Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11230Re: free will

Expand Messages
  • bestonnet_00
    Aug 21, 2007
      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "iamthewayandthetruth111"
      <iamthewayandthetruth111@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > I'm mentioning it because humans tend to have large quantum
      > > numbers.
      > >
      > I read the basic idea of it. I always thought the same, I saw some
      > of the mathematics behind it but I didn't understand that because
      > I'm not at a high enough level of mathematics, I'm going into
      > pre-cal (11th grade).

      I'm doing a Masters in physics right now. I knew very little about QM
      back when I was in Year 11 myself (and don't really know that much
      more now, however many lectures later).

      > I've actually always been curious about how much the macroscopic
      > world becomes altered over time because of quantum mechanics.

      Compared to classical theory pretty much not at all.

      > If there were two concealed rooms floating in space with a tennis
      > ball bouncing around inside it at say 100 kmph and the room
      > was 10 m^3 and both rooms started out absolutely identical, ~how
      > long would it take a human eye to detect a difference in the
      > location/velocity of the tennis balls? I don't know, but I've been
      > curious.

      If the rooms are absolutely identical and the balls identical and the
      trajectory of the balls identical then I would expect classical
      mechanics to hold just fine at that scale so it'll be a lot longer
      than your lifetime before you notice any difference.

      Doing a full quantum mechanical treatment is going to be very hard
      though, even if you make a lot of approximations it wouldn't be worth
      it for any practical purpose (although classical mechanics holding
      well in the solar system didn't stop people using GR to calculate the
      trajectory of the Apollo spacecraft).

      > > I'd be more inclined to say \Delta x \Delta p >= \hbar / 2 myself.
      > >
      > No disagreement then I take it. I do know how the uncertainty
      > principle works (it makes a lot of sense also) but I haven't learned
      > the mathematics yet (although I have seen them).

      I'm not sure one can know how it works without understanding the
      mathematics behind it (and how it is related to the commutator).

      > > It seems to be more like rambling.
      > >
      > I can't really say much about that but if you are more specific
      > maybe I could come to an understanding.

      The bits that I can make sense of I've probably replied to already so
      I'm not really sure I can be much more specific about the bits where I
      can't figure out what you're saying.
    • Show all 59 messages in this topic