Welcome to Gaia! ::

<3 </3

Simply which do you believe?

There is/are god(s) 0.525 52.5% [ 21 ]
There is/are no god(s) 0.475 47.5% [ 19 ]
Total Votes:[ 40 ]
< 1 2 3
Tuah
Xion0101
Tuah
stealthmongoose


Is it demonstrable as fact? I always thought Quantum Mechanics was untestable, that and i can't get my head around it.



Y u raep mah braens?


It is quite demonstrable, albeit I don't know how it's done. But that is the entire point of the Large Hadron Collider. All the other particles' behavior has been demonstrated, and they are working to discover the last, and most important, one necessary to complete their equations.

There is a problem as to why quantum mechanics and relativity cant be united, one explains the atomic world of particles, the other with the cosmic world of celestial bodies. Each theory attempts to explain how each part acts according to the whole, but neither tries to explain how the whole results fromthe individual proerties of the parts functioning with one another acvording to a single natural law of interaction.


Well, though they haven't accomplished it yet, they certainly are trying. The quantum world is so contradictory to our natural perception, and that's what makes it so hard to understand. The fact that matter can exist in multiple places, only one place, and not exist at all at the same time is totally mind-boggling, but it has been demonstrated.

Interestingly that can be easily explained, matter is a result of colliding waves of energy. For example the existence of the electron is only temporary, its not that its moving in and out of dimensions, its actually being recreated by the interaction of the proton and neutron, which was originall two neutrons that were set in motion, consider the n>p+e, but could b n=p+e+E, so m1>m2, m1=n and m2=p+e, so m1=m2+E, m1 is inactive state and m2 is active state.
stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
Tuah
Xion0101
Tuah
stealthmongoose


Is it demonstrable as fact? I always thought Quantum Mechanics was untestable, that and i can't get my head around it.



Y u raep mah braens?


It is quite demonstrable, albeit I don't know how it's done. But that is the entire point of the Large Hadron Collider. All the other particles' behavior has been demonstrated, and they are working to discover the last, and most important, one necessary to complete their equations.

There is a problem as to why quantum mechanics and relativity cant be united, one explains the atomic world of particles, the other with the cosmic world of celestial bodies. Each theory attempts to explain how each part acts according to the whole, but neither tries to explain how the whole results fromthe individual proerties of the parts functioning with one another acvording to a single natural law of interaction.


Well, though they haven't accomplished it yet, they certainly are trying. The quantum world is so contradictory to our natural perception, and that's what makes it so hard to understand. The fact that matter can exist in multiple places, only one place, and not exist at all at the same time is totally mind-boggling, but it has been demonstrated.


Can you please provide evidence as to this demonstrable fact? Perhaps an experiment performed using these principles or recorded data from such an experiment? Most if not all of the video i posted was mostly principles being demonstrated as possible.
stealthmongoose
Is it demonstrable as fact? I always thought Quantum Mechanics was untestable, that and i can't get my head around it.



Y u raep mah braens?


The uncertainty principle has several manifestations, the most popular being the momentum-position one. This one is easily demonstrable, but probably not in a very convincing way to a layman. The way you demonstrate it is true is perform a large set of experiments where you measure the location or momentum of a particle that behaves quantum mechanically. Since each experiment should have identical initial conditions, you will get a momentum and position distribution function. From this, you can calculate standard deviations and then test the uncertainty condition.

Another form of the uncertainty principle is the time-energy uncertainty principle. This one is a tad easier to see as satisfied in that it allows us to predict the half lives of particle states based upon their energy and it works out rather well.

As for the "testability" of quantum mechanics in general, it is incredibly easy to test. Your computer operates using quantum mechanical principles, as does a rather large amount of current, mundane technology [like microwave ovens, laser pointers, neon lights, florescent lights, street lamps, etc]. More advanced tests of the theory have also been performed, such as double slit experiment with a very small number of particles at a time.

Tuah
It is quite demonstrable, albeit I don't know how it's done. But that is the entire point of the Large Hadron Collider. All the other particles' behavior has been demonstrated, and they are working to discover the last, and most important, one necessary to complete their equations.


Actually, the LHC is meant to be a further test of the standard model [by finding the Higgs boson], of several "exotic matter' hypotheses of dark matter and a test of "supersymmetry." Basic quantum mechanics [and a good deal of the advanced stuff] is very well established by much less...expensive testing.

Xion0101
There is a problem as to why quantum mechanics and relativity cant be united, one explains the atomic world of particles, the other with the cosmic world of celestial bodies. Each theory attempts to explain how each part acts according to the whole, but neither tries to explain how the whole results fromthe individual proerties of the parts functioning with one another acvording to a single natural law of interaction.


The issue with quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity is that quantum mechanics, on microscopic scales, destroys the space-time curvature required for the general relativistic description of gravity. So, the two theories are mutually exclusive. A descent amount of research is going into coming up with a quantum mechanical description of gravity [beyond the standard model's tacked on "graviton"].

Xion0101
Interestingly that can be easily explained, matter is a result of colliding waves of energy. For example the existence of the electron is only temporary, its not that its moving in and out of dimensions, its actually being recreated by the interaction of the proton and neutron, which was originall two neutrons that were set in motion, consider the n>p+e, but could b n=p+e+E, so m1>m2, m1=n and m2=p+e, so m1=m2+E, m1 is inactive state and m2 is active state.


This is a rather...inaccurate description. For one, your example, would imply that there is some measurable life time to protons and electrons when neither has ever been observed to decay. Additionally, your neutron decay is missing out on the anti-neutrino required to conserve lepton number.

This aside, what quantum mechanics "says" depends upon the interpretation used. The easiest way to think of it is that the particles are the wave functions. They exist over extended areas of space and that interaction between particles alters these wave functions.

To show what this means, let's look at a simple example: the single particle-double slit experiment. Let's consider two simple cases before going into the quantum mechanical one. So, the first case is classical particles. These are well localized and I know where they are and where they are going. I shoot a bunch at a screen with two slits and they stick to another screen further away. What I get is two piles of particles on the screen, one behind each slit. I now do the same thing, but instead of classical particles, I use light waves. The light, being a wave instead of a classical particle, interferes with itself and produces a pattern of light and dark spots instead of just two bright spots behind each slit. So, these are the two outcomes we might see. One is for "waves" which occupy some area of space and the other is for "particles" which occupy a single point in space.

Now, let's try some electrons [normally it is photons, but I like electrons more]. What would be expected classically is the two piles of particles, instead we get a diffraction pattern [see electron diffraction]. So, a large number of electrons have the "wave" behavior. Well, maybe that is a result of their being a lot of them. So, let's try one at a time. We get the same result. So, what is generally thought of as a "particle" behaves like a wave. Why is this? Well, electrons are quantum mechanical objects. So, they exist over an extended area of space, much like a wave. When the electron reaches the two slits, it passes through both and interferes with itself as it is in a superposition state of going through slit A or through slit B. When it reaches the screen, the electron seems to collapse into a point [if we are shooting one electron at a time, we only get 1 dot of our diffraction pattern at a time, but if we shoot enough, we get the whole thing]. Why is this? Well, the screen it is hitting is a classical object. So, the electron, while being in a superposition of two states, has to pick a single point to be on the screen as the screen cannot be in a superposistion [a property of classical objects that can actually be derived form purely quantum mechanical considerations]. Now, since the electron exists over an extended area, we can say that it exists "more" in some spots than in others due to the interference pattern. At the screen, it has to pick one of these allowed locations.

The next step in the experiment is to try and figure out where the electrons are going before reaching the screen. So, we stick some sort of detector on one of the slits and start shooting electrons again. What we end up with is 2 piles of electrons as we would expect from particles. Now, why is this? The detector, again, is a classical object. So, it cannot be in a superposition. This means that the electron can only be in a state that passes through one slit, not two. Therefore, the electron cannot interfere with itself on the other side of the slits as all of it goes through one slit or all of it goes through the other.

[All of this is derived in the Copenhagen interpretation. There are other interpretations, but they have rather different descriptions of what happens and are a bit more complex to describe in layman's terms.]
I believe in possibilities, there could be a god or there might not be. We are so tiny compared to the Universe it seems unlikely that we truly understand it all. So is there a God? maybe, maybe not, but if there is one, I suppose I would hold a deist's beliefs, that the omnipotent creator has a lot to look after and we are only a small part of the greater whole.
In a sense there is a god, the question is whether it is conscious or not.
Krego-sama's avatar

Rainbow Regular

7,700 Points
  • Forum Explorer 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Signature Look 250
bearcatthorin
I believe in possibilities, there could be a god or there might not be. We are so tiny compared to the Universe it seems unlikely that we truly understand it all. So is there a God? maybe, maybe not, but if there is one, I suppose I would hold a deist's beliefs, that the omnipotent creator has a lot to look after and we are only a small part of the greater whole.

Yay for agnosticism.
The existance of a god currently cannot be proven, but due to the nature of a god, never will the existance of one truely be disproven. For me, the existance of a god is a non-issue. Using logic I can determine the way I should behave. If there is a god, and if he is truely a perfect being, I can only assume he is logical, so I can feel safe in my logic without concern for whether there is a god or not.

Have a semi related quote from a pretty smart man:

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

ALBERT EINSTEIN, New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
Xion0101
In a sense there is a god, the question is whether it is conscious or not.

Perhaps we as a part of the larger Universe are the consciousness of the Universe and therefore of God. As my sig. says, "trying to figure itself out."
Krego-sama
bearcatthorin
I believe in possibilities, there could be a god or there might not be. We are so tiny compared to the Universe it seems unlikely that we truly understand it all. So is there a God? maybe, maybe not, but if there is one, I suppose I would hold a deist's beliefs, that the omnipotent creator has a lot to look after and we are only a small part of the greater whole.

Yay for agnosticism.
The existance of a god currently cannot be proven, but due to the nature of a god, never will the existance of one truely be disproven. For me, the existance of a god is a non-issue. Using logic I can determine the way I should behave. If there is a god, and if he is truely a perfect being, I can only assume he is logical, so I can feel safe in my logic without concern for whether there is a god or not.

Have a semi related quote from a pretty smart man:

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

ALBERT EINSTEIN, New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930

I have always been inspired by his words as well as the words of Carl Sagan.
When I see a charity I contribute what I can, it is just the right thing to do.
Aws10's avatar

4,250 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Forum Dabbler 200
  • Forum Explorer 100
Xion0101
The Forbidden Soul
User ImageUser Image
User Image


The burden of proof lies with the person trying to state what they think is true. So, when it comes to god/gods (As asked in your poll) The burden of proof lies with the people trying to prove it, until then it is still a non-fact.


User ImageUser Image

That is tfue in that sense, bug is an atheist also trying to prove that divinity does not exist, and must seek to find the evidence for their claim.


Theist are the ones who claim existence in a god / gods.

Usually atheists just reject the claim. As said above, proof lies on the person presenting what they believe to be true. It's not the job of the person who refutes the claim to find proof as to why it might not be true..
Bundle of Funyuns's avatar

Beloved Lunatic

6,350 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Popular Thread 100
Xion0101
I want to hear opinions, if you believe in divinity, i want to know why. If you don't, i still want to know why. The reaso.ns are what i seek, the proof that will illuminate the truth.


For me, seeing is not believing, but instead, I would like a logic explanation. If you cannot give me an explanation that lies in logical reasoning and the laws of our existing world and universe, I'll pay for your plane ticket home :B
Manguusu's avatar

Interesting Gekko

7,400 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Brandisher 100
  • Voter 100
M.Bison: "They let a whelp like you head the Mishima Zaibatsu?"

There are many deities in the Mahayana pantheon. My favorites are the Niou, the twin manifestations of the Bodhisattva Vajrapani. They accompanied Gautama Buddha in his travels to protect him. Shaolin monks and Samurai practiced a form of Zen called Niou Zen, and indeed Vajrapani is the patron saint of the Shaolin monastery. The Niou justify the use of physical force in an otherwise pacifistic worldview for defending one's family, friends, neighbors, beliefs, and values against evil in situations that can't be resolved peacefully. In otherwords, violence is an absolute last resort.


Devil Jin: 「恐怖を教えて遣ろう。」 (Kyoufu wo oshiete yarou/I'll show you fear)

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games