Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks Jammer-that's the wonder of science; It's
> logical, it makes sense and it works every time
> you try it.
That's not exactly true, either.
Quote
Quantum theory implies that every process of measurement will be subject to the same ultimate limitations on its precision, which led Heisenberg to regard the indeterminacy relationships as being manifestations of a very fundamental and pervasive principle operating throughout the whole of the natural law. Most of the proponents of this point of view see future developments in physics making the behaviour of things even less definable in terms of current quantum theory: they see the indeterminacy principle as an absolute and final limitation on our ability to establish the state of things by means of measurement.
This assumption has far reaching consequences, for even if a sub-quantum mechanical level containing hidden variables exists at the level of quarks, or conceivably at sub-quark level, these variables would never play any real part in the prediction of experimental results. Six forms of quarks have now been detected – the last being the top quark, whose existence was confirmed at Fermilab in 1995 by accelerating particles to collide at very near the speed of light, but the quarks cannot be directly observed. Outside of particle accelerators quarks always operate in groups and are confined to protons and neutrons, which suggests that they are a fundamental particle.
From a paper by Paul Ballard (available here: [
heretical.com]
We're reaching a point where we know some of what we don't know, and even moreso, maybe even some of what we can never know.
That's a humbling thought. We may lack the senses (not sensibilities, but actual senses) to understand much more of our universe than we do now. Infinite possibilities only bound by our choice of probabilities.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.
