The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Science & Alternative Science => Topic started by: Saddam Hussein on February 18, 2014, 01:19:40 AM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Vx9qoLzFs
Discuss.
-
Hmm. I didn't know that Einstein didn't like the uncertainty principle.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Vx9qoLzFs
Discuss.
For you, what does the thread title have to do with the video you posted?
-
Hmm. I didn't know that Einstein didn't like the uncertainty principle.
Supposedly, Niels Bohr got so sick of Einstein's "God does not play dice with the universe" rant that he said "Einstein, stop telling God what to do with his dice".
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Vx9qoLzFs
Discuss.
For you, what does the thread title have to do with the video you posted?
The video provides arguments that science is not as reliable as we claim it to be. I recommend that everyone watch it in its entirety. It is very mature and intelligent.
-
ITT: Classic sadaam
-
I hate his voice.
-
I hate his voice.
Sounds heavily modulated, almost computer generated.
-
It sounds like he is getting lightly choked.
-
He runs his voice through some software to capture the irritating chipmunk sound. Why he would do something like that, I'm not sure.
-
He runs his voice through some software to capture the irritating chipmunk sound. Why he would do something like that, I'm not sure.
Man, I am good. I should be like a sound engineer or something.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Vx9qoLzFs
Discuss.
For you, what does the thread title have to do with the video you posted?
The video provides arguments that science is not as reliable as we claim it to be. I recommend that everyone watch it in its entirety. It is very mature and intelligent.
Weird cause I could have sworn that it talks about the role of faith in science, and says that science is the future of mankind.
-
Hmm. I didn't know that Einstein didn't like the uncertainty principle.
Supposedly, Niels Bohr got so sick of Einstein's "God does not play dice with the universe" rant that he said "Einstein, stop telling God what to do with his dice".
I'm not a huge fan of the uncertainty principal. I recognize its existence and value but I believe (faith!) that it can be overcome. We just haven't developed the math required to do so.
-
It sounds like he is getting lightly choked.
Mmm. ;)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Vx9qoLzFs
Discuss.
For you, what does the thread title have to do with the video you posted?
The video provides arguments that science is not as reliable as we claim it to be. I recommend that everyone watch it in its entirety. It is very mature and intelligent.
It's says science is as reliable as it can be because it's able to adapt. It does not say science is not as reliable as it claims to be. The scientific method ensures that's not the case.
The video also uses two different definitions of faith.
Having faith that something is probable through evidence.
vs
Having faith that something is true
They are both different concepts. One I would say is informed (because of the scientific method) the other I would say is blind.
-
Hmm. I didn't know that Einstein didn't like the uncertainty principle.
Supposedly, Niels Bohr got so sick of Einstein's "God does not play dice with the universe" rant that he said "Einstein, stop telling God what to do with his dice".
I'm not a huge fan of the uncertainty principal. I recognize its existence and value but I believe (faith!) that it can be overcome. We just haven't developed the math required to do so.
It can't. When you talk about velocity and position, you're talking about two mutually exclusive things. It makes the most sense when you think of subatomic particles as waves, although that isn't entirely accurate. Think of a slinky. When you talk about position, you're talking about the position of individual particles in the slinky. They aren't moving except for up and down. But when you talk about velocity, you're talking about the wave itself, which is an impulse. So in order to figure out the velocity to any exactness you have to completely abandon the very idea of position, and vice versa.
-
Hmm. I didn't know that Einstein didn't like the uncertainty principle.
Supposedly, Niels Bohr got so sick of Einstein's "God does not play dice with the universe" rant that he said "Einstein, stop telling God what to do with his dice".
I'm not a huge fan of the uncertainty principal. I recognize its existence and value but I believe (faith!) that it can be overcome. We just haven't developed the math required to do so.
It can't. When you talk about velocity and position, you're talking about two mutually exclusive things. It makes the most sense when you think of subatomic particles as waves, although that isn't entirely accurate. Think of a slinky. When you talk about position, you're talking about the position of individual particles in the slinky. They aren't moving except for up and down. But when you talk about velocity, you're talking about the wave itself, which is an impulse. So in order to figure out the velocity to any exactness you have to completely abandon the very idea of position, and vice versa.
If they're mutually exclusive, why not just measure both simultaneously?
-
There are probably issues regarding simultaneity since subatomic particles tend to travel quite fast. I imagine there are also issues confirming you have made both measurements on the same particle. That being said I want to find a definitive answer to your question.
-
Hmm. I didn't know that Einstein didn't like the uncertainty principle.
Supposedly, Niels Bohr got so sick of Einstein's "God does not play dice with the universe" rant that he said "Einstein, stop telling God what to do with his dice".
I'm not a huge fan of the uncertainty principal. I recognize its existence and value but I believe (faith!) that it can be overcome. We just haven't developed the math required to do so.
It can't. When you talk about velocity and position, you're talking about two mutually exclusive things. It makes the most sense when you think of subatomic particles as waves, although that isn't entirely accurate. Think of a slinky. When you talk about position, you're talking about the position of individual particles in the slinky. They aren't moving except for up and down. But when you talk about velocity, you're talking about the wave itself, which is an impulse. So in order to figure out the velocity to any exactness you have to completely abandon the very idea of position, and vice versa.
If they're mutually exclusive, why not just measure both simultaneously?
Because subatomic particles aren't that nice. This part I'm not pretending to understand, but you can't just do a bunch of separate measurements on a single subatomic particle. And again, this is a basic tenant of quantum mechanics. We're not gonna technology our way around it.
-
If they're mutually exclusive, why not just measure both simultaneously?
The uncertainty principle has nothing to do with our math or our measurements. i.e. we can't simply invent a better way to observe an electron.
They're not mutually exclusive, you can know approximately how fast and where a particle is. The more accurate your estimation of velocity, the less accurate your estimation of location and vice-versa.
-
I'll take your word for it though I'm still not 100% convinced. But without a background in quantum mechanics I have little choice.
Ah well. Who needs to know the exact position of a gluon anyway?
-
If they're mutually exclusive, why not just measure both simultaneously?
The uncertainty principle has nothing to do with our math or our measurements. i.e. we can't simply invent a better way to observe an electron.
They're not mutually exclusive, you can know approximately how fast and where a particle is. The more accurate your estimation of velocity, the less accurate your estimation of location and vice-versa.
The uncertainty principle is not due to insufficient technological capacity, but is a fundamental part of quantum systems. http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-uncertainty-not-all-in-the-measurement-1.11394
-
The uncertainty principle is not due to insufficient technological capacity, but is a fundamental part of quantum systems. http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-uncertainty-not-all-in-the-measurement-1.11394
Was there reason for rehashing everything I just said?
-
The uncertainty principle is not due to insufficient technological capacity, but is a fundamental part of quantum systems. http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-uncertainty-not-all-in-the-measurement-1.11394
Was there reason for rehashing everything I just said?
Yes. I thought you said the exact opposite of what you said. That is what I get for late night posting.
-
Wow, this video touched on way too many topics. Is Science reliable? Yes, it's the best method for exploring and explaining our Universe. But it's also fallible, and everything they said about faith in science is also true. It's not surprising that 'le internet atheists' don't really grasp what science is, instead following it as if it were a religion.
That said, I don't think religion brings much of value at all. There is very little a religion can contribute to science in the modern world.