If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
The uncertainty principle is based on the random fluctations of matter. Something actually being there.
Errr...no it isn't actually. Go read a book.
<img src='http://prerelease2.ibukdesign.co.uk/adam/pic/weva.jpg'>
Because that is something people have been claiming for thousands of years, yet nobody has been able to provide even the tiniest trace of anything resembling proof of anything.
Just a thought, like.
Scientific proof is "that's what's happened so far" with an option to change it's mind whenever new data comes in.
Theories must fit facts and stand up to experimentation. Quantum theory is just that, a theory, as is electron theory and relativity. Using those theories and treating them as true has enabled some useful results. Same with all the laws of physics, they are open to new facts and alteration.
Religious proof is something quite different, as it's dependant on lack of evidence (known as faith). They are quite incompatible. To a religious mind, the fact that no one has seen faires turn the leaves brown using pixie dust is proof that they have, because faires are invisible, as it says in religious tome X.
This is why science is much better at getting things done.
nowhere for it to happen.
no time ...so no moment for it to happen.
no energy no matter.
Yeah, like whatever man.
Which would you suggest, the Bible, Koran, other?
Quantum physics has a theory that that is what happens because nothing else known fits properly with the behaviour observed.
And it's based on the idea and theory of electrons etc, which might not be correct in themselves.
It's a theory built on a theory.
its a theory, thats yet to be proven but works for a great many of systems and observations
wonder how scanning tunnel electron microscopes work?
the reason its theory its because we still dont know the full mathematical workings of things ie einsteins physics work on big scales, whilst quantum physics works normally at tiny scales and classical physics works in between
we dont understand fully yet but every year or 2 we get understand slightly more
its really hard to put into words but in terms of merging the realms of physics together, so far EM radiation has been mathematically linked to the weak nuclear force, but theres one exchange particle missing
and as blagsta says particles can pop in and out of existence, its how space has a non perfect vacuum
Guess
strangely if i can remember correctly from learning the pros and cons of the big bang theory at university (notice how noone teaches it as 'truth')
the universe didnt have to come from nowhere,i cant remember why, and its really complicated, even to me, but its like we can only observe our own universe, thats why its called that, however it doesnt mean theres none others, cause almost everything has a probability of happening, even a tennis ball going through a wall
point is, is that it doesnt matter, but the idea is to gather as much evidence from observations as possible, and i trust the method of gathering observations and modelling things through maths ie physics than anything else, since it develops over time....
may i just ask one other awkwad question - just what is mass? other than the constant of proportionality between the force and acceleration which can both be measured directly
and also, a theory might be a theory but if its actually workable, well it can be used in most cases apart from severe exception whch is what makes it a theory ie combining quantum mechanics and relativity is very messy indeed simply because they view the universe ever so slightly differently
Yes, but theories have been wrong befoe AND given workable solutions to problems. As an example, the early thinking on light was that it was something that came out of the eye, wrong of course but all the work on angles and trig that followed it still stood because it wasn't relevant to that part of the theory which direction light travelled in.
Not often, no.
All maths is theory - based on ideas about division of perception etc. Still theory, but very, very workable theory.
I think you mean ignorance gets bigger and further away and about less relevant things.
Probably because there aren't any particles at all. Theres only one "substance", and changes occur in it due to frequency and direction. That's what relativity is going to boil down to in the end. Everything is relative to everything itself, along all properties, every type of existence.
In order for the changes to be relative in nature, the original must be identical. And so on.
yes you're completly correct, however i dont say we know it all, no half decent scientist would, theres thing as we know them, but we dont know them
And as the relationships are a product of human anatomy, brain function and structure, they are bound by those rules and still can't tell us what's really going on. They can tell us a lot about how our senses perceive the world though.
i.e. we get ever more accurate at measuring the world as the average human sees it. We don't gte any nearer "reality" though, if that's a different thing, which I doubt.
Yes it's answer will be the reverse of the "light" solution I mentioned earlier, that it's internal to humans not external, or possibly a product of where the rubber hits the road between human perception and externality.
:thumb:
Seeing as we cannot even prove we exist, this is a problem.
in the 1920's ...with high powered telescopes ...it was declared that we had finaly seen all that was able to be seen ...
so wheres the big change then?
no sane person would tell you we know everything though - despite what the media say
43 years ago a Russian astonaut, named Yuri Gagarin, was the first man in space and visually confirmed that the sun was indeed the center of our system.
Two thousand years ago the Greeks said there has to be atoms. They said, plainly, that if you were to have a block of an element (i.e. iron) and you cut it in half and cut a half in half, etc. , there is a point to which one cannot cut anymore. That is an atom (a-: without, not; tom, tomy: to cut; thus atom means not cut). The church denounced this theory for thousands of years.
60 years and two months ago we proved to the world that atoms exist.