Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle

  1. #1
    Cephas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Central Pa.
    Age
    48
    Posts
    64
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle

    Heisenburg’s Uncertainty Principle is an argument used by skeptics to invalidate the law of non-contradiction. Sub-atomic particles appear to be both a wave and a particle at the same time and this is the basis for quantum physics. Notice I said appears? Instead of looking for real world answers for this alleged paradox, the quantum theorist rejects reality. Heisenberg himself said that facts must conform to quantum theory. It seems here that science has become some kind of quasi-religious cult of mathematics. Not withstanding the obvious absurdity of denying realty, what does the quantum theorist hope to prove?

  2. #2
    Discordia is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Mabase
    Age
    33
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle

    The HUP is a theory used in the quantum mechanical field the explain things in a more realistic way, as opposed to the more abstract classical physics. In classical physics, it is known that anything can be predicted or retrodicted given enough information, because everything in the universe conforms to specific physical laws. This is known as Determinism because in theory, the future can be predicted in a given physical system. Now, this system, naturally, is abstract or linear, as in it can't have any outer variables affecting it. In the real world, this doesn't happen, and so the Chaos Theory was created to explain non-linear systems. In theory, anything can be predicted, but due to the massive amount of variables involved in a real system, it is intractable (read: not impossible, but not doable by concievable standards) and can't be predicted.

    The Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle is a replacement of chaos theory, made possible by the recent discoveries in quantum mechanics. It states that no single particle's motion can be cacluated, (which is found in terms of its location and velocity) one hundred percent. The reason for this is that if someone went through the neccesary procedure to find the particle's location, they would be effecting the system that the particle was in, thus changing its loacation (You can't know if something is there unless you bump into it - this sounds silly but is true on a subatomic level). This is a fundamental component of quantum mechanics in that it illustrates that while we can't know for sure that something is somewhere, we can make an assumption, or more accurately, find a probability. However, just because something is 99% likely to happen doesn't mean it will, however small its chances may be. Extrapolations of the HUP combine with theories that state information is actually energy, and conclude that information can be everywhere at any time. Some will even go as far as suggesting this as the science behind a supposed 'collective unconcious'. However, since quantum theory is yet to be completed, we cannot be sure if this is in fact accurate, although there is strong evidence that points to it, additional research (even on the internet) will show data from experiments supporting the HUP.

    You are right in saying that it appears to be that way. However, it is not a paradox as it co-operates with evidence and all accepted laws behind it. Just because something does not seem to make logical sense does not make it true - people thought the earth was flat, and science is pretty sure that it is in fact a sphere. Does understanding the truth make science a cult of mathematics? I would certainly hope not. However, if semantics is what we're getting into here, it is fair enough to say that science is actually a summation of the common concensus on the input from a group of human beings' senses. That is, 'i see it, so it is possibly so. Everyone else sees it, so it is probably so.' In the case of abstracts, it would be more of a 'what makes sense in my head is supported (or in some cases not contradicted) by what i see(or any other sense), so it is probably so.' However, this eliminates all objective truth, and makes things rather difficult to live by. After all, what we are all seeing may in fact be a delusion - or perhaps we've all convinced ourselves into seeing something a certain way when it is totally different. But i digress. Not withstanding the obvious possibility that everything you know is wrong, the quantum theorist is trying to prove what makes sense in his head.

Similar Threads

  1. "Rule" or "Principle"
    By Jabbok in forum Predestinarian Doctrine Archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-02-2003, 05:13 PM
  2. What is the "regulative principle"?
    By Skeuos Eleos in forum Predestinarian Doctrine Archive
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 11-09-2003, 08:15 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts