uncertainty
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Undergrad What empirical observation supports the axiom of continuous spacetime?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
Undergrad Photons and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Graduate A concept of time with the future as an emergent property
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad Heisenberg Uncertainty vs Measurement Error
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
Undergrad What is the connection between classical uncertainty and quantum mechanics?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate A very basic question about Heisenberg Uncertainty
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
6K
Undergrad Monte Carlo for uncertainty estimation
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Quantum Mechanics as a Probabilistic forecast of reality
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
Undergrad Heisenberg on ''uncertainty relation does not apply to the past''
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K