DETERMINISM OR RANDOM? Pick a side

[jfarhat747]

Einstein strongly believed in determinism. Some physicists today like Michio Kaku are leaning toward indeterminism.

I have many of my own reasons but I'm on Einstein's side.

I want to discuss, not fight. Listen to what other posters have to say before refuting it.

 

[jfarhat747]

The uncertainty principle only shows that we cannot know the position and momentum of a particle at any time for certain, it does not mean its position and momentum are not certain.

Meaning the domino effect of action/reaction holds true on all scales, just because we don't understand them fully does not mean we should call them random.

 

[Ken G]

In my view, it's not an either/or issue. Both determinism and randomness are just models, ways we use to think about what is happening. What is actually happening does not need to be either one, and unlikely is. The scientist only has access to these two types of models so far, yet in my opinion, the only thing more absurd than imagining that what happens is truly random is imagning that it is truly determined by what has already happened.

 

[jfarhat747]

I hear what you're saying, but it is most obviously one or the other. Things either happen for a reason or they don't. They are either random, or not to some degree. So really you have to pick a side in terms of physical interactions.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Einstein strongly believed in determinism. Some physicists today like Michio Kaku are leaning toward indeterminism.

I have many of my own reasons but I'm on Einstein's side.

I want to discuss, not fight. Listen to what other posters have to say before refuting it.

Um... I'm afraid PBS Nova or BBC (or Brian Greene/Lisa Randall) or what have you have given a completely incorrect impression. Indeterminism in quantum mechanics is certainly *not* some new fangled idea that people are toying with at the frontier of physics. It is a central aspect, as far as we understand it, of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics was developed in the 1920's, more or less finished by the 1950's, that's 60-90 years ago. Einstein never liked quantum mechanics and wrote a list of, what he felt, were absurd results that quantum mechanics predicted that he thought were proof that quantum mechanics was not complete. What Einstein thought were "contradictions" are now called Einstein's (and Podolsky and Rosen) PARADOXES. Why? Well because he was wrong on every point, all these things he couldn't believe were possible ARE possible and have been verified many times. Einstein was simply wrong about quantum mechanics but this is not NEW.

The problem (well one of many) with these pop science accounts (Brian Greene, PBS Nova, etc.) is that they conflate frontier/speculative physics like string theory, with extremely old and established physics like relativity and quantum mechanics. The whole Einstein vs. QM debate was resolved before even my FATHER was born and is a dead horse that has been dealt additional blows throughout the decades (the most significant recent blow I believe being by Alain Aspect and his Bell's inequalities experiments).

This is not to say that there aren't still open interpretational issues in quantum mechanics but any framing of it as Einstein vs. String theory is COMPLETELY incorrect, Einstein WAS wrong about QM and the interpretational issues of quantum mechanics have NOTHING to do with string theory (and are very old). If anything you could say it was Einstein vs. Bohr way back in the 1930's and Bohr was right.

However, determinism vs. randomness as a general debate is one that continues on but the forms and considerations have grown far beyond those founding fathers of quantum mechanics. The central issue now is that we have essentially reduced the issue to the following: There CANNOT be a hidden determinism in quantum mechanics without breaking causality and special relativity, we have literally tested quantum mechanics billions of times (you do it every time you use a digital device), we have never observed a violation of causality or special relativity (ulta-new neutrino data not withstanding). So the only way to reconcile determinism with quantum mechanics is to break some other physics that we have absolutely no reason to suspect is incorrect. Regardless, this has nothing to do with Michio Kaku (see P.S.) or string theory and is certainly not a new frontierP.S. Also, an FYI, in general people who present popular science AREN'T actually particularly noteworthy physicist, the theories that Michio Kaku describes to you aren't HIS theories and he's not like the leader of the people who push these frontiers, rather the people who push these frontiers think very little of such a person since the public ends up perceiving them as *great* physicists because they spend LESS time actually doing physics and MORE time doing things like TV spots and radio interviews

 

[bohm2]

I hear what you're saying, but it is most obviously one or the other. Things either happen for a reason or they don't. They are either random, or not to some degree.

What about the "birth" of the universe or even conscious intent, choice, or decision (assuming one believes in free will)? I mean, are these random/indeterministic or causally deterministic? I'm not sure either one applies?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I hear what you're saying, but it is most obviously one or the other. Things either happen for a reason or they don't. They are either random, or not to some degree. So really you have to pick a side in terms of physical interactions.

You don't *pick* sides. This is science, specifically physics. As a layman you see things as "well apparently Einstein said this and he's supposed to be really smart but some other guys says this, who do I trust?" However, physics is both a collaborative effort and a quantitative one. There's not proof by authority, the only proofs are by math and experiment. The current state of math and experiment is firmly on the side of non-determinism and to salvage determinism the amount of physics that would have to be wrong and rewritten would be quite staggering.

However, if you really want to reduce things to who said what, as I said in my previous post, IF quantum mechanics were deterministic "Einstein's" (sorry Lorentz, Poincare, Minkowski, etc.) special relativity would have to be wrong. So for "Einstein to be right" about quantum, as you say, he'd have to be wrong about "his" special relativity.

 

[jfarhat747]

Einstein may have been wrong about aspects, but the fact that we know SO little about many of the phenomenon observed at the quantum level means that we CANNOT, and COULD NOT, rule out either determinism or indeterminism based on our current understanding of quantum mechanics. In fact truly it means that our understanding can provide VERY little insight on the subject, atleast until we actually know what half the things we observe are.

I also NEVER implied that it was EINSTEIN VS STRING THEORY, when i mentioned Einstein and Michio Kaku, all i was doing was showing that the topic is one continuously debated by physicists.

I also NEVER implied that quantum indeterminacy was a new concept.

The facts are that the things we do observe only appear to grow in complexity the more we observe them. So I ask, do you believe the complexity within interactions is random or deterministic?

( and on a side note, don't worry i know michio kaku is obviously just trying to gain fame)

 

[Halcyon-on]

For a possible deterministic description of QM see:

arXiv:1111.3319 [pdf, ps, other]
de Broglie Deterministic Dice and emerging Relativistic Quantum Mechanics
Donatello Dolce
Comments: 10 pages, 7 figures, talk given at DICE2011 (Space-Time-Matter), minor corrections
Journal-ref: J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 306 012049 (2011)

"Similarly to a particle in a box or to a vibrating string, relativistic fields can be quantized
by imposing their characteristic de Broglie periodicities as constraints [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. In
this way elementary systems can be thought of as ”de Broglie internal clocks”, that is, as
relativistic fields with intrinsic dynamical de Broglie time periodicities Tt . Even for a light
particle such as the electron, this intrinsic time periodicity (also know as zitterbewegung) is
extremely fast (T_t \sim 10^{−20} s), many orders of magnitude away from the present experimental
resolution in time. As in a dice rolling too fast with respect to a given resolution in time, these
de Broglie internal clocks can only be described statistically. It can be shown that the effective
statistical description emerging from such periodic dynamics matches (without fine tunings)
ordinary relativistic Quantum Mechanics (QM) [1].The idea is similar to the ”stroboscopic
quantization” [8] or to the ’t Hooft determinism [9]. At the same time the underling classical-
relativistic physics seems to solve many conceptual difficulties of the canonical quantum theory.
In particular they do not involve any local-hidden-variable so that we can actually speak about
deterministic quantization..."

 

[jfarhat747]

Also when you view all of these topics from a more outside perspective, rather than trying to find answers within current understandings, it is obvious that there is order in the universe, such as self-similarity in nature. For one to say indeterminacy is the answer, you would HAVE to say that randomness produces laws, imitations, and even conscious thought.

I think this way of thinking is what spurred Einstein into being "convinced" that he does not play dice. ( And by "he" I do not mean the common religious understanding of god)

 

[jfarhat747]

Listen, a lot of people on here know more about physics than me guaranteed, but it is obvious that detailed knowledge is not required to understand or even produce intelligent theories. ( Newton, Einstein,). Even M-theory requires a largely different perspective of things than most would consider the norm. These things are derived from logic, and logic is the only thing which allows us to support them. Hence a logical argument is without a doubt a justified one.

I believe Einstein inspired many in this way by thinking simply, to derive a theory which most would not deem simple.

So when i talk of indeterminacy as being something i disagree with, it is not because i am unaware that there is mathematical and logical evidence supporting it. Just that if determinacy were true, it would UNDOUBTEDLY, require a much higher level of detail and understanding than humans are currently capable of to prove or even evidence it mathematically.

Which leaves logic as its last defense. Dismissing it based on our current mathematical understanding would be like a 3 yr old telling max Planck he was wrong based on his findings. In our case the 3 yr old being humans, and max Planck being "the reason that manifests itself in nature", as Einstein put it.

 

[Halcyon-on]

Also, YES YOU DO PICK SIDES, BECAUSE THERE ARE ONLY TWO. Try and give me a situation that is random, but pre-determined. Until you can, shh.

In a dice the outcomes are random but, if observed in slow-motion, also pre-determined by classical mechanics and initial conditions. Mathematics show that in QM something similar happens. The indeterminacy could be a problem of resolution in time.

 

[jfarhat747]

The outcomes of a dice aren't random at all? The variables are just very minute and too complex for us to predict. So the fact that a random dice throw isn't random. In itself should show that its smaller constituents that decide its outcome are not random.

Logic itself denies indeterminacy, while indeterminacy denies logic.

 

[jfarhat747]

and halycon-on, what do you think about it?

 

[jfarhat747]

Sorry just re-read ur message. You are a determinist. And what you said is OBVIOUSLY true hahah

 

[jfarhat747]

Think about the first time the word random was ever used. Let's say a version of it was used by a cave man 14,000 years ago, he would have said the full moon was random.

Little more info, it aint random.

He would have said getting sick was random.

Little more info, it aint random.THE WORD RANDOM WAS ONLY EVER CREATED DUE TO A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING.

Random is only what we call things when we do not fully understand them. Tell me a situation in which you fully understood how a system worked, but then did not go on track.

If you can, i will again guarantee you, that whatever made it not go on track, was just something you missed.

 

[Ken G]

THE WORD RANDOM WAS ONLY EVER CREATED DUE TO A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING..

All of physics was only ever created due to a "lack of understanding," that's the whole point of physics, and why we call them "models" and "theories." The same is true of determinism-- just another type of physics model, and the word was only ever created due to a lack of understanding (consider Newtonian physics re quantum physics). Also, you are wrong that the reality must be one or the other-- we have heard examples above that were neither, and one that was both. Indeed, it's not even clear that scientific theories have to be one or the other-- the debate rages as to which one quantum theory is, and even that is just a model of reality! Personally, I find it vastly unlikely that reality is either of the templates that we fit it into for our various purposes, it certainly doesn't need to be for physics to work on what it works on.

To make this point more concrete, I'll choose one of the myriad of examples I could choose: chaotic phenomena. Now, I realize that someone who doesn't understand what I'm saying will jump up and say that chaotic dynamics are "actually deterministic", we just can't predict them because we don't have the precise knowledge of the initial conditions. But this is incorrect, it is the common mistake of confusing a particular model of chaotic phenomena (which is deterministic, say classical chaos theory) with actual chaotic phenomena (which we have no idea is deterministic, or "truly random", or neither one). Indeed, as soon as we bring in quantum mechanics, we get right back to the debate that rages in quantum mechanics itself, but even that misses the point-- for that's just a model too, as I said. Actual chaotic phenomena do not need to be either random or deterministic, but we can try to model them either way, and do in various contexts-- and to varying levels of success or failure.

 

[jfarhat747]

Ken g, physics is based on logic. The word random is based on " we don't understand the logic". or more like, "we think there is no logic in the way things work"

So if physics is based on logic. But according to indeterminists there is no actual logic because everything we think is all derived from random particle interactions within our brain.

We already know free will is an illusion. You just have to ask if this illusion is random or not.

 

[jfarhat747]

"we have heard examples above that were neither, and one that was both."

I disagree with this entirely. I have heard no such thing. Point out your examples and i will tell you why they are one or the other.

 

[jfarhat747]

Give me an example of truly chatoic phenomena? One that couldn't easily be accounted for due to a lack of understanding of how the phenomena occurs

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Einstein may have been wrong about aspects, but the fact that we know SO little about many of the phenomenon observed at the quantum level means that we CANNOT, and COULD NOT, rule out either determinism or indeterminism based on our current understanding of quantum mechanics. In fact truly it means that our understanding can provide VERY little insight on the subject, atleast until we actually know what half the things we observe are.

I also NEVER implied that it was EINSTEIN VS STRING THEORY, when i mentioned Einstein and Michio Kaku, all i was doing was showing that the topic is one continuously debated by physicists.

I also NEVER implied that quantum indeterminacy was a new concept.

The facts are that the things we do observe only appear to grow in complexity the more we observe them. So I ask, do you believe the complexity within interactions is random or deterministic?

( and on a side note, don't worry i know michio kaku is obviously just trying to gain fame)

As for us not knowing about quantum I think you're drastically misinformed about the state of quantum mechanics. As has been said quantum mechanics is quite old and extremely well understood on a practical level. There exist no mysteries in terms of its ability to predict reality, it is neither a new nor a "shaky" field, it is in fact the opposite, it is the most quantitatively successful theory in the history of mankind. It's simply metaphysical weird. It correctly predicts experiments, it tells us that our everyday classical world should obey the laws it does (i.e. the equations of quantum mechanics become those of classical mechanics when energies and systems are large). It's done, it's old, it's accurate as can be and it says the world is non-deterministic. It is by no means a work in progress. Plus, the theorems that forbid a (local) hidden variable theory (i.e. a deterministic theory that doesn't break special relativity) are extremely general, more general than quantum mechanics, they essentially put a constraint on what is called "local realism".And as to the ability of a layman to interpret the situation I would strongly disagree with your assertion that you can come to understand it (and I'm not quite sure why you list people like Newton and Einstein as 'everyman's" Newton held the most esteemed professorship of mathematics at Cambridge university and was the head of the royal academy of science, Einstein has a PhD in physics and was looking for a faculty job before taking a job as a patent clerk (which is a high paying job that requires an advanced degree in physics or engineering) because his first kid was born, his plan was to get a few papers out and try again for a faculty job, a strategy that worked out VERY well). If you don't understand the math, you simply can't understand what the issues are. The math doesn't hide the real concepts it IS the concepts.

P.S. You REALLY shouldn't post so many messages in a rant like fashion, you're clearly very curious about physics which is good but that's the kind of thing that gets you banned.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Give me an example of truly chatoic phenomena? One that couldn't easily be accounted for due to a lack of understanding of how the phenomena occurs

Um... any quantum mechanical system... That's the WHOLE POINT. Quantum mechanics is NOT a theory about US not knowing the position and momentum of an electron, it's a story about the UNIVERSE not knowing the position and momentum. Quantum mechanics IS NOT secretly governed by classical mechanics, that's simply not what is at all and that's truly fundamental.

If you would like specific examples, taking only a minute to think about them:

-Stimulated Emission
-Spontaneous Emission
-The Results of a Stern-Gerlach experiment
-Any of the Bell's inequalities experiments
-Alpha decay
-Beta decay
-Gamma decay
-Any decay
-Single particle slit experiments on light
-Single particle slit experiments on electrons
-Single particle slit experiments on buckyballs (C-60)
-Positional measurement of a particle in a box
-Momentum measurement of a particle in a box
-Transition amplitudes for any tunneling event
, etc.

 

[jfarhat747]

I didnt know you weren't allowed to post heaps of messages, it will be one at a time then :p Thanks

Also, there is something fundamental you are forgetting when you speak of quantum mechanics as being so sound that the maths behind it excludes the idea of determinism.

Here is the fundamental thing you missed:

"If you think you understand quantum physics, then you don't understand quantum physics"- Richard Feynman

Also when you say the maths is the concept so to understand the thing you must understand the maths. This must be true on many levels. But also leaves out the fact that the concepts AND the maths are only based on what's right infront of us, and are only created by US.

And what's right infront of us, is a world in which we KNOW, the interactions on our larger scale are a direct result of the interactions that occur on the subatomic scale.

We also know that when you divide a number in half over and over it will never reach zero.

We have also NEVER been presented with evidence that suggests that the smaller scales ever stop. Every time we've looked closer in history we have found that the material is made of the chain made of the molecule made of the atom made of the subatomic particles. This could continue forever, and is just as likely, and makes more sense then if it were ever to stop.

So now you tell me, when facing INFINITY, does one brush the infinite explanations for the things they are seeing away, and stick to one narrow minded way of thinking regarding them??

Also answer this, if indeterminacy is real, then why do we participate in physics? Are we trying to understand something with no meaning? Trying to figure out how the things work, even tho we already figured out that they work sometimes, and act differently others? just work and do **** because they just do and there is no reason behind it

 

[jfarhat747]

How can you say any kind of decay is truly chaotic, when half lives are fairly predictable? How can you say anything is truly chaotic, when others are not?

For something to be truly chaotic, everything would need to be truly chaotic. Everything would need to be indeterminacy. Every physical law, every interaction. All of it would be utterrly useless. It would have either popped up randomly or would have always been there, always acting randomly.

Like you say maths is the concept. Yet if the concept can be viewed without maths, by people. And maths is nothing more than a logical arrangement of peoples thoughts. Then maths is as much evidence as logic. Its when you have the two unified that something becomes believable.

And i can assure you, quantum mechanics has not unified maths and logic

 

[Ken G]

Here is the fundamental thing you missed:

"If you think you understand quantum physics, then you don't understand quantum physics"- Richard Feynman

It appears that your fundamental thesis here is that if we cannot positively rule out that something might be deterministic, then we should regard it as deterministic, and say we just don't understand it. What kind of logic is that? That's not an argument, it's a philosophical commitment, to a degree that is not at all unlike a religious faith. But science is not really all that interested in trying to shake your philosophical commitments, or your religious faiths. If you want to maintain that the universe is truly deterministic, you can always do that-- you could have done it in Aristotle's day, in Newton's, in Einstein's, and in the year 2450, had you been alive then. But what we are really talking about here is physics, and in physics, we don't ask if we can positively rule out determinism, we ask, what has determinism done for us lately? That's a scientific kind of question-- what does the model accomplish? Certainly determinism had its day, and continues to be a widely successful concept. But it has also exposed some limitations, in terms of our modern physics. That's the point, not that we now know determinism can't be right (we could never know that, how do you think we ever could?), but that we have stopped finding value in clinging to the concept.

Randomness is similar-- many physical theories used randomness as part of the theory (statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, chaotic dynamics, etc.), and have done so for centuries. These are aspects of a theory, not aspects of reality. We don't get the latter, that's not what physics does. Yes, sometimes a statistical theory that invoked randomness turned out to be underpinned by a more fundamental theory that invoked determinism, and sometimes a deterministic theory turned out to be underpinned by a more fundamental theory that invoked randomness. And so on-- why should we ever expect that state of affairs to end? Are you one of the people who believes there is an "ultimate theory" that explains everything, and that this ultimate theory will have to be deterministic? On what basis do you hold this religious faith of yours? (Oh yeah, you base it on the fact that people said Newton couldn't do what he did, etc.-- but as I said, that's quite a flimsy basis for your logic.) The actual truth is, we have no diea, and I doubt we ever will, but that's fine because that's never what physics was about knowing. Physics was, is, and will be, about making models, and we will invoke whatever concepts we need at the time, be they deterministic, random, or who knows what else.

Also answer this, if indeterminacy is real, then why do we participate in physics? Are we trying to understand something with no meaning?

Here we have your other main thesis: determinism is the only thing that can grant meaning to physics. That is really pretty way off target. You might not realize this, but when Newton first came out with his deterministic laws, many physicists were very disappointed in it-- they actually said it wasn't physics at all! That's because all it did was connect the final state to the initial state-- there wasn't anything that the dynamical equations could add, if all the information was already there in the initial condition! So they said the dynamical equations weren't actually telling us anything, they were just pushing back the "meaning" (as you put it) to the initial state, which was still unexplained! So much for the "meaning" in determinism. Of course, nowadays we don't fret that the information is in the initial conditions, and the dynamical equations only propagate this information forward in time, because we have discovered the power in being able to do that. So we changed our concept of what physics was supposed to able to do, and ran with that ball.

Then the same thing happened again in quantum mechanics, except this time the "ball" we had to run with was indeterminism, and so again we changed our concept of what physics was supposed to do. And so on. This is all perfectly natural, it's just how physics works. We have no idea where the next turn will be, but we find "meaning" all along the path-- and we have no reason whatsoever to equate meaning with determinism, that's actually a rather limited and possibly even uneducated view (I don't mean to be harsh, I think your view is rather common) of what physics has done and can do.

 

[jfarhat747]

Also you didnt understand what i meant when i spoke of Newton and Einstein as layman.

Newton came up with gravity based on simple logic.

Einstein came up with special relativity based on simple logic that can easily be explained.

The fact that you can come up with a theory without maths, and then it be proven by maths. PROVES that logic is as valuable as maths. So why are you telling me i can't understand the concepts without the maths?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I didnt know you weren't allowed to post heaps of messages, it will be one at a time then :p Thanks

Also, there is something fundamental you are forgetting when you speak of quantum mechanics as being so sound that the maths behind it excludes the idea of determinism.

Here is the fundamental thing you missed:

"If you think you understand quantum physics, then you don't understand quantum physics"- Richard Feynman

Also when you say the maths is the concept so to understand the thing you must understand the maths. This must be true on many levels. But also leaves out the fact that the concepts AND the maths are only based on what's right infront of us, and are only created by US.

And what's right infront of us, is a world in which we KNOW, the interactions on our larger scale are a direct result of the interactions that occur on the subatomic scale.

We also know that when you divide a number in half over and over it will never reach zero.

We have also NEVER been presented with evidence that suggests that the smaller scales ever stop. Every time we've looked closer in history we have found that the material is made of the chain made of the molecule made of the atom made of the subatomic particles. This could continue forever, and is just as likely, and makes more sense then if it were ever to stop.

So now you tell me, when facing INFINITY, does one brush the infinite explanations for the things they are seeing away, and stick to one narrow minded way of thinking regarding them??

Also answer this, if indeterminacy is real, then why do we participate in physics? Are we trying to understand something with no meaning? Trying to figure out how the things work, even tho we already figured out that they work sometimes, and act differently others? just work and do **** because they just do and there is no reason behind it

Ok first of all, you have to stop with this "proof by authority" thing, especially since you really don't know anything about these people or the theories they're talking about. The slew of quotes along the line of "No one understands quantum mechanics" (by the way there were many who said this before Feynman, likely Bohr was the first) are not referring to the MECHANICS of quantum mechanics but the METAPHYSICS of it. The extremely, mind-boggling implications of what it is saying and how different it is to everyday experience. Also you have a number of fundamental misunderstands about what quantum mechanics is and what is says that you're parroting over and over again. There is an important difference between how you're using the word random and what we mean in quantum. Perhaps you would prefer the term probabilistic. Then quantum mechanics is probabilistic and is fundamentally incompatible with local determinism and they issue is WELL trodden, it's not like physics is being narrow minded; people have been trying to find a hidden determinism in quantum for almost a century and again and again and again and again and again they find themselves incorrect and now with the REPEATED performance of the various Bell's inequalities experiments in a MULTITUDE of forms and systems that coffin has a staggering number of nails. Quantum mechanics CANNOT be reconciled with a locally deterministic universe, you can prove that, and local determinism loses to quantum mechanics a billion times a day.

If quantum mechanics and special relativity are true then determinism is wrong, it's as simple as that.

Just quickly coming back to the point of random vs. probabilistic, quantum mechanics is probabilistic. If you perform an exactly identical experiment multiple times you will get different results, however, you will not get RANDOM results. Quantum mechanics will tell you the exact DISTRIBUTION of results, i.e. you will get this results 73.3415% of the time, this result 12.1412532%, etc. And the equations of motion in quantum mechanics are DETERMINISTIC, the conceptual difficulty is that the THING that is moving (motioning) is a PROBABILITY wave (amplitude actually), and not a particle. And there is extremely strong indication that the wavefunction is not a mathematical abstraction, it is REAL. Regardless, the very structure of quantum is NOT one where the wavefunction is a way of hiding our lack of knowledge of the system, that math is called CLASSICAL statistical mechanics, and it makes some very different (incorrect) predictions. Quantum is not a smoke screen hiding experimental error/lack of information, this issue is so well understood and explored, it is something fundamentally different.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Also you didnt understand what i meant when i spoke of Newton and Einstein as layman.

Newton came up with gravity based on simple logic.

Einstein came up with special relativity based on simple logic that can easily be explained.

The fact that you can come up with a theory without maths, and then it be proven by maths. PROVES that logic is as valuable as maths. So why are you telling me i can't understand the concepts without the maths?

Wrong on both accounts, Newton's law of gravity IS a math equation, it looks like this

F_g = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}

I'm not quite sure what you think he discovered but that's what he discovered and he came to it through a geometric/calculus (i.e. math) PROOF. (the apple story is bull fyi, he himself started telling it in his old age, decades after he developed his theory of gravitation).

Einstein's theory of special relativity comes from the MATHEMATICAL insight by Lorentz, that Maxwell's EQUATIONS governing electromagnetism and light have a special mathematical symmetry different form Newton's Laws. Einstein basically whipped classical mechanics into a form that obeyed this mathematical symmetry (what is called Lorentz Invariance), the result looks like this

E=\sqrt{m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2} = \gamma m c^2, \gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}

THAT is what Einstein discovered, not some vague notion of "if I'm riding on a light beam and I emit light to a mirror in front of me what happens".

You really must realize that when you watch some PBS Nova show or what have you and they tell some story about Einstein sitting on a rock and thinking about light bouncing of a mirror or what have you that these things are MADE-UP for pop science viewers/readers to hide the actual math and concepts. You really think that's what physics is? That that's how it comes to be? You simple CAN'T come to understand the vast majority of physics (arguably any of physics) without the math.

 

[Ken G]

Newton came up with gravity based on simple logic.

Einstein came up with special relativity based on simple logic that can easily be explained.

And this exposes a logical inconsistency in your position. Are you aware that in addition to using "logic" to get SR, Einstein also used it to get GR, and that GR makes predictions about gravity that contradict Newton's "logic" about gravity? So much for pure logic! Here's the thing about logic in physics-- the results you get out are only as good as the physical postulates you put in. The physical postulates are something outside of logic-- they are the math. I sympathize with your desire to want to understand as much of the physics as possible without the math, and I think some kernel of the ideas can be appreciated that way, but there is a danger of not basically understanding what physics is. The commitment to determinism is one example, in my view, of the failure to understand what physics is (this was Bohr's main point about the lessons of quantum mechanics). I think many people take your position, that physics really needs to describe complete determinism or it has failed in some way, but I think that viewpoint is mistaken, and not at all consistent with the storied history of this science, neither ancient nor modern.

Note for example that there are (at least) two very different versions of determinism itself. There is the determinism of motion under gravity, which is all about the initial state leading to the final state, and there is the determinism of motion under friction, which is all about the final state (lack of motion) being controlled by friction and not caring about how fast the object was originally moving. Motion under friction is the kind of motion the Greeks could handle, and they tended to create teleological theories (objects found their "proper place" and so forth). Motion under gravity, without friction, was where we really needed Newton's laws, because objects didn't have any proper places any more, they just went wherever they were destined to go by their initial states. Of course, as I said, there was no accounting for the initial states, so in that sense this latter type of determinism was not really determined at all-- it was conditional motion, conditioned on whatever determined the initial state, which was left undetermined by the theory. Of course today we could trace that situation all the way back to the Big Bang, not there there would be any reason to trust classical models to succeed in doing that.

 

[Drakkith]

Also, there is something fundamental you are forgetting when you speak of quantum mechanics as being so sound that the maths behind it excludes the idea of determinism.

Here is the fundamental thing you missed:

"If you think you understand quantum physics, then you don't understand quantum physics"- Richard Feynman

That is not what Richard Feynman is talking about with that quote. He is talking about our normal everyday understanding of how the universe works not matching up with the results of Quantum Physics. This has absolutely nothing to do with the math. The math works perfectly well. It is a consequence of the unique properties at the quantum scale, such as uncertainty, quantum tunneling, and etc not manifesting themselves at larger scales in a way that we can see them every day.

Also when you say the maths is the concept so to understand the thing you must understand the maths. This must be true on many levels. But also leaves out the fact that the concepts AND the maths are only based on what's right infront of us, and are only created by US.

And what's right infront of us, is a world in which we KNOW, the interactions on our larger scale are a direct result of the interactions that occur on the subatomic scale.

Yes, created by us to understand the way the universe works. The key is that it works, and it works exceedingly well. Your argument is like saying a wheel rolls across the ground because that is how we have made our language. Well yes, but our language is describing something that is happening. The wheel actually is rolling across the ground, no matter what language you say it in. Math is the same way.

We also know that when you divide a number in half over and over it will never reach zero.

And your point?

We have also NEVER been presented with evidence that suggests that the smaller scales ever stop. Every time we've looked closer in history we have found that the material is made of the chain made of the molecule made of the atom made of the subatomic particles. This could continue forever, and is just as likely, and makes more sense then if it were ever to stop.

I'm pretty sure we have run into a wall that says that the electron, quark, and other fundamental particles are exactly that, fundamental. It is possible that there is an underlying smaller level, but there is definitely not any evidence that it keeps going like there was for the various scattering experiments in the 20th century that kept telling us to keep digging.

So now you tell me, when facing INFINITY, does one brush the infinite explanations for the things they are seeing away, and stick to one narrow minded way of thinking regarding them??

Please, stop calling everyone "narrow minded" that disagrees with you. If you can't have a civilized conversation, then stop posting.

Also answer this, if indeterminacy is real, then why do we participate in physics? Are we trying to understand something with no meaning? Trying to figure out how the things work, even tho we already figured out that they work sometimes, and act differently others? just work and do **** because they just do and there is no reason behind it

Nothing anywhere says that the universe has any underlying meaning to begin with, so yes, we are attempting to understand something that has no meaning. Perhaps you are looking at it the wrong way. Who are you to say that at the smallest level, the universe isn't intrinsically random? There is no reason for it to be one way or the other, but unfortunately we have observed that it appears to be random.

How can you say any kind of decay is truly chaotic, when half lives are fairly predictable? How can you say anything is truly chaotic, when others are not?

For something to be truly chaotic, everything would need to be truly chaotic. Everything would need to be indeterminacy. Every physical law, every interaction. All of it would be utterrly useless. It would have either popped up randomly or would have always been there, always acting randomly.

Who says that order can't come out of chaos? Obviously the probability of particle decay is very very reliable, we have been observing it for over a century now. There is no reason that randomness must be useless.

Like you say maths is the concept. Yet if the concept can be viewed without maths, by people. And maths is nothing more than a logical arrangement of peoples thoughts. Then maths is as much evidence as logic. Its when you have the two unified that something becomes believable.

You can view QM without using math just like you can use an interpreter to speak in another language to someone. Either way you can get your point across, but you won't really understand.

 

[jfarhat747]

Ken g You act as if there is no logical evidence toward determinism? that it is simply a belief in the only other thing that's left when you disregard indeterminacy.

Think simply. Think like anyone with logic can do. When much smaller constituents create a much larger thing, and this much larger thing contains hundreds of imitations, patterns, laws and even beings that can think themselves. The only conclusion is that the constituents were arranged.

For indeterminacy to be correct, it would mean that if we were to go back to whenever. and replicate what was there EXACTLY, in every minute detail, that it would turn out DIFFERENTLY then it is now. That makes as little sense as 1+1=3. So don't say maths told you its indeterminacy, you are the ones that did the maths and got confused SOMEWHERE.

I mean right now they need a quantum gravity theory or the things they know don't even make sense. Physicists do not know as much as they pretend too. Accounts for why they always seem to be wrong, right?

For quantum indeterminacy to be final, it would mean that two 100% identical twins in 100% identical situations and environments, would turn out differently. Even tho we already know we are only a product of our environments.

Its staring you right in the face.

Do you disagree with the following statement in any way?

If every variable in a closed system is known. Then there are no unknown variables in this closed system.

For indeterminacy to be correct, it would mean that even with every single possible variable 100% understood, the system would act differently than intended. You would ask, what variable made it act differently? as common sense says. But your answer would be, "no variable, it just acted differently cause".

You say determinism is the silly one that sounds like we believe in some silly higher power.

When really indeterminacy is so silly it believes in this mythical higher power which effects things in unknown unpredictable ways, even tho its actually not effecting them because it isn't in the equation! it aint a variable! it aint a number! it just does it! And there is no way to explain it!

Determinism is the only thing that makes sense.

Have you ever heard the phrase science without religion is lame? You guys are lame. ( And by religion, i don't mean the church, temple or mosque kind.)


Think about this, when Newton's laws of motion were introduced, i can bet there were hundreds of mathematical equations built off of these laws. This maths would have branched in a direction, based on the fundamental laws that it was based. And now we know Newton didn't know all that much. That these hundreds of mathematical equations were built off laws which weren't accurate!

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY ARE WRONG NOW?


" you want to maintain that the universe is truly deterministic, you can always do that-- you could have done it in Aristotle's day, in Newton's, in Einstein's, and in the year 2450,"


Cant you see that the theory that always holds is usually the correct one?!

 

[jfarhat747]

Drakkith

I am convinced that order of our scale could never truly come out of chaos. It makes much more sense that it is misunderstood chaos.

Also, proof of a narrow minded way of thinking

Theory 1

Theory 2 must either refute theory 1 or include it in theory 2

Theory 3 must either refute theory 2 and 1, or include 2 and hence one

etc

Can't you see that when people try to build off a way of thinking for such a long time, that it will always go wrong somewhere?

Think about how hard it would be to present a theory today that opposed some basic aspects of quantum mechanics.

As soon as the opposition becomes "highly unlikely" in the minds of the opposed, narrow mindedness is present.

 

[torquil]

P.S. Also, an FYI, in general people who present popular science AREN'T actually particularly noteworthy physicist, the theories that Michio Kaku describes to you aren't HIS theories and he's not like the leader of the people who push these frontiers, rather the people who push these frontiers think very little of such a person since the public ends up perceiving them as *great* physicists because they spend LESS time actually doing physics and MORE time doing things like TV spots and radio interviews

( and on a side note, don't worry i know michio kaku is obviously just trying to gain fame)

This is correct for many pop-sci presenters, but be careful with generalisations because it is not correct for Kaku and Greene.

Kaku has made many contributions in the development of string theory. Check out his publication list, starting in 1974:

http://inspirehep.net/search?ln=en&ln=en&p=find+a+kaku&of=hb&action_search=Search&sf=&so=d&rm=&rg=100&sc=0

Brian Greene has also made respectable contributions. Obviously they have changed their focus after many years of hardcore research, but their qualifications are undeniable. Still, I agree that even they often over-estimate the importance of speculative/hypothetical theories.

 

[Drakkith]

Drakkith

I am convinced that order of our scale could never truly come out of chaos. It makes much more sense that it is misunderstood chaos.

It doesn't matter what you are convinced of. The universe doesn't care about yours or my opinions. It simply exists as it is. So far ALL evidence points towards what you call "chaos".

Also, proof of a narrow minded way of thinking

Theory 1

Theory 2 must either refute theory 1 or include it in theory 2

Theory 3 must either refute theory 2 and 1, or include 2 and hence one

etc

Can't you see that when people try to build off a way of thinking for such a long time, that it will always go wrong somewhere?

No. In fact, this is the exact process that has accounted for ALL progress since the invention of the scientific method and modern science.

Think about how hard it would be to present a theory today that opposed some basic aspects of quantum mechanics.

Yes. This would be just as hard as presenting a theory that opposes the basics of classical physics, or ANY scientific theory that are known to be true.

As soon as the opposition becomes "highly unlikely" in the minds of the opposed, narrow mindedness is present.

Sorry, you are incorrect. You know absolutely nothing about the scientific method and why it works. It would be in your best interest to either learn about this, or stop posting here.

 

[Drakkith]

Given the OP's strong opposition to learning absolutely anything, I motion that this thread be locked.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Given the OP's strong opposition to learning absolutely anything, I motion that this thread be locked.

Agreed.