It clearly isn't observation only, because the observation methods affect or cause the effect we observe. Thus proving that the observations are also a perturbation and the quantum world is affected, and therefor causal.
Basically it sounds like we are agreeing--that the observations perturb the quantum world. I am asserting that in a causal sense, although I am doing so for communification and clarification purposes. It is a concept that I tend to look at causally, obviously.
As for my initial mention of cause/effect, re: quantum physics, I was referring to in other aspects of quantum physics:
"Quantum mechanics is yet another branch of physics in which the nature of causality is somewhat unclear". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Wait for what? The next time? Get a grip on reality OLS.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Basically it sounds like we are agreeing--that the observations perturb the quantum world. I am asserting that in a causal sense, although I am doing so for communification and clarification purposes. It is a concept that I tend to look at causally, obviously.
As for my initial mention of cause/effect, re: quantum physics, I was referring to in other aspects of quantum physics:
"Quantum mechanics is yet another branch of physics in which the nature of causality is somewhat unclear". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
I disagree that the "observation" perturbs anything. It's the properties of the observing device that perturbs quantum particles.
Again this is a grey area I'd rather stear clear of for all intents and purposes. We aren't quantum particles, so we don't behave like them and we really don't need to understand them to understand what is and isn't real on our macro scale.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
wait for you to come up with an answer. if time exists; then i've got all the time in the world.
My answers are suitable proof for others, but not for you. Because proof is the equivelant of what is required to convince you. Based on your attitude, I feel it to be a futile task and a complete waste of our TIME.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I suspect CERN, at some point, will confirm that black holes can exist within all interchanges of energy, both within us, and within all matter that surrounds us at extremely microscopic levels. If/when they do...I'll be 99.99% certain I know what the deal is.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I suspect CERN, at some point, will confirm that black holes can exist within all interchanges of energy, both within us, and within all matter that surrounds us at extremely microscopic levels. If/when they do...I'll be 99.99% certain I know what the deal is.
But CERN will only be proving that black-holes can exist when very small particles colide at 99% the speed of light.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
No it doesn't. Thinking about that proves pointless. It gets us no further ahead. I challenge you to even give me an example of something that could be wrong that would change everything we know. Red-shift may be wrong, but that will only change what we know about the structure of the universe, not what happens here on earth. It won't change the contribution corn gives to the atmosphere.
I used those other statements as examples of things that prove pointless. What if we are all wrong, doesn't matter, because unless we are all wrong, it serves no purpose to suppose we might be, it's only purposeful to suppose we might be wrong if you intend on discovering how we are wrong, otherwise it's a pointless thought experiment. What if I was a turtle?
Well I think if we don't stay aware of the possiblity that we may be wrong we've really not advanced as much as we'd like to think we have.
You know I can't be bothered with your challenges. As far as I can see love, they are an exercise in futility. You see things as you do. And you have no time for anything other than how you see it. And that's fine. But I don't need the headfuck of trying to get you to see things anyway than how you see them. It's nice and clear to me. You see things as you do and anything I have to say on the matter is pointless to you.
I do think it's interesting that you make the turtle analogy though!
Well I think if we don't stay aware of the possiblity that we may be wrong we've really not advanced as much as we'd like to think we have.
You know I can't be bothered with your challenges. As far as I can see love, they are an exercise in futility. You see things as you do. And you have no time for anything other than how you see it. And that's fine. But I don't need the headfuck of trying to get you to see things anyway than how you see them. It's nice and clear to me. You see things as you do and anything I have to say on the matter is pointless to you.
I do think it's interesting that you make the turtle analogy though!
My beliefs aren't so concrete as you may think. I'm just not going to reverse them based on broad speculation of what might be.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
But Bohr says that it has nothing to do with observation. I quoted that earlier. Einstein believed in hidden variables and so on...
If I walk outside with a camera, and try to look at my son through the lens of the camera, and my son begins to behave differently, one could say it is because of the camera that my son behaves differently. The camera doesn't exist in a vacuum, however. It is there as an offshoot of my intentions. It is there because I decided to put it there. It is there because I am holding it to my face in order to get impressions of observations of my son. We cannot assess the fullness of the situation including why my son is acting differently by only looking at the camera without also seeing it's existence extending from my purposes. Do you agree, Ahnimus?
I assume this is the part you refer to, which I have also used to support what I am saying--it supports both of our views, just like the word empirical also did in the empirics debate:
"The emergence of complementarity in a system occurs when one considers the circumstances under which one attempts to measure its properties; as Bohr noted, the principle of complementarity "implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear." It is important to distinguish, as did Bohr in his original statements, the principle of complementarity from a statement of the uncertainty principle. "
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
My answers are suitable proof for others, but not for you. Because proof is the equivelant of what is required to convince you. Based on your attitude, I feel it to be a futile task and a complete waste of our TIME.
which answers? famous quotes? i simply said that you can't prove time exists. and you haven't. you haven't posted any links nor any scientific data to prove that time exists.
do you want to know why? because time is reletive. it exists within the mind. a place you're afraid to tread.
If I walk outside with a camera, and try to look at my son through the lens of the camera, and my son begins to behave differently, one could say it is because of the camera that my son behaves differently. The camera doesn't exist in a vacuum, however. It is there as an offshoot of my intentions. It is there because I decided to put it there. It is there because I am holding it to my face in order to get impressions of observations of my son. We cannot assess the fullness of the situation including why my son is acting differently by only looking at the camera without also seeing it's existence extending from my purposes. Do you agree, Ahnimus?
I assume this is the part you refer to, which I have also used to support what I am saying--it supports both of our views, just like the word empirical also did in the empirics debate:
"The emergence of complementarity in a system occurs when one considers the circumstances under which one attempts to measure its properties; as Bohr noted, the principle of complementarity "implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear." It is important to distinguish, as did Bohr in his original statements, the principle of complementarity from a statement of the uncertainty principle. "
Are you suggesting that quantum particles are aware of their surroundings? In the same way that your son (as a complete entity) is aware of you and the camera?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
which answers? famous quotes? i simply said that you can't prove time exists. and you haven't. you haven't posted any links nor any scientific data to prove that time exists.
do you want to know why? because time is reletive. it exists within the mind. a place you're afraid to tread.
This is an absolutely childish debate. I'm not going on about this any longer. Feel proud or whatever it is you do, I could really care less if you believe the easter bunny is real.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
But CERN will only be proving that black-holes can exist when very small particles colide at 99% the speed of light.
Yes, there's a 1% "blur" in the lens so to speak. Is it a formidable enough barrier to deny a reasonable conclusion? ... I hope not.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
And really looking at the world, you think we are all mentally stable? :eek:
lol...you got me there!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
wait for you to come up with an answer. if time exists; then i've got all the time in the world.
...
No... you don't. You don't have all the time in the world because if you did, you would have been around when the dinosaurs walked the planet. You were around before the pyramids were built and you were around when Hiroshima was bombed. None of that is true. You only occupy a tiny slither in the expanse of time... your birth, your life and your death is less than a spark. The time you are here should be proof enough that time exists.
Just because you don't care what time the clock says it is, doesn't mean that time doesn't exist.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
This is an absolutely childish debate. I'm not going on about this any longer. Feel proud or whatever it is you do, I could really care less if you believe the easter bunny is real.
Studies have shown that people who imagine themselves losing weight or gaining more muscle, gain more and lose more than those who exercise and eat identically but don't visualize.
Merely thinking something can bring about a physical reality. Not immediately visible in all cases but it does happen.
Yes, but the methodology of that study was appalling. They measured strength of teh non-dominanat little finger, on teh "assumption" that it is not used for anything, so cannot gain sterngth without a specific exercise. Well, my littel finger certailny gets plenty. Furthermore, it was an unblinded trial, and teh study group subjeects could very easily exercise that finger at any time.
Are you suggesting that quantum particles are aware of their surroundings? In the same way that your son (as a complete entity) is aware of you and the camera?
I am suggesting that the instruments that do the testing in the quantum world do not have a will of their own and therefore are an extension of the human being doing the observation of the phenomenon.
It is the act of observation that brings the intruments into play in assessing the quantum world. And therefore it is the observation that created the affected outcome, via the instruments of observation.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
But CERN will only be proving that black-holes can exist when very small particles colide at 99% the speed of light.
I forgot to mention... The particle's size essentially irrelevant no? If the same characteristics of our "big" or outward universe can also be observed by smashing particles together and looking at the fine dust dust of our "inner" microscopic universe (whereby repeating patterns can be established)... I'd say that's a pretty big deal imo.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
...
No... you don't. You don't have all the time in the world because if you did, you would have been around when the dinosaurs walked the planet. You were around before the pyramids were built and you were around when Hiroshima was bombed. None of that is true. You only occupy a tiny slither in the expanse of time... your birth, your life and your death is less than a spark. The time you are here should be proof enough that time exists.
Just because you don't care what time the clock says it is, doesn't mean that time doesn't exist.
my perception of time is my life. time for me stops when i die. it began when i was born. all the time in the world for me means that i have the rest of my life to wait. wait for MR Science absloute PHD to prove time. i know it exists but not as it exists for others. time means something different to everyone. 5:00 pm to you may mean quitting time. to me it's just another number. quitting time for me is when i finish my last feeding for the day. it could be 4:00 pm or 1:00 am.
to my knowledge; no one has been able to prove time.
Yes, but the methodology of that study was appalling. They measured strength of teh non-dominanat little finger, on teh "assumption" that it is not used for anything, so cannot gain sterngth without a specific exercise. Well, my littel finger certailny gets plenty. Furthermore, it was an unblinded trial, and teh study group subjeects could very easily exercise that finger at any time.
Well speaking as someone who has experienced the loss of function of the little finger on several occassions, I can confirm that my little finger is used for a lot of things and when it isn't working it means the rest of the hand cannot function within it's normal range either. And exercising the beejezus out of it can reinstate the neural pathways to some degree.
It's unfortunate and disappointing when an interesting premise is sullied by inaffectual study.
Yes, but the methodology of that study was appalling. They measured strength of teh non-dominanat little finger, on teh "assumption" that it is not used for anything, so cannot gain sterngth without a specific exercise. Well, my littel finger certailny gets plenty. Furthermore, it was an unblinded trial, and teh study group subjeects could very easily exercise that finger at any time.
The power of the mind is great...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Let's look into quantum physics, at a widely accepted view in terms of the causal/deterministic view:
" Within the widely but not universally accepted Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (i.e., it was not accepted by Einstein or other physicists such as Alfred Lande), the uncertainty principle is taken to mean that on an elementary level, the physical universe does not exist in a deterministic form — but rather as a collection of probabilities, or potentials. . For example, the pattern (probability distribution) produced by millions of photons passing through a diffraction slit can be calculated using quantum mechanics, but the exact path of each photon cannot be predicted by any known method. The Copenhagen interpretation holds that it cannot be predicted by any method, not even with theoretically infinitely precise measurements.
It is this interpretation that Einstein was questioning when he said "I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe." Bohr, who was one of the authors of the Copenhagen interpretation responded, "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." Niels Bohr himself acknowledged that quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle were counter-intuitive when he stated, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word."
The basic debate between Einstein and Bohr (including Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) was that Einstein was in essence saying: "Of course, we can know where something is; we can know the position of a moving particle if we know every possible detail, and thereby by extension, we can predict where it will go." Bohr and Heisenberg were saying the opposite: "There is no way to know where a moving particle is ever even given every possible detail, and thereby by extension, we can never predict where it will go."
Einstein assumed that there are similar hidden variables in quantum mechanics which underlie the observed probabilities and that these variables, if known, would show that there was what Einstein termed "local realism," a description opposite to the uncertainty principle, being that all objects must already have their properties before they are observed or measured...
but in 1964 John Bell theorized the Bell inequality to counter them, ...
The interpretation of Bell's theorem explicitly prevents any local hidden variable theory from holding true because it shows the necessity of a system to describe correlations between objects. ...
In the years following, Bell's theorem was tested and has held up experimentally time and time again, and these experiments are in a sense the clearest experimental confirmation of quantum mechanics."
Whether Einstein's view or Heisenberg's view is true or false is not a directly empirical matter. One criterion by which we may judge the success of a scientific theory is the explanatory power it gives us, and to date it seems that Heisenberg's view has been the better at explaining physical subatomic phenomena.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_uncertainty_principle
Finally I clue in as to why you would like to "leave well enough alone" on these topics, Ahnimus. The seemingly reigning view, even though there is dispute, is that determinism is not real at the quantum physics level. You've conveniently kept this quiet in debates. And at the same time, you have felt free to continue to try to prove determinism, even though it is very much in doubt at a fundamental level. Frankly, I'm a little caught off guard, here.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I forgot to mention... The particle's size essentially irrelevant no? If the same characteristics of our "big" or outward universe can also be observed by smashing particles together and looking at the fine dust dust of our "inner" microscopic universe (whereby repeating patterns can be established)... I'd say that's a pretty big deal imo.
Well, there is a particular reason that bullets are made to be small. When calculating force, the impact area is extremely important. If you have a force of 3 kilojoules, the impact area is 5 cubic milimeters, then the impact force is roughly 600 joules per cubic milimeter, whereas if the impact area was 1 cubic milimter, with a force of 3 kilojoules, then the impact force is 3 kilojoules per cubic milimeter, as force is dispersed over impact area. Thus, the force required for two planets to cause a black-hole would be exponentially greater than the force required for two protons to make a black-hole.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Finally I clue in as to why you would like to "leave well enough alone" on these topics, Ahnimus. The seemingly reigning view, even though there is dispute, is that determinism is not real at the quantum physics level. You've conveniently kept this quiet in debates. And at the same time, you have felt free to continue to try to prove determinism, even though it is very much in doubt at a fundamental level. Frankly, I'm a little caught off guard, here.
I don't get that from what you've posted, all I get is a lot of different theories on what might be true.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Basically it sounds like we are agreeing--that the observations perturb the quantum world. I am asserting that in a causal sense, although I am doing so for communification and clarification purposes. It is a concept that I tend to look at causally, obviously.
As for my initial mention of cause/effect, re: quantum physics, I was referring to in other aspects of quantum physics:
"Quantum mechanics is yet another branch of physics in which the nature of causality is somewhat unclear".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Wait for what? The next time? Get a grip on reality OLS.
And really looking at the world, you think we are all mentally stable? :eek:
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I disagree that the "observation" perturbs anything. It's the properties of the observing device that perturbs quantum particles.
Again this is a grey area I'd rather stear clear of for all intents and purposes. We aren't quantum particles, so we don't behave like them and we really don't need to understand them to understand what is and isn't real on our macro scale.
wait for you to come up with an answer. if time exists; then i've got all the time in the world.
My answers are suitable proof for others, but not for you. Because proof is the equivelant of what is required to convince you. Based on your attitude, I feel it to be a futile task and a complete waste of our TIME.
I suspect CERN, at some point, will confirm that black holes can exist within all interchanges of energy, both within us, and within all matter that surrounds us at extremely microscopic levels. If/when they do...I'll be 99.99% certain I know what the deal is.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
But CERN will only be proving that black-holes can exist when very small particles colide at 99% the speed of light.
Well I think if we don't stay aware of the possiblity that we may be wrong we've really not advanced as much as we'd like to think we have.
You know I can't be bothered with your challenges. As far as I can see love, they are an exercise in futility. You see things as you do. And you have no time for anything other than how you see it. And that's fine. But I don't need the headfuck of trying to get you to see things anyway than how you see them. It's nice and clear to me. You see things as you do and anything I have to say on the matter is pointless to you.
I do think it's interesting that you make the turtle analogy though!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
My beliefs aren't so concrete as you may think. I'm just not going to reverse them based on broad speculation of what might be.
I assume this is the part you refer to, which I have also used to support what I am saying--it supports both of our views, just like the word empirical also did in the empirics debate:
"The emergence of complementarity in a system occurs when one considers the circumstances under which one attempts to measure its properties; as Bohr noted, the principle of complementarity "implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear." It is important to distinguish, as did Bohr in his original statements, the principle of complementarity from a statement of the uncertainty principle. "
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
which answers? famous quotes? i simply said that you can't prove time exists. and you haven't. you haven't posted any links nor any scientific data to prove that time exists.
do you want to know why? because time is reletive. it exists within the mind. a place you're afraid to tread.
Are you suggesting that quantum particles are aware of their surroundings? In the same way that your son (as a complete entity) is aware of you and the camera?
This is an absolutely childish debate. I'm not going on about this any longer. Feel proud or whatever it is you do, I could really care less if you believe the easter bunny is real.
Yes, there's a 1% "blur" in the lens so to speak. Is it a formidable enough barrier to deny a reasonable conclusion? ... I hope not.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Yes, my little turtle, that is what I expected you to say.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
lol...you got me there!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
No... you don't. You don't have all the time in the world because if you did, you would have been around when the dinosaurs walked the planet. You were around before the pyramids were built and you were around when Hiroshima was bombed. None of that is true. You only occupy a tiny slither in the expanse of time... your birth, your life and your death is less than a spark. The time you are here should be proof enough that time exists.
Just because you don't care what time the clock says it is, doesn't mean that time doesn't exist.
Hail, Hail!!!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I did??
Well bugger me!!! The tiny mind from the shadows has made an accepted point!!!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Hey!! Back off the Easter Bunny!!!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Yes, but the methodology of that study was appalling. They measured strength of teh non-dominanat little finger, on teh "assumption" that it is not used for anything, so cannot gain sterngth without a specific exercise. Well, my littel finger certailny gets plenty. Furthermore, it was an unblinded trial, and teh study group subjeects could very easily exercise that finger at any time.
It is the act of observation that brings the intruments into play in assessing the quantum world. And therefore it is the observation that created the affected outcome, via the instruments of observation.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I forgot to mention... The particle's size essentially irrelevant no? If the same characteristics of our "big" or outward universe can also be observed by smashing particles together and looking at the fine dust dust of our "inner" microscopic universe (whereby repeating patterns can be established)... I'd say that's a pretty big deal imo.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
my perception of time is my life. time for me stops when i die. it began when i was born. all the time in the world for me means that i have the rest of my life to wait. wait for MR Science absloute PHD to prove time. i know it exists but not as it exists for others. time means something different to everyone. 5:00 pm to you may mean quitting time. to me it's just another number. quitting time for me is when i finish my last feeding for the day. it could be 4:00 pm or 1:00 am.
to my knowledge; no one has been able to prove time.
Well speaking as someone who has experienced the loss of function of the little finger on several occassions, I can confirm that my little finger is used for a lot of things and when it isn't working it means the rest of the hand cannot function within it's normal range either. And exercising the beejezus out of it can reinstate the neural pathways to some degree.
It's unfortunate and disappointing when an interesting premise is sullied by inaffectual study.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
The power of the mind is great...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
" Within the widely but not universally accepted Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (i.e., it was not accepted by Einstein or other physicists such as Alfred Lande), the uncertainty principle is taken to mean that on an elementary level, the physical universe does not exist in a deterministic form — but rather as a collection of probabilities, or potentials. . For example, the pattern (probability distribution) produced by millions of photons passing through a diffraction slit can be calculated using quantum mechanics, but the exact path of each photon cannot be predicted by any known method. The Copenhagen interpretation holds that it cannot be predicted by any method, not even with theoretically infinitely precise measurements.
It is this interpretation that Einstein was questioning when he said "I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe." Bohr, who was one of the authors of the Copenhagen interpretation responded, "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." Niels Bohr himself acknowledged that quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle were counter-intuitive when he stated, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word."
The basic debate between Einstein and Bohr (including Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) was that Einstein was in essence saying: "Of course, we can know where something is; we can know the position of a moving particle if we know every possible detail, and thereby by extension, we can predict where it will go." Bohr and Heisenberg were saying the opposite: "There is no way to know where a moving particle is ever even given every possible detail, and thereby by extension, we can never predict where it will go."
Einstein assumed that there are similar hidden variables in quantum mechanics which underlie the observed probabilities and that these variables, if known, would show that there was what Einstein termed "local realism," a description opposite to the uncertainty principle, being that all objects must already have their properties before they are observed or measured...
but in 1964 John Bell theorized the Bell inequality to counter them, ...
The interpretation of Bell's theorem explicitly prevents any local hidden variable theory from holding true because it shows the necessity of a system to describe correlations between objects. ...
In the years following, Bell's theorem was tested and has held up experimentally time and time again, and these experiments are in a sense the clearest experimental confirmation of quantum mechanics."
Whether Einstein's view or Heisenberg's view is true or false is not a directly empirical matter. One criterion by which we may judge the success of a scientific theory is the explanatory power it gives us, and to date it seems that Heisenberg's view has been the better at explaining physical subatomic phenomena.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_uncertainty_principle
Finally I clue in as to why you would like to "leave well enough alone" on these topics, Ahnimus. The seemingly reigning view, even though there is dispute, is that determinism is not real at the quantum physics level. You've conveniently kept this quiet in debates. And at the same time, you have felt free to continue to try to prove determinism, even though it is very much in doubt at a fundamental level. Frankly, I'm a little caught off guard, here.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well, there is a particular reason that bullets are made to be small. When calculating force, the impact area is extremely important. If you have a force of 3 kilojoules, the impact area is 5 cubic milimeters, then the impact force is roughly 600 joules per cubic milimeter, whereas if the impact area was 1 cubic milimter, with a force of 3 kilojoules, then the impact force is 3 kilojoules per cubic milimeter, as force is dispersed over impact area. Thus, the force required for two planets to cause a black-hole would be exponentially greater than the force required for two protons to make a black-hole.
I don't get that from what you've posted, all I get is a lot of different theories on what might be true.