Welcome to Gaia! ::

Can these two be united? Let me present this metaphor:

Think of this.
Three cells make up an organism. Keeping track of these cells chould be easy, right? Temperature, movement, speed, food intake and waste output.

Then think of six cells. A little harder, but definately trackable.

Now 15. At this point you start making minor errors, getting cells mixed up, and end up making mistakes that lead to failure in some errors.

OK, now 25. At this point, your exhausted, your head is probably spinning, and you make errors that fail the entire experiment.

Now bring it up a notch or two. 50. Organs become recognizeable, so you begin grouping the organism. Labeling different areas. This eases some pressure, and makes things better.

Now, lets go to 1000. You may be tinking, screw that i'm going home. But organs begin to become even clearer, and small subsections of those organs as well. You then get to have fluids of sorts, and as long as you know where they come from and where theyre going your set.

Now, the leap. 1 billion. you start wondering if your insane, but at this point external features are entirely recognizeable and systems begin to emerge. You can't keep track of everything, Temperature and intake and movement etc., but organs are very simple to manage at this point.

Thats the role of general relativity. A few atoms are nice, but a solar system or even a planet are impossible. But keeping track of the grouped areas of these places might be possible or plausible.

What do you think?

I would actually think that Quantum Mechanics would have the advantage over General Relativity, given that QED is allegedly the most corroborated scientific theory ever.

The Uncertainty Pricipal.
Its so annoying,
Just because we don't have the intelligence to measure a partical doesn't mean its not measuarble. On top of that, It doesn't mean that the particle's measuments do or do not exsist. The particle does not act in a random way, there is a cause and affect for everything. Once again, it is lacking of our intelligence to find it so we just slap on some probability to make it all better. Its easier to say that "anything" could happen to a particle then to look for more variables in it's nature I suppose.

I Can't beleive he plays dice.
confused

I wouldn't really call the Uncertainty Principle a technicality. It does arise from the axioms of QM, rather than the other way around. You'll find out more about this as your QM course progresses.
Of course, you could use the Uncertainty Principle as an argument that QM is wrong, and many people have; deterministic theories are usually favored over non-deterministic ones. This should not be taken as "proof" that deterministic theories are more correct; for all we know, God is a compulsive gambler. There might not be any cause for any given effect, nor must there be a single set of effects for any given cause; that is a philosophical decision that, while it does underlie most science, cannot be taken as absolute truth, and if the data contradicts it, one must be ready to discard it. Any and all generalities about the universe must submit to data in the end, and so far the data supports the Uncertainty Principle.
Phenomena that can be easily explained by the Uncertainty Principle do arise, and not only in terms of measurement. The Bose-Einstein condensate for example, could arguably be the result of a tight bound on the velocities causing a large uncertainty in the positions of the particles in the condensate, leading to the "unified" effect of BE condensates. No matter how strange it is, QM effects have been detected and therefore QM cannot be dismissed out of hand. Any theory that replaces it will have to approximate QM as some sort of limit, given how accurate QM has been so far.