I guess all I can do is say that you are misrepresenting the current understanding of physics.
Quote:
|
The fact that the one photon was previously formed together with the rest of that element in the past
|
No. A photon is a conversion of potential energy in an atom into a wave/particle bit of free energy. The electron drops through a number of Quantized energy levels and converts that energy into a photon where the energy lost by the electron is proportional to the frequency of the photon. The "photon" didn't exist before it was emitted. And in any case, I wasn't talking about the existence of the photon. I was talking about the EVENT of it's emission from the atom. This EVENT is indeterminant per quantum theory. I was basing my action on the outcome of the EVENT. I was not basing my action on the photon.
There's a difference.
Quote:
|
The Totality can not be viewed in its entirety, in fact it can't be viewed at all.
|
Yet you imply that every event and object is the product of an infinite string of causality culminating in that exact moment. Wouldn't you say that a flower or a person or a snowflake or a speck of sand is an expression of the universe in its entirety (given your proposition of hard determinism)?
In any case, I think you're implying that there are some other events that can't be described by electro-weak, strong nuclear, and gravitational forces. I think these forces offer a fairly clean basis set that gives us a universal understanding of what's going on in the universe
Are you indicating that there are phenomena that can't be described by these formulations? If so, what are they? If not, why do you think that our measurements are subjective in light of the fact that we have a grasp of such tools?
Quote:
|
the real motivation for this behavior is that their institutions and continued research rely on the special interest dictated government money that is given to them for the specific purpose of proving the man made global warming theory true. To this day they have done nothing of the sort.
|
Which special interest government money would this be? Do you know anything about the NSF and NIH funding committees? They are NOT political appointees. They are practicing and respected members of the scientific community and I know several of them.
My PhD adviser has spoken before congress about the value of pure research. It leads us into fields that we wouldn't otherwise explore and connects us to solutions that nature has found to problems that we wouldn't have otherwise discovered.
What is it, SPECIFICALLY, about the data presented by the scientific community on climate change that you don't agree with? Why do you think these scientists allegedly fabricated this stance. Do you not think it's an odd correlation that climate change follows the industrial revolution and dramatic outpouring of carbon into the atmosphere? Do you honestly think that we don't have a waste/energy problem in the world?
Quote:
|
And like I said, all of this quantum measurement is done at the sub atomic, i.e quantum level, hence the label Quantum Mechanics.
|
First off, sub-atomic is not synonymous with "Quantum"... Quantum refers to quantized states available to subatomic particles due to their wave/particle duality and how they become bound in atoms. It describes quantized energy states available to all subatomic particles.
Second off, all measurements, including your senses, are quantum processes in your opinion then. There can be NO questions asked that aren't answered via measurements using quantum processes. Your eyes, for example, convert photons into membrane potentials using quantum processes (absorption of photons). Anywhere you have sound/taste/smell signals transduced, you're having molecules respond to these metrics and the molecular behavior is governed by quantum phenomena.
Measurement of spectra of various materials (i.e. crystals or stars) is done with CCD cameras or other photo-detectors which are macroscopic devices which take advantage of quantum mechanical properties of matter.
Your definition of quantum here as synonymous with "Subatomic" is probably the source of your misunderstanding of quantum physics.
Quote:
|
What this shows is that people are taking quantum mechanics and trying to apply it on a universal level which will always lead to illogical conclusions such as an object being two different objects simultaneously. Like I said earlier, just because we can't currently observe a billiard ball type chain reaction going on doesn't mean there aren't causes, such as the examples I provided. Quantum theory ought to remain in it's particular scientific niche otherwise it begins to lose its meaning.
|
Again...
Bell's theorem effectively deconstructs hidden variable theory.
"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."
I recommend reading the article. Quantum Theory is a collection of observed phenomena. Your hard determinism theory just plain doesn't hold water!
Quote:
|
A, which can be substituted with any phenomena will always equal A in any scenario based on what the observer is currently witnessing. It is a logical impossibility for it to be otherwise. Although if you think you have a legitimate example I'd love to hear it. FYI Shroedinger's cat is not a legitimate example. As I've already logically proved it isn't the result of a logical proof demonstrated through quantum mechanics, but a result of quantum mechanics being streched beyond its limits into areas where it can only produce illogical and incoherent conclusions.
|
Ok.. What is an electron in the 1s orbital of a monatomic hydrogen atom? I'll give you the answer to speed things up. It is a cloud of probability in a sphere around the atom describe by a neat little basis set of functions which I think are called airey functions (if I remember correctly). It is in energy state with quantum number 1.
So A is a probability distribution function and has no determinant meaning at any given point. Again, you're using logical axioms that are based on macroscopic observation versus the counterintuitive things going on at the subatomic level.
But the macroscopic world is a grand collection of atomic particles. A single penny, for example, has a random chance (for the purpose of this discussion, assume truly random) of heads or tails. But a billion pennies flipped a billion times will produce almost exactly 50/50 results. It will not be 55/45 or 75/25 or any other combination. It will be extremely sharply defined at 50/50. That's what is called "Mass Action." It's the basis for the function of our bodies and most processes that involve macroscopic object interactions.
But in the end, quantum phenomena DO underly it all. Just because we can take shortcuts due to the ensemble behavior of 10^23 particles or more doesn't mean that quantum mechanics isn't responsible for all behaviors of systems.
Quote:
|
So how did you achieve absolute certainty that these axioms can never be proved absolutely true? Either we accept this axiom at face value and come to terms with fact that it is absolutely true, or we recognize that it is a walking contradiction and therefore meaningless which means it is absolutely false, in turn showing us the real Absolute Truth of the matter. Any way you slice it this logically proves the existence of Absolute Truth that can be understood by us through the use of logic.
|
Nope. Don't work that way either. I don't have absolute certainty that they can't be proven. I just know (through repeatable observation that you can participate in) that the uncertainty principle holds. The closer you try to get to absolute, the more something else (and equally fundamental) about your object of focus blurs.
Your little trick of semantics does little more than illustrate the limitations of the english language. I prefer mathematics as the language in which to verbalize the search for truth.
Furthermore, I don't see how the contradictory sound of "there are absolutely no absolutes" proves that there is absolute truth. What if someone says "it seems that there are no absolutes." ? Does that negate your "logical" conclusion that there are, in fact, absolute truths?