To what extent would you consider reality to be deterministic? - General

It's a known quirk amongst physicists that the universe is a mess. Einstein spent the greater part of his latter years arguing that the universe is an elegant, well tuned machine, but the likes of Schrödinger and Heisenberg pressed forth with quantum theory to show the universe is built upon the most unstable, unpredictable building blocks known to man -- particles. Quantum physics is scary. Quatum physics is awesome. Quantum physics is a hyperactive world where, honestly, nothing is what it seems. Minuscule molecules serve themselves to being not predictable, but probable, because they're going so fast yet so slow, that they're so small yet massive. It's like a whole new universe to attempt to understand, one which we may never pleasure ourselves of being acquainted with fully. What I find most interesting about the quantum is the fact there have been some experiments done where [I]the results depend on whether you're observing or not.[/I] The experiments [I]know that you're looking[/I]. This is insane to me. It throws logic out the window. It brings too much to the table in terms of possibility, and I find that overwhelming. What, reality is what we make it? We have an effect on [I]how the laws of the universe work?[/I] What's next, a God? I wouldn't be surprised. Having a deterministic universe explains a lot. But, unfortunately, I think it's inexplicable. Yet, it's true. We seem to be so ingrained in our environment, so much a part of it, more than we can possibly understand. However, I believe that that understanding is what we should strive for, lest we lose the possibility of our potential.

ITT: big op, shit first post [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Snipe." - ventilated))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=GiacJr;16171671]ITT: big op, shit first post[/QUOTE] It's obviously not my first post. Don't troll.

[QUOTE=Av3njd;16171677]It's obviously not my first post. Don't troll.[/QUOTE] You hurt his brain.

What do you mean - the experiments know when you're looking? Care to explain?

Well, I believe that every single thing that happens is inevitable. There is no way to change the future, just as there is no way to change the past. Also quantum physics is [I]fucked[/I].

Everything we do changes the future.

[QUOTE=prly_102;16171757]What do you mean - the experiments know when you're looking? Care to explain?[/QUOTE] Garry posted this video on his blog, it's one good example: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc[/media]

[QUOTE=prly_102;16171757]What do you mean - the experiments know when you're looking? Care to explain?[/QUOTE] It's not that the experiments "know" they're being observed, it's that the act of observing them changes the results (to observe it, you have to interact with it) Edit: "What the Bleep" is terrible, some videos might contain some useful knowledge but the whole thing is new age crap.

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;16171798]It's not that the experiments "know" they're being observed, it's that the act of observing them changes the results (to observe you, you have to interact with it)[/QUOTE] Such as the way some methods involve bouncing particles off of other particles to "see" them, which, in the case of quantum physics alters the very thing that you are trying to observe.

[QUOTE=Doriol;16171777]Everything we do changes the future.[/QUOTE] Wrong.

[QUOTE=Faren;16171852]Wrong.[/QUOTE] Elaborate. [quote]Edit: "What the Bleep" is terrible, some videos might contain some useful knowledge but the whole thing is new age crap. [/quote] So what, we should just stick to what we know and not explore anything else? Great idea.

[QUOTE=Doriol;16171864]Elaborate.[/QUOTE] If we do nothing, the future still occurs.

[QUOTE=Doriol;16171864]Elaborate.[/QUOTE] Uh oh. *steps back*

[QUOTE=gamefreekv2;16171872]If we do nothing, the future still occurs.[/QUOTE] Doing nothing is still doing something.

[QUOTE=Doriol;16171880]Doing nothing is still doing something.[/QUOTE] Impossible.

[QUOTE=gamefreekv2;16171886]Impossible.[/QUOTE] Please explain. Giving one word answers does not help anyone.

[QUOTE=Doriol;16171918]Please explain. Giving one word answers does not help anyone.[/QUOTE] Doing nothing is doing nothing. Nothing is the absence of something, do doing nothing cannot be doing something. Which includes existing.

[QUOTE=gamefreekv2;16171886]Impossible.[/QUOTE] Quite possible. Look at me, sitting at my desk, doing "nothing". I'm here, doing something: Sitting at my desk.

[QUOTE=gamefreekv2;16171927]Doing nothing is doing nothing. Nothing is the absence of something, do doing nothing cannot be doing something. Which includes existing.[/QUOTE] We may be doing nothing or even not existing, but something else might.

[QUOTE=Av3njd;16171786]Garry posted this video on his blog, it's one good example: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc[/media][/QUOTE] I thought this was proven to be a massive load of shit?

[QUOTE=Pj The Dj;16171978]I thought this was proven to be a massive load of shit?[/QUOTE] What are your sources?

[QUOTE=Doriol;16172000]What are your sources?[/QUOTE] There was all sorts of stuff on it when garry first posted. Something about the method you have to use to check the particle, or whatever, interferes, not simply because it was ~oooh scary BEING WATCHED.

It does seem like a load of shit, though.

That's what I was skeptical about. How do they know that whatever they used to observe the electrons wasn't interfering or interacting with them in any way?

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzhlfbWBuQ8[/media] Here is a lecture on quantum mechanics. I guess those who are interested will check it out.

I plan to major in quantum physics(When i'm caught up in math lol) iI cant wait actually.

[QUOTE=Doriol;16172109]That's what I was skeptical about. How do they know that whatever they used to observe the electrons wasn't interfering or interacting with them in any way?[/QUOTE] The whole quantum theory was not based on this experiment. Planck was searching for a solution to the UV-Catastrophy of heat emission. He solved it by modeling the absorbing and emitting atoms as harmonic oscillators. That would create a continued spectrum. Which didn't corelate with the experiments. Any methods of calculating the energy density of a closed room that allow a continued spectrum end up in and integral that equals infinity. Thus, there must be something wrong. Quantized energies of the oscillating electrons solved the problem. [editline]10:48AM[/editline] To the main point of the OP. Deterministic future and all. The funny thing is, quantum mechanics doesn't give you an answer. Our INTERPRETATION of certain experiments and observed parameters of matter, light and all the things around us ends up in quantum mechanics, yes. it yet has to be disproven that quantum mechanics is qrong. However, the "randomness" of the universe doesn't lie within the "probability" of quantum mechanic observables. It's just our way of describing it.

What is you point?

[QUOTE=Doriol;16171864]Elaborate. So what, we should just stick to what we know and not explore anything else? Great idea.[/QUOTE] The future can't be changed.