Would it be similar to quantum physics in how we are viewing an atom. Would be still consider planets orbiting around the earth as planetary orbitals or would be take the uncertainty principle into account. If we zoom into an atom and were say the same size as an atom, would the quantum physics problems still arise. 

Hello Achilles !!!...

I had a "similar" thought ... about the question if our Univerce ... is someones else ... "atomic particle" !!! (???)

I believe that our knoledge of the UNIVERCE is still very little !!!... to make conclusions like that !!!...

They are so many thinks that we don't know !!!...

So ... I cannot answer to your Question at any way !!!

Koni1963

 

5 hours ago, Achilles said:

Would it be similar to quantum physics in how we are viewing an atom. Would be still consider planets orbiting around the earth as planetary orbitals or would be take the uncertainty principle into account. If we zoom into an atom and were say the same size as an atom, would the quantum physics problems still arise. 

It would not be the same - what one would see is a very tiny (relative to the observer), but purely classical system. In other words, quantum effects are not just an artefact of observation scale.

Also, there are no “problems” in quantum physics - it’s just different from the classical world at larger scales.

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

It would not be the same - what one would see is a very tiny (relative to the observer), but purely classical system. In other words, quantum effects are not just an artefact of observation scale.

What if our instrumentation was only equipped to see things on a (say) solar system level  would that make any difference to our appreciation of  physical conditions on (say) the Earth?

 

If our level of  distinguishing processes in systems  directly  came to a   stop at a level around that of the size of ,say the solar system  would there be any similarities at all to the way we appreciate quantum effects ? (some similarities but  more differences,perhaps?)

Edited August 24, 20187 yr by geordief

20 hours ago, geordief said:

What if our instrumentation was only equipped to see things on a (say) solar system level  would that make any difference to our appreciation of  physical conditions on (say) the Earth?

Not really, except of course that it would make conditions on Earth largely unobservable. We would have to rely on indirect evidence (such as spectral analysis of light etc) - which is precisely what we are now doing in the case of all those many exoplanets we have found around other stars.

20 hours ago, geordief said:

If our level of  distinguishing processes in systems  directly  came to a   stop at a level around that of the size of ,say the solar system  would there be any similarities at all to the way we appreciate quantum effects ? (some similarities but  more differences,perhaps?)

No. What would change is only our observation methods (see example of exoplanets), but there would be no doubt that what we observe is a purely classical system. Quantum effects are intrinsic to the nature of quantum objects, not just an observational artefact.

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

Not really, except of course that it would make conditions on Earth largely unobservable. We would have to rely on indirect evidence (such as spectral analysis of light etc) - which is precisely what we are now doing in the case of all those many exoplanets we have found around other stars.

No. What would change is only our observation methods (see example of exoplanets), but there would be no doubt that what we observe is a purely classical system. Quantum effects are intrinsic to the nature of quantum objects, not just an observational artefact.

So ,if quantum effects are not scale related , is there  an argument that we are possibly looking at something that is really fundamental in its own right  (we won't have anything physically deeper  in that area just the odd  i to dot and the t to cross) ? No more turtles just integration of a  fundamental understanding to different areas?

 

With quantum effects we have gone down the rabbit hole and come the the end of the tunnel 

4 hours ago, geordief said:

So ,if quantum effects are not scale related , is there  an argument that we are possibly looking at something that is really fundamental in its own right  (we won't have anything physically deeper  in that area just the odd  i to dot and the t to cross) ? No more turtles just integration of a  fundamental understanding to different areas?

 

With quantum effects we have gone down the rabbit hole and come the the end of the tunnel 

That is the current understanding. There is currently no evidence of anything “below” this. There are some purely theoretical ideas where quantum effects emerge from some lower level model. But that’s all they are: ideas.  

21 hours ago, geordief said:

So ,if quantum effects are not scale related

Just to clarify my earlier comment a bit more - they are scale related in the sense that you won’t see quantum effects on large (i.e. macroscopic) scales. If you have a single quantum object, then quantum effects are always apparent, but if you have a very large ensemble of quantum objects (like a mascroscopic body), then the statistical average of that ensemble’s dynamics becomes classical. In other words - it’s actually classicality that is an emergent, scale-dependent phenomenon, whereas ‘quantumness’ is a fundamental property of the universe.

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Just to clarify my earlier comment a bit more - they are scale related in the sense that you won’t see quantum effects on large (i.e. macroscopic) scales. If you have a single quantum object, then quantum effects are always apparent, but if you have a very large ensemble of quantum objects (like a mascroscopic body), then the statistical average of that ensemble’s dynamics becomes classical. In other words - it’s actually classicality that is an emergent, scale-dependent phenomenon, whereas ‘quantumness’ is a fundamental property of the universe.

Would  you say that classicality is fundamentally  statistical   but this is hidden in the numbers -or is there more to it than that?

1 hour ago, geordief said:

x2 post

 

Edited August 26, 20187 yr by geordief

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Would  you say that classicality is fundamentally  statistical

That’s a good question. I would tend to answer yes to this.