Jump to content

# quantum theory in a determinist world?!

## Recommended Posts

I question the future of Quantum Physics. The perplexity of quantum physics spreads into other fields. My field is social theory. I have taken the work of over twenty-two social and natural sciences to build a cause and effect theory of the natural selection process in social evolution. This work is objective and in conflict with much of the social theory concensus, such as it is. I see my approach as determinist.

I believe that the mystery of quantum physics has enabled a visible drift in social theory away from the strictly determistic approach. This leads me here because I have a theory about this in "The Last Civilization" and hope to get comments from some of you.

I have seen in social theory that if something is observed to be too complex to sort out or leads to "politically incorrect" conclusion, it is either subtly abandoned or excused in the same way, perhaps, quantum physics is accepted. That is, that the universe does not adhere to a strictly determinist ideal.

An example of social theory concluding such a problem as unsolvable and by inferrence, therefore possibly quantum in character, is the way social theorists abandoned the mid-last century quest to find out why and how civilzations rose and fell. They failed miserably, so the profession simply abandoned the word "civilization" (a word for which they had never agreed on a definition) and substituted the even less definable, omnibus word, "culture."

My centension is that the universe is determinist and that the problem of quantum physics is not a result of a quantum-chaotic universe but of physicists accepting such a view rather than admit they are presently stumped and that the problem will probably be solved by other (and better?) physicists perhaps generations later on.

Do you think I am wrong?

Edited by charles brough
##### Share on other sites

There are others that are better schooled than me in the quantum world - but my little learning (and coming from a social science academic background) - is that there is a central core of the quantum mechanical model of the universe that is probability based. There is fundamental lack of certainty that flows from the mathematics and the modelling - it isn't lack of accuracy , it is genuine uncertainty. This position is not arrived at from a lack of knowledge or a wanton disregard of a more complete understanding; but is the genuine culmination of theoretical and experimental research.

One thing I have come to learn is that scientist do not really seek to explain why things happen at the root level - they devise more and more accurate models that predict, describe and allow them to understand what does happen. Scientists, unlike most academics, thrive and delight in their lack of knowledge; in a universe that defies human comprehension their models and predictions are preternaturally accurate.

The two major streams of physics that transcend basic human intuition - einsteins relativity and the quantum world - have been tested to a staggering degree, and these models which are counter-intuitive and beyond easy comprehension just do not admit to any philosophical argument that has as an axiom the datum world as we human beings perceive it. It is a humbling thought that the entire sphere of human experience is a special case where universal equations are reduced to mundane classical limits.

##### Share on other sites

Unlike the mid-last cntury quest to find how and why civilizations rose and fell which failed miserably, quantum theories such as QED and QCD make unbelievably accurate real-world predictions even though the theory is probabilistic in nature.

Most people accept the theory as' that's the way nature behaves' and use it for very accurate science. Some however see some results ( double slit as an example ) that cannot be adequately explained and argue that there are 'hidden variables' that haven't been accounted for ( see Bohm and Bell along with deBroglie and even Einstein ).

##### Share on other sites

The two major streams of physics that transcend basic human intuition - einsteins relativity and the quantum world - have been tested to a staggering degree, and these models which are counter-intuitive and beyond easy comprehension just do not admit to any philosophical argument that has as an axiom the datum world as we human beings perceive it. It is a humbling thought that the entire sphere of human experience is a special case where universal equations are reduced to mundane classical limits.

Yes, I've looked at both Relativity and Quantum mechanics and agree it does not follow any cause-and effect process we understand. However, it seems presumptious to assume that state will continue to exist indefinitely. Our perception of the universe is not static.

##### Share on other sites

Yes, I've looked at both Relativity and Quantum mechanics and agree it does not follow any cause-and effect process we understand. However, it seems presumptious to assume that state will continue to exist indefinitely. Our perception of the universe is not static.

"However, it seems presumptious to assume that state will continue to exist indefinitely. " But not as presumptuous as to contend that the physical reality must conform to the innate sensibilities of an over-confident intelligent ape.

We will change our models and ideas when, and only when, the experimental results demand a change; not because the concepts do not mesh with normal human comprehension. There should be no dogmatism in science; no new science should be held back because the underpinnings are revolutionary, but neither should ideas be jettisoned because they clash with our instinctual reasoning or no longer fit within the Zeitgeist.

##### Share on other sites

I question the future of Quantum Physics. The perplexity of quantum physics spreads into other fields. My field is social theory. I have taken the work of over twenty-two social and natural sciences to build a cause and effect theory of the natural selection process in social evolution. This work is objective and in conflict with much of the social theory concensus, such as it is. I see my approach as determinist.

I believe that the mystery of quantum physics has enabled a visible drift in social theory away from the strictly determistic approach. This leads me here because I have a theory about this in "The Last Civilization" and hope to get comments from some of you.

I have seen in social theory that if something is observed to be too complex to sort out or leads to "politically incorrect" conclusion, it is either subtly abandoned or excused in the same way, perhaps, quantum physics is accepted. That is, that the universe does not adhere to a strictly determinist ideal.

An example of social theory concluding such a problem as unsolvable and by inferrence, therefore possibly quantum in character, is the way social theorists abandoned the mid-last century quest to find out why and how civilzations rose and fell. They failed miserably, so the profession simply abandoned the word "civilization" (a word for which they had never agreed on a definition) and substituted the even less definable, omnibus word, "culture."

My centension is that the universe is determinist and that the problem of quantum physics is not a result of a quantum-chaotic universe but of physicists accepting such a view rather than admit they are presently stumped and that the problem will probably be solved by other (and better?) physicists perhaps generations later on.

Do you think I am wrong?

I think your trying to say that the universe works so complexly that to us it "seems" random, but no, it's really just random. If you flip a coin, you could know the exact angular momentum and exactly how much energy every air molecule touches every atom of the coin with what energy at what angle (for air resistance) and say its going to be heads, and it there's still a chance it will be tails and it would eventually be tails after enough flips. This is what chaos is. Not only that, but if the universe has infinite fractal symmetry like a normal mathematical fractal anyway, then there is ALWAYS some lower or higher level which effects things on an infinite and therefore incalculable scale (which can also lead into that thing where all the most subatomic of particles are universes, and this universe is just the base particle of another universe and etc. I don't know how it works exactly, but its something like that). So there would always be some infinitesimal thing effect things at a larger scale, or something at an even larger scale effecting things at a large scale. I don't see how you can completely know anything for sure, even if the universe isn't as infinitely complex as that. We'd need computers even more powerful than what quantum computers are suppose to be in order to have a chance of calculating the motion of everything in the universe from the smallest scale, but then you still need to ask "well wait, why is it acting how it is on that scale?", and then if you find the answer, you still need to ask "well wait, what's causing things to do what it does on THAT scale?" The universe is just too infinite to be completely deterministic.

Edited by questionposter
##### Share on other sites

I think Albert Einstein would agree with charles brough. But I think most physicists today would say that uncertainty per quantum mechanics is inherent in nature itself. All the experimental evidence points this way. We may not like it or even understand it, but this is the way nature is.

Could some future theory go beyond quantum theory and explain the evidence we see differently, and show that quantum mechanics is incomplete and the universe is really deterministic? I'm no expert, but I doubt it.

##### Share on other sites

I understand Quantum theory like this, Schrodinger's cat is alive & dead at the same time (super-position)

In an advanced manner, if at time T, We have set of states S = { S1, .., Sn }, with P(Si) ~ [0,1]

Then the object is { T: P(Si) in state Si | for every Si $\in$ S }

Example: assume Schrodinger's cat have probability of 45% at time T of staying alive, then Schrodinger's cat is { T: 45% alive, 55% dead }

Edited by khaled

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

## Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

• #### Activity

• Leaderboard
×
• Create New...

## Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.