|
How many people still believe in Isaac Newtons's Determinism? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| itsamemario |
| quote: | Originally posted by Desiderata
Alright, thanks for the information. |
:haha:
In Norway, we would call you a funny screw. :gsmile: |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by itsamemario
:haha:
In Norway, we would call you a funny screw. :gsmile: |
Yeah, well half the time I think you're on Special K with a DMT kick as you make no sense to me unless I was to be high. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
When you really think about it, it seems implausible that there is such thing as randomness. Usually, when people say random, its a term used to describe something that isn't fully understood. I believe as more is learned about sub-particles and physics in general, we will be more re-assured about the theory of determinism.
Anyways that's just my opinion. The question should be posed to someone who has more of an understanding of physics. perhaps Acton can shed some more light. |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
When you really think about it, it seems implausible that there is such thing as randomness. Usually, when people say random, its a term used to describe something that isn't fully understood. I believe as more is learned about sub-particles and physics in general, we will be more re-assured about the theory of determinism.
Anyways that's just my opinion. The question should be posed to someone who has more of an understanding of physics. perhaps Acton can shed some more light. |
Yeah, that would be nice. I think Lews nailed it fairly well as there is a lot I don't understand about Physics ending the free will debate. |
|
|
| Acton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
.. perhaps Acton can shed some more light. |
Oh hai.
Here's my ten cents worth, if I understood the question correctly.
Classical Physics and Newtonian Mechanics deals with non-relativistic (not close to light speed) motion. These laws work absolutely fine and we still use them today. So if we look at the question from this perspective, if we knew the position, mass, velocity of every particle in the universe, then we would be able to predict how they would all interact and where they would all be in a year, ten years or a million years time. So we could 'determine' everything.
Modern Physics incorporating Special and General Relativity, advances on Newtonian Mechanics by incorporating the awesome craziness of what happens when you travel at relativistic speeds (Special Relativity) and how matter, energy, space and time influence each other (General Relativity). These laws advance on the previous laws of motion, but still, if you knew the position, mass, velocity of every particle in the universe, under this framework we would still be able to predict how they would all interact, in the same way as mentioned above. Hence determine everything.
Einstein believed everything could be known precisely, although he never said 'God doesn't play dice' he did say something similar to that effect, I forget the actual quote.
But at the beginning of the 19th century, a new boy on the block came along, Quantum Mechanics. The mechanics of the very small. Without boring you to death on the derivation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, what it essentially states is that you can't know exactly, both the position and velocity of a particle (there are other 'pairs' but velocity and position are the most common ones dealt with). The more accurately you measure one property, the less accurately you measure the other. So what Quantum Mechanics states is that you can't know every physical property of system, and because you don't know everything about it, you can't accurately predict it's future.
Einstein went to his death bed still believing everything was deterministic, despite great advances in Quantum Mechanics.
So, in a nut shell, nothing is truly determined (certainly on a quantum scale).
Hopefully that helped?
Of course there are other ways to look at it. String Theory, predicts 11 dimensions, so folding the 5th dimension could effectively lead to some form of time travel. General Relativity allows wormholes that can jump though time as well as space. There are potential parallel universes.
And there's also the Philosophical perspective to look at, free will and all that e.
With regards to a clockwork universe. Everyone and everything experiences time differently, so that entire concept doesn't exist.
Karim, randomness lies at the heart of physics. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy can only increase over time. Entropy being a measure of order/disorder :)
If I've failed to satisfactorily answer the question, let me know. |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by Acton
Oh hai.
Here's my ten cents worth, if I understood the question correctly.
Classical Physics and Newtonian Mechanics deals with non-relativistic (not close to light speed) motion. These laws work absolutely fine and we still use them today. So if we look at the question from this perspective, if we knew the position, mass, velocity of every particle in the universe, then we would be able to predict how they would all interact and where they would all be in a year, ten years or a million years time. So we could 'determine' everything.
Modern Physics incorporating Special and General Relativity, advances on Newtonian Mechanics by incorporating the awesome craziness of what happens when you travel at relativistic speeds (Special Relativity) and how matter, energy, space and time influence each other (General Relativity). These laws advance on the previous laws of motion, but still, if you knew the position, mass, velocity of every particle in the universe, under this framework we would still be able to predict how they would all interact, in the same way as mentioned above. Hence determine everything.
Einstein believed everything could be known precisely, although he never said 'God doesn't play dice' he did say something similar to that effect, I forget the actual quote.
But at the beginning of the 19th century, a new boy on the block came along, Quantum Mechanics. The mechanics of the very small. Without boring you to death on the derivation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, what it essentially states is that you can't know exactly, both the position and velocity of a particle (there are other 'pairs' but velocity and position are the most common ones dealt with). The more accurately you measure one property, the less accurately you measure the other. So what Quantum Mechanics states is that you can't know every physical property of system, and because you don't know everything about it, you can't accurately predict it's future.
Einstein went to his death bed still believing everything was deterministic, despite great advances in Quantum Mechanics.
So, in a nut shell, nothing is truly determined (certainly on a quantum scale).
Hopefully that helped?
Of course there are other ways to look at it. String Theory, predicts 11 dimensions, so folding the 5th dimension could effectively lead to some form of time travel. General Relativity allows wormholes that can jump though time as well as space. There are potential parallel universes.
And there's also the Philosophical perspective to look at, free will and all that e.
With regards to a clockwork universe. Everyone and everything experiences time differently, so that entire concept doesn't exist.
Karim, randomness lies at the heart of physics. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy can only increase over time. Entropy being a measure of order/disorder :)
If I've failed to satisfactorily answer the question, let me know. |
I think you nailed it to where I can get a grasp on what is going on. |
|
|
| Acton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Desiderata
I think you nailed it to where I can get a grasp on what is going on. |
Excellent  |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Acton
Karim, randomness lies at the heart of physics. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy can only increase over time. Entropy being a measure of order/disorder :)
|
Thanks Matt,
I think you've done a great job at dumbing it down for the rest of us (especially me) .
What i'm getting at however is this sense of "disorder / randomness"; can we not say that with further understanding and research one may be able to define and quantify it to a point where it is no longer "random"? Is it not a fair statement to say that entropy is considered "disorder / random" because we are not at the stage yet where we fully understand it? (ie there is a lack of information about the system, hence the increasing amount of permutations available to arrange it).
I'm gearing towards Newton's laws of motion. |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Thanks Matt,
I think you've done a great job at dumbing it down for the rest of us (especially me) .
What i'm getting at however is this sense of "disorder / randomness"; can we not say that with further understanding and research one may be able to define and quantify it to a point where it is no longer "random"? Is it not a fair statement to say that entropy is considered "disorder / random" because we are not at the stage yet where we fully understand it? (ie there is a lack of information about the system, hence the increasing amount of permutations available to arrange it).
I'm gearing towards Newton's laws of motion. |
I'm a layman but what I think he means is the the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| Hey Matt, what do you make of the planet reaching a stage 1 planet in the next 100 years if we don't kill ourselves first. |
|
|
| Acton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Thanks Matt,
I think you've done a great job at dumbing it down for the rest of us (especially me) .
What i'm getting at however is this sense of "disorder / randomness"; can we not say that with further understanding and research one may be able to define and quantify it to a point where it is no longer "random"? Is it not a fair statement to say that entropy is considered "disorder / random" because we are not at the stage yet where we fully understand it? (ie there is a lack of information about the system, hence the increasing amount of permutations available to arrange it).
I'm gearing towards Newton's laws of motion. |
Good question, but we do quantify randomness, that's what entropy is. Entropy is quantifiable and we understand it. It's essentially the second law of thermodynamics.... and you wont find a physicist on the planet who disagrees with it. But if you look deeper into it, you still have the issue of the uncertainty principle, so we can never precisely know every physical property of a particle (or anything, really).
| quote: | Originally posted by Desiderata
Hey Matt, what do you make of the planet reaching a stage 1 planet in the next 100 years if we don't kill ourselves first. |
Personally, I'll be surprised if we're not a Type 1 civilisation within the next 20 years. We have the technology already, it's just the dick faced politicians that make the decisions, who need to open their eyes. |
|
|
|
|
