Quote:You have limited Pi to being concerned only with circles. How do you suppose planetary orbits work? Every planet's orbit in our solar system is always described as elliptical, not as a string of approximate straight lines... Consider that Phi is found in nature, and it is an irrational number.

Again: approximations. Mathematics is a useful tool to express scientific theories, but the perfect ideals of maths aren't found in nature. Same for Phi (and by the way, the mystique of Phi has been greatly exaggerated).

Quote:This of course, paved the way for key concepts to arise - wave-partial duality and quantum uncertainty, which ultimately lead to QM.

I wasn't asking about Young's experiment (which only proved that light is made of waves, by the way. Young had obviously no idea about the implications of his experiment). Quantum Mechanics was first proposed because of discrepancies in the explanation for the radiation at high temperatures (the so-called ultraviolet catastrophe).

What I wanted to point out is that QM was discovered "backwards" from the lwas of classic mechanics. If there is a further level, we'll find out about it by working "backwards" from the laws of QM.

(November 7, 2012 at 9:16 am)Hitch96 Wrote: Hello, freethinkers

I am an atheist/agnostic and a teen. The reason I became this way was due to the fact that my church youth group went to the creation museum in Kentucky in March of 2012. While there, I discovered many contradictions between what was confirmed there and what I thought was true or not. (I was unsure about evolution). There, they taught that EVERYTHING in the Bible was true.

Before I became non-religious, I believed that the bible was true. I was homophobic. I was in favor of intelligent design. I believed that Jesus saved. But I was unsure about evolution. I mean, if the bible is god's word, everything he says is true, and doesn't mention evolution, why is it accepted by so many religious people?! It's only a theory right?

...so I thought...

In Kentucky we stayed overnight at a church. I was up all night on my iPod Touch looking up YouTube videos about creation, science, evolution, etc...

By the way, questioning evolution wasn't my only concern at that point. I was also intrigued at the fact that such brilliant atheists could be so influential to me and discard God. At the time I admired Stephen Fry, Jeremy Clarkson(I'm a TG fan), and Isaac Asimov.

Back to watching videos on YT...
...I was very intrigued at how brilliant atheists such as Fry, Hitchens, and Dawkins delivered their opinions on science and religion in those videos. Anti religious information was agreeing with me - What if Christianity is a lie? Have I been following bullshit for 15 years?

...and here I am today - a 16 year old agnostic/atheist.

(The reason I'm an AGNOSTIC atheist is because I don't fully understand how we could've gotten here by chance. Of course the universe is big enough for that to happen, but then again, I'm only a 16 year old - not Christopher Hitchens.

Btw, I'm not having quite an easy time living in my household. All my family members are fundamental Christians, homophobic, doubt evolution, creationists, and are in favor of that tool, Romney.

First off, welcome. Secondly, you do not need to be Christiopher Hitchens to know that the gap of what humans currently are trying to figure out, does not need to be filled with any fictional pretend invsible cognition.

Scientists currently do not know if the universe came from something or nothing. But they all agree, the credible ones, all agree that a cognition is not required as a starting point. The universe is a thing, not a who. It is like a giant weather pattern that is ongoing.

But in all seriousness, when I read stories like this, it brings tears of joy to my eyes knowing where atheists were as a voice in 01, and how much we continue to gorw as a voice now.

Your ahead of your peers being a teen and having read Christopher Hitchens, Once again, welcome.

(November 14, 2012 at 7:31 am)Kirbmarc Wrote: I wasn't asking about Young's experiment

That's OK I forgive you.

Quote:Young had obviously no idea about the implications of his experiment).

You mean, the implication of Quantum Mechanics being developed in light of his great brilliance?

Quote:Quantum Mechanics was first proposed because of discrepancies in the explanation for the radiation at high temperatures (the so-called ultraviolet catastrophe).

But didn't it help to know that partials have wave-like properties?

Quote:What I wanted to point out is that QM was discovered "backwards" from the lwas of classic mechanics. If there is a further level, we'll find out about it by working "backwards" from the laws of QM.

Not really, QM simply replaces classical mechanics, it isn't an underlying structure ontop of which classical mechanics operates.

(November 7, 2012 at 9:16 am)Hitch96 Wrote: Hello, freethinkers

I am an atheist/agnostic and a teen. The reason I became this way was due to the fact that my church youth group went to the creation museum in Kentucky in March of 2012. While there, I discovered many contradictions between what was confirmed there and what I thought was true or not. (I was unsure about evolution). There, they taught that EVERYTHING in the Bible was true.

Before I became non-religious, I believed that the bible was true. I was homophobic. I was in favor of intelligent design. I believed that Jesus saved. But I was unsure about evolution. I mean, if the bible is god's word, everything he says is true, and doesn't mention evolution, why is it accepted by so many religious people?! It's only a theory right?

...so I thought...

In Kentucky we stayed overnight at a church. I was up all night on my iPod Touch looking up YouTube videos about creation, science, evolution, etc...

By the way, questioning evolution wasn't my only concern at that point. I was also intrigued at the fact that such brilliant atheists could be so influential to me and discard God. At the time I admired Stephen Fry, Jeremy Clarkson(I'm a TG fan), and Isaac Asimov.

Back to watching videos on YT...
...I was very intrigued at how brilliant atheists such as Fry, Hitchens, and Dawkins delivered their opinions on science and religion in those videos. Anti religious information was agreeing with me - What if Christianity is a lie? Have I been following bullshit for 15 years?

...and here I am today - a 16 year old agnostic/atheist.

(The reason I'm an AGNOSTIC atheist is because I don't fully understand how we could've gotten here by chance. Of course the universe is big enough for that to happen, but then again, I'm only a 16 year old - not Christopher Hitchens.

Btw, I'm not having quite an easy time living in my household. All my family members are fundamental Christians, homophobic, doubt evolution, creationists, and are in favor of that tool, Romney.

Thank you so much for posting this. It hit me so hard thinking about my own journy away from superstition. And it is a constant reminder that one voice DOES make a difference. I am proud of you also in knowing that Reading Hitchens puts you far ahead of your peers. You are a much needed boost to motivate all of us to keep pushing forward. Your post brought me to tears litterally. I cannot thank you enough for confirming that every atheist voice is worth the effort.

Your post inspired me so much I wrote a poem. Click on the link in my signature and go to the last page. It is called "Kentucky Tears" By Brian37

(November 14, 2012 at 9:07 am)Daniel Wrote: Not really, QM simply replaces classical mechanics, it isn't an underlying structure ontop of which classical mechanics operates.

I bristled a bit when I first read this. I think it's your use of the word 'replaces'. CM has incredible predictive capability and is what's used for mass resulting in very small de Broglie wavelengths (objects with mass greater than an electron and certainly anything as massive as a molecule).

What I think you were trying to get at was that QM is considered fundamental; whereas, CM is simply a powerful approximation for predicting the location and velocity of relatively large objects (think molecule and above here). Conceivably, QM mathematical formalism could be used to 'replace' CM; however, we quickly run into the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Not only would our data be imprecise, but the volume of data would be so unwieldy that it becomes impractical. This may come off as snarky, but CM was used to put rovers on Mars, not QM.

In addition, the entire effort to find a Grand Unified Theory (think String and M theories) is because QM has not 'replaced' CM (Stimbo recently created a thread regarding the continued elusiveness of experimental validation of String Theory).

(November 14, 2012 at 1:18 pm)cato123 Wrote: I bristled a bit when I first read this. I think it's your use of the word 'replaces'. CM has incredible predictive capability and is what's used for mass resulting in very small de Broglie wavelengths (objects with mass greater than an electron and certainly anything as massive as a molecule).

You can use Newton's laws to fly spacecrafts all the way to the moon – in fact that's exactly what NASA did when they landed people on the moon. It's a "powerful approximation"... that doesn't make it correct though.

Quote:You can use Newton's laws to fly spacecrafts all the way to the moon – in fact that's exactly what NASA did when they landed people on the moon. It's a "powerful approximation"... that doesn't make it correct though

Science is made of a series of progressively more powerful approximations.

Yeah, exaggerated a bit on the '...not Hitchens' part. :p

(November 15, 2012 at 8:52 am)Daniel Wrote: You can use Newton's laws to fly spacecrafts all the way to the moon – in fact that's exactly what NASA did when they landed people on the moon. It's a "powerful approximation"... that doesn't make it correct though.

I made the case for you that QM is fundamental and that CM is a powerful approximation. All you then add is that CM is not correct. You're going to have to explain what you mean by CM isn't correct in light of the recent event where scientists used it to park a mini-van sized piece of equipment in an exact location on a moving and rotating body tens of millions of miles away. Seems correct to me.

Again, QM has not replaced CM as you assert.

General relativity would have been the more precise choice, not QM. Plus, do NASA really know how to land their space probes? 50% of Mars probes have failed to successfully reach their destination... I'd call that a pretty big failure rate, especially when you consider the cost involved in sending probes to mars.