Jonesy

Well, your comment just illustrates what hinders progress on Earth. Electrons DO have definite values of position - we are just too stupid on Earth at the moment to predict these and use this info to our advantage. We just 'think' there are no predictable states of electrons positions because we CANNOT PREDICT THEM at the moment. It so very obvious and simple; and Heisenberg knew this and I guess did ok to find a way around it so that SOME progress could be made. But in the end, the only uncertainty that will remain is human-invented, because everything follows cause and effect rules, even if we don't see these.

elwoodblues

Damn, beat me to it. I've run into that, too, though I can't remember where.

If something is proven possible in principle, it will be done; the only question is when. If something is proven impossible in principle, it'll just take a little longer.

Paraphrased from someone, can't remember who.

elwoodblues

From what I know about quantum mechanics (admittedly not a whole lot), this doesn't seem right. There are incredibly weird effects that occur because of this non-localization effect; explaining them by some other means would be impressive.

Certainly we don't know the whole story about quantum science right now. But what we're looking at almost certainly does map onto some currently un-discovered or mis-understood forces between the Planck scale and the molecular/macro-atomic level. It's not just that we can't pin them down; there are effects that really indicate they're actually, really, truly non-localized. You can't say otherwise and understand the simple double-slit experiment.

WJ

Jonesy,

Perhaps the/your question can be asked in a similar way: if our understanding of these laws are in fact a coincidence, it still beggs the question, why us(?)

beausoleil

Oh my, I've never been a member of the science censorship council before.
My attitude is based on what I understand of Bell's theorem predictions and their confirmation by experiment - that these show that there are no local hidden variables.

What is it about random capitalisation that is such a wind up? It reads as if you're talking to some senile old grandperson who's having difficulty following your stunningly simple logic. In fact, I understood you fine first time round. All I'm doing is pointing out that your comment seems to contradict the results of experiments - if you have other evidence to support your point I'm prepared to change my mind, but shouting (metaphorically) occasional words won't do the job.

beausoleil

It's been bugging me all morning - I think I read it in some popular science book about nucleosynthesis called something like 'Cauldrons in the Cosmos', but the originator of the quote is eluding me.

Answerer

No, old deterministic laws of physics 'die off' quickly in the quantum level where everthing acts random. The hidden variable theory that you are talking about had longed been disproved experimentally. Like it or not, all matter do possess wave and particle behaviour both at the same time, so is it impossible just to interpret the particle behaviour of an particle exactly while ignoring its wave properties.

Jonesy

Yes, ok, FOR NOW, this is not possible. But the current 'understanding' and 'approach' as demonstrated in your answer, is similar to:

"If you insist that only crawling is possible, you may never learn to fly"

This means that one day (and I'm confident of this), quantum theory will be defeated precisely BECAUSE it explains reality by saying that it's random. Nothing is random IN ESSENCE. evereything follows cause and effect, including the particles and waves you talked about. We just cannot at the moment predict all these things accurately - meaning that quantum theory is, on the overall scale of what reality is, wrong. (although convenient for the time being). We use quantum theory because it works not because it's correct. Note that it's possible for something to work but not be the ACTUAL story.

beausoleil

There is no reason to expect macroscopic properties to apply at a quantum level.

Attributing specific but hidden values to a particle's velocity and position leads to predictions that can be tested.

The predicted behaviour is not observed.

Repeat after me 10x - there are no local hidden variables.

(I see the capitalisation is still malfiunctioning on your keyboard.)

Answerer

I suggested you go and have a look at Bell theorem and EPR paradox before you comment anything again. According to both, nature is discovered to be fundamentally contained non-locality(no definite position). In the other words, it means that 'there is no sky for you to fly, so don't dream of doing it'.
While a new 'language' (to replace classical view of particle and wave concepts) of physics must be found like maybe a string or loop, the current physics 'language' or conecpt has already been deemed as insufficient or vague. Like it or not, this is the way things are, other interpretations of quantum mechanics are mostly fanatasy models which almost could not be proved experimentally.