• NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If we could know the current state of every particle in the universe, we could accurately predict the future.

    Physicists already thought of this. The uncertainty principle forbids knowing a particles position and momentum to within a certain accuracy at the same time. Basically, the more you know of one, the less you know of the other. Applied to any two complimentary. variables.

    Turns out, it’s a fundamental property of wave-particle nature of systems.

    • Clent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      What you’re describing is a measurement problem.

      Our inability to measure things today does not mean our future selves won’t think of some clever mechanism to do so.

      Quantum mechanics is just math that feels right.

      There is much we known that we do not known.

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you at least read the Wikipedia article on the heisenberg uncertainty principle, you’d know that’s not the case. Although physicists did think that for a long time was what was going on.

        I’m not even trying to offer a counter point to whether or not free will exists or not. We don’t know the answer to that question. I was simply providing some context to what OP said, and how it is actually impossible to do.

        • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m just a dumb dog, but I’ve never understood why we couldn’t predict the spin of a particle (or why its spin is important). Like… It sounds like a weird philosophical thing more than actual physics and, to my limited understanding, boils down to “we don’t know the truth until we see it.”

          Which, I mean… No shit? Is there an easier way of explaining WTF it means in a practical application? Or is that really what it comes down to?

          What mechanism actually makes knowing or accurately predicting this information about particles impossible that it isn’t just a measurement issue?

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also, quantum mechanics is not math that feels right. It is literally the best most experimentally validated theory we have to describe the universe at this time.

        Maybe some day we can do better. But it certainly isn’t based on a feeling.

        • Clent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Quantum mechanics proves that quantum mechanics is valid.

          It is the mostly widely accepted interpretation but it is not the only one.

          We’ve been confident before and spent centuries chasing literal ether.

          The Copenhagen interpretation is just that, an interpretation.

          We’ve chased it for decades and are no closer to resolving it with classical mechanics.

          I’m sure future scientists to scoff our demand that there be an “observer”

          It still cannot account for gravity.

          The formulas pretend it doesn’t exist. It reminds me of a physicals 101 class pretending friction doesn’t exist.

          Friction exists and so does gravity, therefore they are both pretend.