Posted on 02/28/2015 8:40:57 AM PST by Heartlander
It is not "made" of either of those things. You are confusing two highly useful conceptual models of a thing with the thing itself. Matter is neither particle nor waves, and if you look at the axioms of quantum mechanics [For just one example (which is typical): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_quantum_mechanics#Postulates_of_quantum_mechanics] You will not find any reference to particles, waves, wavefunctions, or duality. These are high school concepts, which are useful ... and wrong.
Can we actually determine the outcome of an experiment by simply observing it?
In one word: yes.
Quantum mechanics does not make the results of experiments indeterminate. At. All. It makes some outcomes probabilistic under some experimental conditions, which is not the same thing.
Is it really true that we cannot know the speed of a particle and its position.
Speed is a classical notion, so the answer to your question is: Yes. We can know the speed of a particle and its position.
In quantum mechanics, we have an operator for momentum, but not speed. There is NO observable corresponding to "speed." We have an operator for position. Conjugate momentum and position operators don't commute, so there is a lower bound on their simultaneous precision, which is ℏ/2. This is a well know result, mathematically provable for anyone who's taken his first course in quantum mechanics. There's nothing mysterious or weird about it.
Or best of all, can we actually walk through walls (tunneling).
No. You can't.
The probability of an object with kinetic energy T tunneling through a potential energy barrier of energy V with width L is e-2L√(2m(V-T))/ℏ For typical walking speeds and even very weak walls only a few centimeters thick, this probability is ≈ e-1033. So start walking into walls now, and you will be doing that for something on the order of 10 quadrillion times the lifetime of the universe without winding up on the other side even once.
Is it really true that time slows down and I gain mass when I travel faster?
Not for you it isn't. Neither your proper time nor your mass appear to change. Observers in some reference frames see your clock running slow and an increase in your relativistic energy. Most physicists really don't talk about "mass increasing" any more, because that idea is not really very conceptually useful. They would agree that if you're moving relative to them, your energy appears to be greater.
And actually we don't define a particle as a physical entity but a probability distribution function. A mathematical equation of probably of where a particle might be.
Again, you are confusing a model with the thing itself. A particle is not a probability distribution. There is a probability of measuring certain attributes of a particle based on its state vector. But the particle itself is NOT the state vector, that is simply a thing which describes the particle, and describes how certain operators -- called observables -- will act when we do measurements.
And some of the theories describing matter these days are pretty bizarre.
The theories are only "bizarre" if you're of the very arrogant opinion that the same rules applied to things 15 or 16 orders of magnitude smaller than your ordinary experience or 20 or so orders of magnitude larger than your ordinary experience will produce the kinds of outcomes you're familiar with. But the same laws govern your ordinary experience as govern those very large, or very small, or very quick, or very slow events. And there is nothing strange -- even in your everyday experience -- about those laws.
This statement is certifiably untrue. The Bible describes events which supposedly happened in our world at specific times. They either happened, or they didn't. That's not a "secular point of view" unless by "secular" you mean "reality based." That is not a position you want to try to defend. And in fact, I'm not aware of any Apologist who ever has.
If the Hebrews claim to have wandered around in the desert for forty years but left no trace of their passing found by archaeologists, we have an obligation to regard their claim as untrue unless we can determine some reason why all trace of them would disappear from a particular period in history. That's not a matter of faith.
Phlogisten doesn't exist. But for many years there was a belief in its existence because there was a manifestation [fire] that could be attributed to it. Unless you embrace a "reverse God of the Gaps", there isn't any logical content to the statement until we have discovered everything there is to discover, and find no evidence of God in the process.
The second statement means nothing because it assumes the existence of a thing in order to affirm the existence of everything else. But we already know other things exist. We don't know that God exists. That is a matter of faith.
So if their religion involves cutting off your fingers you’re okay with that, right?
I wrote if he can create the universe. It’s syllogistic logic—the argument is not in the premise but in its conclusion.
I was responding to the poster’s comment that events in the Bible are “impossible on their face.” And the point is they’re only impossible if we first accept the premise that God doesn’t exist. So the comment is wrong because it’s circular reasoning.
Neither statement assumes anything—note they start with “if.”
Both are self evident truths.
By secularism I mean operating on the premise that God doesn’t exist.
Think of it this way: the Bible is either logically coherent or not. But it is impossible to demonstrate logical incoherence by using extrinsic arguments.
In the case of the Bible, an extrinsic argument is one which operates on the premise that God doesn’t exist. It is circular reasoning and therefore invalid.
And absolutely yes, each theory was a stepping stone all the way back to the Greeks and the first definition of an atom, or Newton, or Faraday, Maxwell, Plank, Einstein, etc. etc.
As for thermodynamics and Physics and atom smashing and conservation of energy and matter:
The process is thus:
Fire a high speed particle, a proton?, with a relativistic mass and velocity at an atom and compute the starting energy. After impact, count up the resulting particles, their speeds, charges, etc. and compute energy and add them together.
THE ENERGY BEFORE BETTER MATCH THE ENERGY/MATTER AFTER. Sounds familiar. Matter is not destroyed?
This is not unlike when physicists of Einsteins time were trying to explain missing mass during a fission experiment. Einstein proposed that the matter was transformed into energy. It was destroyed but transformed.
Confusing models? Make up your mind. And yes, matter behaves both ways and the same thing for EM waves — photons.
My point here is just a little more than 100 years ago, we humans thought that we had the universe pegged. We had figured it all out and there was nothing more. Fast forward to modern times and is clear that what we perceive with our senses is VERY MISLEADING.
I suspect that in another 100 years, “the real” world will be even more abstract. And we should learn from the past,and admit that we are naive and foolish and don’t know everything about everything AND WE PROBABLY NEVER WILL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.