Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It doesn't explain to you how atoms stay stable sometimes, and sometimes decay? It doesn't explain to you how we take a rock and put it in water and make electricity? Or how stars twinkle? I think it does, if you check.It certainly explains nothing to me.
Seems like exactly the sort of question any decent, upstanding theory should easily be able to answer. But, alas no.The mysteries don’t end there. Atoms are known to be electrically neutral — the positive charge of the protons is cancelled out by the negative charge of the electrons — but as to why this is so, Lincoln says, “Nobody knows.”
Don't sweat it, Lincoln. A no brainer for those who understand the fundamental magnetic/dielectric coupling driving everything in nature, but.. you know,.. we've got spacetime and quantum mechanics instead. There's no crying in Large Hadron Collider!It may not explain anything to people who don't understand it. Which is most people. Don't feel sad about it.
What’s inconceivable to most people is that our contemporary physicists don’t understand how all these things work. They understand them well enough to replicate a technology, and they seem to be somewhat capable of DESCRIBING what is occurring with that technology, but as far as explaining the fundamentals go, they mostly (the humble ones) admit to being clueless along with the rest of the scientific industry.
Try again genius*as vomited on his quantum mechanical deviceQuantum mechanics explains nothing,
It may not explain anything to people who don't understand it. Which is most people. Don't feel sad about it.
Entanglement is amazing as there is literally not even a serious theory as to what causes it.Quantum mechanics explains nothing, all it raises is more questions that seem to undermine classical physicsQuantum Mechanics is a useful model that yields accurate descriptions and predictions. I don't know what you expect it to "explain", otherwise. So go ahead and search for an explanation, or make one up. But it needs to be consistent with the Standard Model , or it's wrong.So, backing up I find:Hmm, i am not totally clear on your meaning, but we actually have a pretty good mathematical understanding of chaos. That is the version of this word to which i was referring.Could it be that what we see as chaos is simply a process too complex for our intellects?
Then after I had mostly facetiously agreed:Believing humans are deterministic physical systems subject to the same laws as any other still does not mean all outcomes can be predicted, forever. Chaos plays a factor, as does quantum mechanics
Which I also can't help agreeing with, but as Fort Fun knows or should by now, aside from obviously getting the math right, I fundamentally disagree with any notion of "quantum mechanics" truly explaining anything. I think, or perhaps just hope we've established a sort of truce, agreeing not to continue arguing about that though. Neither one of us desiring to go there having gotten nowhere fast attempting to do so repeatedly in the past. And I accept that it's my problem, not his, since he's just sticking exceedingly well to the mainstream script while I'm being the weirdo. We tend to agree completely otherwise.We can't accurately predict all future choices, even if we knew the current state of every atom in the universe.
Anyways, ignoring mention of quantum mechanics just leaves "chaos" which is all you started out with. Beyond "complete disorder and confusion," Google's quick Oxford Languages definition strikes me as a nice, terse summary of our current usage vs our previous understanding:
The first expressing this modern sort of fearful, fatalistic, resignation to being permanently beyond our understanding or control
- PHYSICS
behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions.- the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.
. So unpredictable it "appears" random, but is it? We'll sure as hell never know.. That much is clear.. Far too complicated.. Oh well, I guess we best leave it to the egghead theoretical physics community to endlessly work it out at tremendous public expense with their differential equations, atom smasher data, and so forth.. Add in not even yet mentioning entropy, Heisenberg uncertainty, thermodynamics, virtual particles.. I mean, forget it man, game over! Game over!!
Meanwhile, the second simply says: It's obviously just the Aether, stupids. Very simple, uncomplicated, reassuring, comforting, makes perfect sense, effectively saying, Hey, yes ma'am, we can deal with this! Not a problem! Can't really have any of that now, can we? I mean, that almost sounds as simple as goddidit! No, it was good enough for the Greeks, Newton, Tesla, Maxwell, even Einstein for most of his life.. But no, we can no longer go there. Sorry!
It certainly explains nothing to me. Hell, from what I read, there are many serious minded scientist who can't even define what it is. But then, perhaps those are simply naysayers taking a shot.Quantum mechanics explains nothing, all it raises is more questions that seem to undermine classical physics.Quantum Mechanics is a useful model that yields accurate descriptions and predictions. I don't know what you expect it to "explain", otherwise. So go ahead and search for an explanation, or make one up. But it needs to be consistent with the Standard Model , or it's wrong.So, backing up I find:Hmm, i am not totally clear on your meaning, but we actually have a pretty good mathematical understanding of chaos. That is the version of this word to which i was referring.Could it be that what we see as chaos is simply a process too complex for our intellects?
Then after I had mostly facetiously agreed:Believing humans are deterministic physical systems subject to the same laws as any other still does not mean all outcomes can be predicted, forever. Chaos plays a factor, as does quantum mechanics
Which I also can't help agreeing with, but as Fort Fun knows or should by now, aside from obviously getting the math right, I fundamentally disagree with any notion of "quantum mechanics" truly explaining anything. I think, or perhaps just hope we've established a sort of truce, agreeing not to continue arguing about that though. Neither one of us desiring to go there having gotten nowhere fast attempting to do so repeatedly in the past. And I accept that it's my problem, not his, since he's just sticking exceedingly well to the mainstream script while I'm being the weirdo. We tend to agree completely otherwise.We can't accurately predict all future choices, even if we knew the current state of every atom in the universe.
Anyways, ignoring mention of quantum mechanics just leaves "chaos" which is all you started out with. Beyond "complete disorder and confusion," Google's quick Oxford Languages definition strikes me as a nice, terse summary of our current usage vs our previous understanding:
The first expressing this modern sort of fearful, fatalistic, resignation to being permanently beyond our understanding or control
- PHYSICS
behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions.- the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.
Meanwhile, the second simply says: It's obviously just the Aether, stupids. Very simple, uncomplicated, reassuring, comforting, makes perfect sense, effectively saying, Hey, yes ma'am, we can deal with this! Not a problem! Can't really have any of that now, can we? I mean, that almost sounds as simple as goddidit! No, it was good enough for the Greeks, Newton, Tesla, Maxwell, even Einstein for most of his life.. But no, we can no longer go there. Sorry!
I think Feynman worked hard and earned his early success, then mostly just drifted, satisfied to be a big name, pompous ass. By "nobody really understands quantum mechanics" he, of course, meant except him. His interview where he's simply asked why magnets repel and completely dodges the question is classic. Oh, he sure wants everyone to think he could answer, but damn, he just can't bring himself to do so without knowing tons more about the questioner and blaa, blaa, de blaa, big, distracting, shit eating grin:“I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics,” observed the physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman.
First, your truncated quote of what I wrote dilutes the balanced comment that I made when I wrote: "It certainly explains nothing to me. Hell, from what I read, there are many serious minded scientist who can't even define what it is. But then, perhaps those are simply naysayers taking a shot."It doesn't explain to you how atoms stay stable sometimes, and sometimes decay? It doesn't explain to you how we take a rock and put it in water and make electricity? Or how stars twinkle? I think it does, if you check.It certainly explains nothing to me.
This is confusing for me. What kind of "explanation" are you looking for, from a scientific model?
Are you familiar with the the Epicurean Riddle? I have seen it presented in different forms, all pointing to the same paradox which you raise.Things to ponder besides your belly button..If God created the universe, is earth the only planet in the trillions of planets in the millions of solar systems that He put life on?? If not, does that mean there other 'people' in other parts of the universe who are wondering if there is really a God?? Closer to home, why would a benevolent God create life than sit back and watch it get ravaged by incurable diseases??
Seems like exactly the sort of question any decent, upstanding theory should be able to answer
But i wasnt responding to that. I was responded to the statement i quoted. I am sure people know how to scroll up 3 comments.First, your truncated quote of what I wrote dilutes the balanced comment
You said it explains nothing to you. You don't have to say you "expect" an explanation for me to ask what explanation you expect, so it isn't a strawman. If the answer is "none", then say "none", instead of taking the discussion in circles.You assigned me the question of what explanation I expect, and here I am defending that strawman. I didn't ask for an explanation.
Or not.why would a benevolent God create life than sit back and watch it get ravaged by incurable diseases??
rationalcatholicism.com
Fine. Since you wish to argue with the Fermilab "particle physicist".. "Atoms are known to be electrically neutral — the positive charge of the protons is cancelled out by the negative charge of the electrons — but as to"Seems like exactly the sort of question any decent, upstanding theory should be able to answer
Theories don't answer "why". They answer "how".
I didn't contradict a word he said. So no idea where you are coming from, there.Fine. Since you wish to argue with the Fermilab "particle physicist".
GOD is absolute and entirely just and perfect in every way. GOD is LOVE. GOD treats everyone better than they deserve (certainly better than HE is treated). HE offers salvation to everyone who will request it. The issue is that if GOD had destroyed Adam and Eve, HE would be destroying us all as well -- since we are their decedents. So GOD out of LOVE for those HE knew would seek HIM out and be saved, HE had to allow some very arrogant people go to HELL, as they so choose for themselves. GOD is GOD because HE is better than we are. HE created us for his pleasure and satisfaction and not the other way around. People like Carl Sagan maybe in HELL this very moment, unless at some point in life they called out for salvation. We do not know what his childhood was like or moments before he died. He likely had at least some Christian friends. He certainly has no better excuse than anyone else. He didn't live under a rock ------- and neither do you. So, you may say anything you wish concerning GOD; however, you are only digging your own hole and pulling the dirt in on top of yourself.Are you familiar with the the Epicurean Riddle? I have seen it presented in different forms, all pointing to the same paradox which you raise.Things to ponder besides your belly button..If God created the universe, is earth the only planet in the trillions of planets in the millions of solar systems that He put life on?? If not, does that mean there other 'people' in other parts of the universe who are wondering if there is really a God?? Closer to home, why would a benevolent God create life than sit back and watch it get ravaged by incurable diseases??
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
If God loves us all, especially the innocent children, why do we have pediatric cancer wards? Nothing more depressing than to see a small beautiful child dying from lucyhemiaGOD is absolute and entirely just and perfect in every way. GOD is LOVE. GOD treats everyone better than they deserve (certainly better than HE is treated). HE offers salvation to everyone who will request it. The issue is that if GOD had destroyed Adam and Eve, HE would be destroying us all as well -- since we are their decedents. So GOD out of LOVE for those HE knew would seek HIM out and be saved, HE had to allow some very arrogant people go to HELL, as they so choose for themselves. GOD is GOD because HE is better than we are. HE created us for his pleasure and satisfaction and not the other way around. People like Carl Sagan maybe in HELL this very moment, unless at some point in life they called out for salvation. We do not know what his childhood was like or moments before he died. He likely had at least some Christian friends. He certainly has no better excuse than anyone else. He didn't live under a rock ------- and neither do you. So, you may say anything you wish concerning GOD; however, you are only digging your own hole and pulling the dirt in on top of yourself.Are you familiar with the the Epicurean Riddle? I have seen it presented in different forms, all pointing to the same paradox which you raise.Things to ponder besides your belly button..If God created the universe, is earth the only planet in the trillions of planets in the millions of solar systems that He put life on?? If not, does that mean there other 'people' in other parts of the universe who are wondering if there is really a God?? Closer to home, why would a benevolent God create life than sit back and watch it get ravaged by incurable diseases??
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
If God is a loving God and loves us all, especially innocent children, why do we have pediatric cancer wards? Nothing more depressing than to see a small beautiful child dying from leukemia. Why use innocent children to punish us, if that is what it is.GOD is absolute and entirely just and perfect in every way. GOD is LOVE. GOD treats everyone better than they deserve (certainly better than HE is treated). HE offers salvation to everyone who will request it. The issue is that if GOD had destroyed Adam and Eve, HE would be destroying us all as well -- since we are their decedents. So GOD out of LOVE for those HE knew would seek HIM out and be saved, HE had to allow some very arrogant people go to HELL, as they so choose for themselves. GOD is GOD because HE is better than we are. HE created us for his pleasure and satisfaction and not the other way around. People like Carl Sagan maybe in HELL this very moment, unless at some point in life they called out for salvation. We do not know what his childhood was like or moments before he died. He likely had at least some Christian friends. He certainly has no better excuse than anyone else. He didn't live under a rock ------- and neither do you. So, you may say anything you wish concerning GOD; however, you are only digging your own hole and pulling the dirt in on top of yourself.Are you familiar with the the Epicurean Riddle? I have seen it presented in different forms, all pointing to the same paradox which you raise.Things to ponder besides your belly button..If God created the universe, is earth the only planet in the trillions of planets in the millions of solar systems that He put life on?? If not, does that mean there other 'people' in other parts of the universe who are wondering if there is really a God?? Closer to home, why would a benevolent God create life than sit back and watch it get ravaged by incurable diseases??
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
Again, fine. So then you must be arguing with Ken Wheeler who I quoted next somewhat expecting you might try weaseling out that way. Full paragraph:I didn't contradict a word he said. So no idea where you are coming from, there.Fine. Since you wish to argue with the Fermilab "particle physicist".
How? Because a +1 charge cancels a -1 charge. Well that was a softball.
What theory of "why" did he propose? None? Looks like he agrees with me.
I credit Lincoln with being one of the at least somewhat humble ones. Still wish to stick with "how" and not "why"?Understanding the truth of how all the technology around you works is to understand the secrets of nature. What’s inconceivable to most people is that our contemporary physicists don’t understand how all these things work. They understand them well enough to replicate a technology, and they seem to be somewhat capable of DESCRIBING what is occurring with that technology, but as far as explaining the fundamentals go, they mostly (the humble ones) admit to being clueless along with the rest of the scientific industry.
But i am not. Do i have to keep explaining this to you?So then you must be arguing with Ken Wheeler who I quoted next somewhat expecting you might try weaseling out that way.
So you agreeYep, science deals with the how, not the why. And that person obviously agrees with me.
that our contemporary physicists don’t understand how all these things work
Yes, of course! Would we need science if that WERE true?So you agreeYep, science deals with the how, not the why. And that person obviously agrees with me.
that our contemporary physicists don’t understand how all these things work
