Zkuq said:
Science doesn't evolve if you want to stick to your old theories until the very end. Until I have enough knowledge not to do so, I'm going to doubt lots of things. A question: Isn't a lot of the theory of relativity based on the assumption that causality works, ie. cause comes before consequence? How's that about intuition? Please correct me if I'm wrong (or ignore me if you think correcting me isn't worth it :P), like I said, I only recently started my second year so I'm really at the basics right now. |
I'm honestly not sure what you're saying. All classical mechanics inherently assumes a deterministic framework - or causal if you will.
''How's that about intuition?''
You confuse me now because I said:
'' you should have learnt to let go of your intuition long ago''
Moreover, that specific aspect IS intuitive, which makes your query even stranger(?)
Anyways, QM is not deterministic, i.e. you cannot know for certain what state a system will be in even if you have ALL the information about the system before hand. Insofar as I have seen QM is the only aspect of physics which isn't intuitive apart from the speed of light issue we have here.
But it is very important that direct consequenses of Einstein's theory have been verified again and again. We can literally see that matter behaves in that way. And that's my point - if Professor Physicist is dumbstruck by this neutrino affair, then it is with good reason.
May I ask where you study?
