By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zkuq on 25 September 2011
Edit Thread
Dr.Grass said:
Zkuq said:
Dr.Grass said:

So you don't understand one of the most incredible scientific theories ever, or rather don't know anything about it - Yet you want to bring your intuition into the game and make that a factor? You're going to have a big problem with quantum mechanics then - it's not intuitive at all.

" I do believe that the theory of relativity is an excellent theory of... lots of stuff"

>_>

If you're really studying physics then you should have learnt to let go of your intuition long ago and not trust your intuitive thoughts as they arise from subjective memory.

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?

English isn't my native language so I may have misunderstood the phrase 'let go'... Which would definitely explain why you thought my query was strange. Never mind that.

I know quantum mechanics isn't deterministic (well, actually my guess is that it is deterministic if we know everything accurately enough but that's easier said than done, sounds impossible at the moment) and I don't see it as a problem. I guess I'll just have to wait to understand any actual details about it, and to actually be able to debate about whether it's intuitive or not. I hear it's a real pain though :P

And yes, I know relativity has been tested a lot and seems to be true in many cases. But it's still only a model that can probably be improved somehow. I too am quite doubtful that this faster-than-light case is real but who knows? Obviously they've done a lot to verify the results already, and the people working on it are supposed to be good at what they do which makes this sound a bit more plausible.

I study at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Why?