krischan
Europe Trade Moderator
Re: How do we know life is real? Is a Matrix theory possible?
The real world isn't about single atoms, however. For example, 235g of uranium 235 (a thumb-sized lump of metal) consists of about 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms and making statistics about such an incredible number of probabilities will lead to almost exact predictions about the number of atoms decaying per year, second or nanosecond.
In short, quantum physics is a lot about probabilities, not about exact predictions. In the real world, causality is an excellent approximation, but there are a few cases where quantum effects have a considerable effect on ourselves. Recommended reading/googling: Schrödinger's cat.
It's not that we just cannot measure two complementary attributes of something beyond a certain precision (like momentum and location... there are more pairs of complementary attributes) while both are actually precise. They really aren't more precise than that.
If something has a cause you can predict what will happen. However, you cannot predict exactly when e.g. a single radioactive atom will decay (e.g. when the tunnel effect will allow an alpha particle to leave the nucleus because of the uncertainty relation). You can only make a prediction about the probability. You don't know why an atom decayed at a particular time and not a bit earlier or later.could u expound on this or give examples ?
The real world isn't about single atoms, however. For example, 235g of uranium 235 (a thumb-sized lump of metal) consists of about 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms and making statistics about such an incredible number of probabilities will lead to almost exact predictions about the number of atoms decaying per year, second or nanosecond.
In short, quantum physics is a lot about probabilities, not about exact predictions. In the real world, causality is an excellent approximation, but there are a few cases where quantum effects have a considerable effect on ourselves. Recommended reading/googling: Schrödinger's cat.
It's not that we just cannot measure two complementary attributes of something beyond a certain precision (like momentum and location... there are more pairs of complementary attributes) while both are actually precise. They really aren't more precise than that.
I don't mean to brag or to cut off the discussion, but I studied physics, although I don't consider myself as an expert about the issue.i'm not a quantum physics mathematician or professor, and i am horrible at math, but i understand the concepts very well, so u can talk about advanced things, but leave the math out![]()