TED Conversations

Zman Kietilipooskie

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is Quantum Mechanics a description of matter and energies that are accelerated and therefore heated. and not actual universal laws.

Due to the acceleration (expansion of the Universe) and the big bang matter formed from energy, and quantum mechanics is something explaining a resulting "reality" and not the actual laws of energy. Due to the base state of our reality, physics is altered similar to the gravity of earth, it is a relativistic norm.

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Barry Palmer 50+

    • 0
    Jan 6 2013: You have made the interesting point that our theories are based on observations of phenomena occurring in special circumstances, specifically here on earth, during this particular span of time. You are right to question this.

    We have measured the speed of light to amazing accuracy, but no one has ever measured the speed of light outside of our solar system, or outside of our galaxy, or a million years ago. Our equations tell us the speed of light is a constant, and our equations have all been confirmed by our (local) observations. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has a list of sixteen "Universal Constants." Perhaps we should be calling them local contemporary constants.

    • Gordon Barker 10+

      • 0
      Jan 7 2013: That just the speed of light in a vacuum. In a bose einstein condensate it has been measured at 17 meters per second and actually stopped and later started again.
    • thumb

      Faisel Butt

      • 0
      Jan 10 2013: Hi Barry

      One could also say that the constants we have measured describe the part of the universe we live in very well. And until we find any indication of the constants being functions of position or time, we have no reason to believe that they aren't constant.

      Why complicate our model of the universe unnecessarily?

      • Barry Palmer 50+

        • +1
        Jan 10 2013: Agreed, that until we have evidence, we should keep our model as simple as possible.

        We should also be aware of the limits of our knowledge, and acknowledge that the model is built on certain assumptions.

        I get concerned when I see documentaries on TV with post doctoral physicists proudly telling us all they "know" without the slightest acknowledgement that a great deal of what they are explaining is based on assumptions. These shows give a false impression of certainty that makes science look foolish when we later have to refine the model. We used to "know" that gravity held stars together in galaxies, until we completed the measurements and found out that the galaxies "should" be flying apart. Now physicists are telling us what they "know" about dark matter, a code word for something that we do not know.

        There is no wonder that some people have no confidence in science to guide public policy. They are not stupid, they just listen to what scientists say, and remember.
        • thumb

          Faisel Butt

          • 0
          Jan 11 2013: I completely agree, Barry.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.