|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:20 pm
ofcourse there is chance. there is always chance in the quantum level biggrin
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 10:36 pm
SS4 Gogeta Forever ofcourse there is chance. there is always chance in the quantum level biggrin THANK YOU... i think you people are getting too wrapped up in yourselves. there's no way to recreate your exact experimental conditions or situations to try and prove your theory. there is no way, EVER, to be able to predict (or control!?!) the precise state of matter at the instance your coin is flipped. no way. energy levels, electron spins, strong force/weak force...i could go on about the myriad variable involved in something like this. and even if a situation WERE to occur that had the EXACT precise conditions you wouldn't even know it due to the heisenberg uncertainty principle. there's no way for you to experimentally verify that all your lovely little subatomic particles are exactly how they were in the first experiment without altering their state. please read up on quantum physics & mechanics a bit before trying to tackle something like "no such thing as chance." the only way you can even attempt to approach this situation is through studying the fermi-dirac or bose-einstein statistical probability of an event occuring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:01 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:50 pm
I heard an argument like that before, starting with biliard balls. If a table was full of billiard balls moving at certain speeds in certain directions, and we knew them all perfectly, then we would know the past, present, and future of all balls. The argument then said in theory that atoms in the universe were like the balls. If we could know what they were all doing now, then we could determine the future indefinitely. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle rules out actually knowing these things, but does not rule out the theoretical possibility. This argument relies on classical physics however, not quantum mechanics. Is there any way, for example, to know just when a radioactive nucleus will decay by studying the particles in it. Not that I know of. That is just one example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:00 pm
I think you may have overthought the situation there elman, It would take a lot of math to make me believe the statement.....a lot correct and justifying math I should say. I would state why I beleive that statement is false, but no point in repeating what others have already said. And of course, "IF your being very scientific," well that IF also implies some chance. mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:32 pm
What was the question? question
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:44 pm
Hmm, well you've really got to be careful there, - there's chance and chaos, chaos really being the randomness of particles and all that... stuff.... eh, that someone was just talking about before.
Chance exists as probability in my opinion; like when we say there is a 50/50 chance of a coin being a tail or a head. The same as saying the probability of getting a tail or a head is 50/50. Like a measure of how likely it is something will happen.
... you know I didn't actually read the first post so I probably answered the question wrong blaugh
Never mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 9:40 am
You're right that on the MACRO scale, there isn't really true chance, just chaos (that is, unbelievably complex interactions). However, chaos behaves like chance, which is how statistics work.
On the quantum scale, the uncertainty principle comes into effect, and it's hard to know much of anything for sure. In quantum, there is genuine "chance" and uncertainty that have nothing to do with chaos, and everything to do with the nature of extremely tiny things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 2:04 pm
They say that there is chance of what side you land on a die. But it is actually based on what number is on the opposite side of a 6-sided die side. Example: The side with 1 dot has the most weight because less is being displaced by the indentation made by the dot. This means that this side is most often to not be rolled, because this side weighs it self down, meaning that the side with 6 dots will have the greatest possibility of being rolled compared to a 1 dot side. However, I believe that there is 'chance', because it is just based on the probability of an event occuring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
