Physic's greatest question

[Qfwfq]

can it be said dat quantum theory has surpassed Einstein's relativity in a similar manner let's say to the way Einstein surpassed Newton.

Absolutely, no, it doesn't. And Einstein didn't really surpass, but only altered, Newton.

 

Or, what is the relation between quantum theory an relativity in respect to their explanation of the Univers. I know that these to theories are not actualy running on the same field, but do not the both of them wish to say some ultimate truth?

Both QM and SR (special relativity) are fundamental to modern physics, despite the difficulties of describing things in a manner which is both relativistic and quantum. This description is RQFT (relativistic quantum field theory) and has been very successful, culminating with the Standard Model.

 

Getting gravitation (GR or general relativity) into the same picture, or "quantizing" it, is something still being worked on although it shares the most fundamental aspects with the other force fields.

[cogito]

I want to thank everybody for taking time to answer the "not so stupid after all" question, as you all have made me think. The fact is that the question in question is bigger than I am. I mean, I only have very vague and extremely general knowlege of the two theories, but I want to know hwo beats hwo, and this is pretty stupid after all:hihi:

The thing is that I was curios if one can say that there was another scientific revolution after Einstein's. First there was classical newtonian undertanding of the world, after that came the relativity revolution, right?, wich said that the world needs a more complex model to explain it, than the one built by Newton. An Einstein came up with it. Now, can it be said that quantum physics was, in any way and to any degree, a revolution in regard tu relativity.

I am mainly reffering to the findings in quantum physics and to the implications it has to our understanding of the world. As far as I know, clasical logic is incapabable of integrating many of these findings. For example, the basic principle of noncontradiction is simply blown away at qunatum level, right? I mean, in our world, it's crazy to think that one object can be in two places at the same time, but this is a fact of the quantum world, am i very wrong? I don't know if relativity posed such problems, I mean, it didn't blew away all our logic of the world, did it? May be it did concerning a certain scientific logic, but i am reffering especialy to the common sense logic upon wich our lives are based.

So?

[Qfwfq]

The thing is that I was curios if one can say that there was another scientific revolution after Einstein's. First there was classical newtonian undertanding of the world, after that came the relativity revolution, right?, wich said that the world needs a more complex model to explain it, than the one built by Newton. An Einstein came up with it. Now, can it be said that quantum physics was, in any way and to any degree, a revolution in regard tu relativity.

Strictly, quantum mechanics didn't come totally after relativity, you could well say that QM started before SR but took a while longer to get from Planck's constant to Schrödinger's equation, spin etc. Also, QM is a lot more complicated than relativity and even Einstein had a role in it (the photoelectric effect gave more evidence for the photon and Planck's constant).

 

Apart from the difficulty between relativity's locality and quantum mechanics (which made Einstein unwilling to agree with Born :confused:, and see Bell's disequality violations), SR and QM are otherwise quite independent. You could think of it something like one guy comes up with an improved dough and another comes up with an improved way of baking it, but each way of baking can work with each kind of dough.

 

For example, the basic principle of noncontradiction is simply blown away at qunatum level, right?

No, quantum mechanics is perfectly self consistent. The principle of non-contradiction is sacred.

 

I mean, in our world, it's crazy to think that one object can be in two places at the same time, but this is a fact of the quantum world, am i very wrong?

Not quite, it's a bit more like it makes no sense to say "where" when the state isn't an eigenstate of position.

 

I don't know if relativity posed such problems, I mean, it didn't blew away all our logic of the world, did it?

Hold your horses! :) It changed the way of seeing space and time. Not quite all our logic of the world.

 

May be it did concerning a certain scientific logic, but i am reffering especialy to the common sense logic upon wich our lives are based.

Which one? That before Einstein? That before Newton, Galileo and Copernicus? That before Aristotle? :)

 

Galileo stated the principle of relativity and showed that we could well be not noticeing the motion of the Earth we stand on. Previously this was considered an unfathomable idea by the common sense logic of most people, upon which their lives were based. This was the reason most people had ridiculed the idea of a moving Earth, ever since Aristarchus had suggested it. Aristotle had said it was plainly contrary to the evidence of our senses and that was that... :omg: until Galileo's eloquence persuaded a lot of people. Not long after, Newton completed his work.

[cogito]

Is anyone familiar with the work of Stephane Lupasco? His work is mainly concerned with logical implications of qunatum physics. He argues that logic is no longer able to integrate all the new findings, and he even is bold enough to come up with a new one.

I actualy heard many people saying that quanatum mechanics actualy breaks the walls of the world as we know it.

[InfiniteNow]

I actualy heard many people saying that quanatum mechanics actualy breaks the walls of the world as we know it.

It certainly does seem to go against "common" sense sometimes. One of the more confusing aspects for me, as presented in the "Double-slit" thread is how one photon at a time can create an interference pattern... and that's just the tip of an enormous iceburg. :friday:

[cogito]

Has anyone seen "What the f***k do we know"? What do you think about that film? (if i am off the thread, please somebody let me know:hihi: )

[Buffy]

Is anyone familiar with the work of Stephane Lupasco?

He's credited with contributing to Non-Aristotelian Logic. These logic paradigms *extend* standard two-valued predicate calculus, they don't *replace* them, in spite of what Stephane may have said.

I actualy heard many people saying that quanatum mechanics actualy breaks the walls of the world as we know it.

Oh, sorta. Usually this is based on Quantum Indeterminancy most famously represented by Schrodinger's Cat who is both alive and dead at the same time. Also check out Fuzzy Logic, Quantum Logic, and three-valued logic. Seriously though, these extensions do just fine in explaining this seemingly non-intuitive view of the world, and Stephane certainly contributed to the mix...

 

In superposition,

Buffy

[Buffy]

Has anyone seen "What the f***k do we know"? What do you think about that film? (if i am off the thread, please somebody let me know:hihi: )

Wiki has a pretty good overview of the issues and complaints and its be excoriated in multiple places like this article on Salon which brands it as a thinly veiled informercial for an obscure Scientology-like sect, and this one from a physicist's viewpoint.

 

I skipped going to see it, although I'll usually go see anything with Marlee Matlin in it...

 

Chipperly,

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Buffy,

 

You really are going to have to wear more conservative clothes that cover your curves if I'm going to have any chance at following along while you use such big words... I mean, it takes true focus to look past that delicious distraction which is you and truly comprehend your brilliance.

 

Okay, done now. :shrug:

 

 

Cheers. :friday:

[InfiniteNow]

I think I'm starting to border on sexual harassment. Sorry Buffy. No harm in my intent, just playful banter.

[cogito]

The film in question was clearly promoting some kind of a quasi or pseudoreligion, rather than science. I remeber some scientist in the picture saying that you could actualy walk on water if you just know how to belive it hard enough, of course everything based upon quantum physics implications.

 

I am now seeking for advice...

Supose somebody hwo has practicaly no physics or mathematics knowledge, trainning, and more importantly, inclination ( by this I mean a mind that is much more atracted and endowed (more or less) to literature and philosophy than to exact sciences like mathematics or physics) for modern physics, but he is, nevertheless, fascinetad by this complex field of knowledge.

First of all, where should he start and how? Can somebody get the big picture without mastering the many and fundamental mathematical equations (he has no mind for mathematics, thats for sure) and physics basic propositions?

 

Briefly, is there any hope for such a man?:computer: (for those still wandering, that man is, of course, myself:hihi: )

[Qfwfq]

Is anyone familiar with the work of Stephane Lupasco? His work is mainly concerned with logical implications of qunatum physics. He argues that logic is no longer able to integrate all the new findings, and he even is bold enough to come up with a new one.

What you're talking about is Lattice Theory and, yes, I know it has been proposed to use it with QM.

 

You see, logic can be represented as an algebra, called Boole algebra, which can be generalized as a whole class of algebras sharing some but not all Boole's properties. It is important to realize that the whole of mathematics is based on logic, so even the use of a lattice doesn't really mean that you're kicking logic out the door.

 

I actualy heard many people saying that quanatum mechanics actualy breaks the walls of the world as we know it.

It depends on which walls of which world. When you get to know the quantum world well enough, you feel reasonably comfortable in it. :confused:

 

Tertium non datur, :confused:

Q

[cogito]

Nobody has yet given a reply to my last post. I hope this isn't because mai english is as bad as my physics:hihi:

[Pyrotex]

It certainly does seem to go against "common" sense sometimes. One of the more confusing aspects for me, as presented in the "Double-slit" thread is how one photon at a time can create an interference pattern... and that's just the tip of an enormous iceburg. :secret:

To my mind, that is indeed the strangest result produced by physics. Mind boggling.

 

I wish I could do the following experiment: Set up the double-slit experiment but have one the slits capable of being shut in 10 nanoseconds. Have the electron emitter be such that the electrons take 20 nanoseconds to reach the slits, and an additional 20 nanoseconds to reach the detector. Have a controller that emits an electron precisely at designated times.

 

Run the experiment as usual for a baseline comparison.

 

Then run the experiment, closing the slit a certain time, T, after emitting each electron. Start with T = 40 nsec. The slit closes after the electrons pass through the slits. Then reduce T to 30 nsec; then to 20 nsec; then to 10 nsec.

 

What would we see? :singer: :cup: :singer: :singer: :singer:

[Pyrotex]

The film in question was clearly promoting some kind of a quasi or pseudoreligion, rather than science. I remeber some scientist in the picture saying that you could actualy walk on water if you just know how to belive it hard enough, of course everything based upon quantum physics implications....

I recently saw the DVD of "What the Bleep Do We Know?". Really strange combo of hard science and new-age woo-woo. One of the "scientists" turned out to be a 40-ish woman whose name was something like Vajneesh, and she was billed as a "channeler" to some 40,000 year old shaman. Hello? :secret:

 

The message, intention, purpose of the movie were all garbled. Some of the science was right on, then they would give some left-field interpretation. Like walking on water. This kind of poppy-cock could ruin real science.

[TheBigDog]

This kind of poppy-cock could ruin real science.

What has this to do with flower genitalia?

 

Bill

[infamous]

If I were asked to detail the greatest question Physic's has to answer it would have to be:

 

1. What caused the Big Bang?

2. If there were no Big Bang, does one calculate an eternal universe and if not, how do we explain our current reality?

3. My personal view is that our current scientific pursuits are all ultimately aimed at answering these two fundamental questions.