No supernatural, no gods.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Natural causality is an aspect of physics and the universe at large.

The underlying foundation of relativity. Events must make sense.

Led to some seriously complicated maths that it has been confirmed over and over. The only issue with it is it isn't that compatible with QM.

Learner needs to read a book, or at least the train thought experiment, or stop wasting their time. A Nobel awaits his disproving of relativity, but that is never happening.

 

[Learner]

You would expect "strange ideas" from a theist. Every time you visit the religious section...that's lots of wasting time for you.

Those Issues with QM. What book would you recommend?

 

[Jarhyn]

You would expect "strange ideas" from a theist. Every time you visit the religious section...that's lots of wasting time for you.

Those Issues with QM. What book would you recommend?

What's your highest maths level?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Natural causality is an aspect of physics and the universe at large.

The underlying foundation of relativity. Events must make sense.

Led to some seriously complicated maths that it has been confirmed over and over. The only issue with it is it isn't that compatible with QM.

Learner needs to read a book, or at least the train thought experiment, or stop wasting their time. A Nobel awaits his disproving of relativity, but that is never happening.

Any quantum-based relativity theory would need to reduce to our classical relativity equations in the macro regime. Just like how GR reduces to Newton’s law of gravitation in the low acceleration/low mass regime.

Nobel prize indeed!

 

[bilby]

The underlying foundation of relativity. Events must make sense.

Led to some seriously complicated maths that it has been confirmed over and over. The only issue with it is it isn't that compatible with QM.

...which has repeatedly demonstrated that events don't make any sense at all.

 

[bilby]

Natural causality is an aspect of physics and the universe at large.

The underlying foundation of relativity. Events must make sense.

Led to some seriously complicated maths that it has been confirmed over and over. The only issue with it is it isn't that compatible with QM.

Learner needs to read a book, or at least the train thought experiment, or stop wasting their time. A Nobel awaits his disproving of relativity, but that is never happening.

Any quantum-based relativity theory would need to reduce to our classical relativity equations in the macro regime. Just like how GR reduces to Newton’s law of gravitation in the low acceleration/low mass regime.

Nobel prize indeed!

Indeed. Big scientific advances don't prove the previous science to be wrong; They explain how the previous science managed to be right in all but a handful of interesting cases that arise from careful study of extreme circumstances.

Einstein "proved Newton wrong", but that didn't mean that stuff started falling upwards; Just that the rate at which it falls down needs to be adjusted (in most Earthbound cases by an amount so small as to be almost impossible to measure).

Newton was right, 99.99% of the time; Einstein is right 99.999999% of the time (illustrative numbers sourced ex ano).

A merging of QM with relativity would fail if it didn't reproduce Einstein's (and Heisenberg's, Schrödinger's, Bohm's, etc. etc.) predictions in those circumstances where they have been observed to be correct.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

You would expect "strange ideas" from a theist. Every time you visit the religious section...that's lots of wasting time for you.

Those Issues with QM. What book would you recommend?

Any decent college intoduction to QM text book. Any decent used book store would be a good place to start.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Indeed. Big scientific advances don't prove the previous science to be wrong; They explain how the previous science managed to be right in all but a handful of interesting cases that arise from careful study of extreme circumstances.

Einstein "proved Newton wrong", but that didn't mean that stuff started falling upwards; Just that the rate at which it falls down needs to be adjusted (in most Earthbound cases by an amount so small as to be almost impossible to measure).

Newton was right, 99.99% of the time; Einstein is right 99.999999% of the time (illustrative numbers sourced ex ano).

I wouldn't say that Einstein "proved Newton wrong" precisely because GR reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the non-relativistic limit. I never like to say Newton was "wrong" because he *wasn't*.

In contrast, Copernicus did prove Ptolemy wrong. Though the Ptolemaic model of the solar system can get certain observations correct, the Copernican model wasn't a refinement of that model in a new part of parameter space that reduced to the earlier model. It upended the earlier model completely and replaced it. The Copernican model is vastly more successful because it fits in with all the other physics and observations that have come after.

 

[Jarhyn]

You would expect "strange ideas" from a theist. Every time you visit the religious section...that's lots of wasting time for you.

Those Issues with QM. What book would you recommend?

Any decent college intoduction to QM text book. Any decent used book store would be a good place to start.

Not for Learner. Just picking up such a book requires understanding really heavy elements of number theory and things like Group Theory, and understanding state maps and probability distributions.

At a minimum that requires having waded through discrete, linear, and a couple layers of Calc, and perhaps even analytic and 3d geometry.

If you don't have the foundation, a basic college textbook might as well be written in Greek. Half of it WILL actually be written in Greek characters.

 

[steve_bank]

You would expect "strange ideas" from a theist. Every time you visit the religious section...that's lots of wasting time for you.

Those Issues with QM. What book would you recommend?

Well, you might start with a basic physics text. Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics first,

Bohm's book is a good read, cheap in Dover reprint.

Quantum Theory book by David Bohm

I used Tipler in a modern phuscs class, you can glean some without the math. There should be cheap older texts. Plus others listed might be good.

Modern Physics book by Paul A. Tipler

Intro To QM

japanese students book quantum mechanics - Google Search

This one is a gem. It was written by Japanese students as a project from scratch with no science and math. I recommend this one for you.

Amazon product ASIN 0964350416

 

[bilby]

Richard Feynman's QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter is a good light introduction to Quantum Electrodynamics, without most of the heavy mathematics that's typically found in quantum physics textbooks.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There should be a reason, a cause, for universe to exists, otherwise it becomes special pleading, just like that of God. And if it came about, there must have been a phase when it did not exist.
If anyone is an atheist (a true atheist ), then causality has to be accepted. The reasons might not be known, that is another story. Science can work on it.

That's an interesting take. Causality ultimately is semantics that presupposes a separation between events. So I will ask you the same question I asked a religionist many years ago, "When did the Big Bang stop?"

 

[Wiploc]

That's an interesting take. Causality ultimately is semantics that presupposes a separation between events. So I will ask you the same question I asked a religionist many years ago, "When did the Big Bang stop?"

It gets bigger all the time.

 

[steve_bank]

In my thermodynamics text it was stated that the Laws Of Thermodynamics can not be proven to be true, it is that so far no exemptions have been demonstrated.

Something from nothing without causality can not be proven.

In an infinite universe in time the initial conditions for what we call the BB is one point in an infinite sequence of events. That is what makes sense to me.

 

[Wiploc]

If anyone is an atheist (a true atheist ), then causality has to be accepted.

Atheists don't believe in gods. That is the entire definition of atheism.

There are many millions of atheists. Probably the only thing we have in common is our lack of belief in gods. So it stands to reason that some of us are flat earthers, some of us are 9-11 deniers, and some of us reject causality.

Bertrand Russell was an atheist (a true atheist) who rejected causality.

I am an atheist (a true atheist) and I'm a bit soft on causality. (I believe in causality for all practical purposes (at least for all large-scale purposes), but I haven't the knowledge or standing to challenge those philosophers and physicists who claim it doesn't exist.)

 

[bilby]

That's an interesting take. Causality ultimately is semantics that presupposes a separation between events. So I will ask you the same question I asked a religionist many years ago, "When did the Big Bang stop?"

It gets bigger all the time.

But less bangy.

 

[aupmanyav]

That's an interesting take. Causality ultimately is semantics that presupposes a separation between events. So I will ask you the same question I asked a religionist many years ago, "When did the Big Bang stop?"

As per the current information, at ten raised to - 33 sec (10^-33 sec). It was followed by 'inflation'.

 

[aupmanyav]

Atheists don't believe in gods. That is the entire definition of atheism.
Bertrand Russell was an atheist (a true atheist) who rejected causality.

I am an atheist (a true atheist) and I'm a bit soft on causality. (I believe in causality for all practical purposes (at least for all large-scale purposes), but I haven't the knowledge or standing to challenge those philosophers and physicists who claim it doesn't exist.)

My definition is different since I am what they term as 'strong atheist'. I deny the possibility of existence of God, soul and all related fiction, I do not believe in any supernatural. If Russell rejected causality, that was his view, mine is different. Unless it is proved that causality is not involved in universe, I will not accept that idea.
Also, as I am a Hindu believing in non-duality (Advaita), I do not even accept the existence of universe and all things in it. That is according to Advaita, an illusion.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Richard Feynman's QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter is a good light introduction to Quantum Electrodynamics, without most of the heavy mathematics that's typically found in quantum physics textbooks.

Yes. It’s been quite some time since I read Feynman’s QED book but I recall really enjoying it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That's an interesting take. Causality ultimately is semantics that presupposes a separation between events. So I will ask you the same question I asked a religionist many years ago, "When did the Big Bang stop?"

As per the current information, at ten raised to - 33 sec (10^-33 sec). It was followed by 'inflation'.

And why do you not think that's an arbitrary, artificial distinction?