Large scale indeterminacy?

It has recently occured to me that there is an apparent flaw in a widely held belief among our physics community. What I have thought of is that it is illogical for the universe to be governed by one set of laws at the quantum level (quantum physics) and the visible level (Newtonian physics).

1. It has been well documented that the behavior of the sub-atomic particles which make up everything that is cannot be predicted. Rather, the best we can do is calculate the extremely probability of any given event on an extremely high, but not 100 percent confidence interval.

2. At the most fundamental level, objects in the visible world are, without exception, made up of sub-atomic particles.

3. Because objects in the visible world are made up of sub-atomic particles, they must have the same physical properties. Afterall, a house cannot be made of bricks and display the physical properties of wood. A brick house can only display the physical properties of bricks.

4. It follows then that the universe cannot operate based on a different set of physical laws at the quantum scale than it does at the visible scale. It is illogical to believe that we can make universal predictions about the behavior of matter at any scale. We are able to calculate the probability of a given behavior at a much higher confidence interval than we can on the quantum scale, but it is still not 100 percent probability.

This may seem insignificant because the probability of any kind of co-ordinated result of the indeterminate behavior of sub-atomic particles on the scale that would make this relevant for our world is ridiculously low at first glance. However, on a large enough scale (like that of the universe) it seems exceedingly likely to me that given enough time, examples of such large-scale, co-ordinated indeterminacy will emerge.

The upshot of this line of reasoning is that like Douglas Adams' fictional starship, the Heart Of Gold, our universe's miracles are driven by an improbability drive in a very loose kind of way. It is these extremely improbable, but not impossible example of large scale, co-ordinated indeterminacy that make room for miracles that describe our existing physical laws. One possible example of such an occurence is the emergence of complex DNA that made the existence of intelligent life possible.

As an aside, this last point could be interpretted as either reassuring or terrifying to those who hope to find intelligent life on other planets. On the positive side it seems to support the argument that the universe in all its vastness must be able to support intelligent life on more than one planet. At the same time, it also lends support to the idea that the emergence of such lifeforms is so unbelievably improbable that for any other comperable life form to be in existance close enough to ever be within our reach is almost inconceivable.

Keep in mind that I am by no means a trained physicist on anywhere near the oder of the people whose work I am challenging and that these are merely intuitive observations that have not been exposed to any kind of scientific rigor. So it is more than likely that I am just making an ass out of myself on the internet in the wee hours of the morning. I only ask that if you can share with me your knowledge of the holes in my thinking that you make them as obvious to me as they are to you.

 

This is a very interesting question, the fact that the universe appears to operate in 3 regimes. You correctly identified 2 of them there is a 3rd, that describing the very fast or very heavy operates a relativistic regime. Perhaps the best place to start answering your question is to consider the Newtonian and relativistic regimes. We do not find a solid cut of where an object above a certain mass needs general relativity of the whole thing becomes meaningless. But using newtonian mechanics will give a slightly incorrect answer, for everyday masses this is imperceptible, but it is there is sensitive measurements. For example GPS satellites do have to consider the warping of space by the mass of the Earth to achieve their very high accuracy. For very heavy things like neutron stars then newtonian mechanics would be very inaccurate.

The conceptual jump to quantum mechanics is I feel greater than that to relativity. I feel this is because it is easy to see, Special ratlativity at least, as a modification of Newtonian machanics to take account of effects we dont see on everyday scales. Or, I guess to put it more correctly, Newtonian mechanics is a low mass, low velocity approximation of the full relativistic description. However quantum mechanics is a totally difference formalism, this is mostly due to the discrete nature of the maths. I find it unfortunate that a way of describing mechanics that ports to both quantum and classical mechanics is not often taught in both disciplines as it does provide some kind of link showing that just because quantum mechanics is discrete the underlying principles such as energy/momentum conservation are still fundamental.

It is harder to picture a change in regime for quantum mechanics because even at the largest scales quantum effects are happening. Quantum mechanics is probabilistic, that is the outcome is random, although not all outcomes are equally likely. As you consider more and more ineractions, you group around the most likely value, this is what you see classicaly. So I would consider the boundary to be the point where you are looking at so many quantum systems you see the most likely value, not each individual value which need not necessarily be the mean. An example of this is electronics. In the past chip design was largely classical some electrons in the wire may do funny things but features in the chip were large enough that one could think classically about electron in the pipe. Now however the features are small, so the probability of electrons doing non-classical things becomes higher. We are approaching a point in chip design where either things can't get smaller of we have to use quantum effects, or at the very least find a way to cope with them.

 

So how do you reconcile those three regimes? It doesn't make sense to me that there are different laws that govern the universe just based on the scale of what you're looking at. To me that has to be due to a gap in our understanding and not an actual difference in the nature of what you're observing.

 

Well its fairly easy to reconcile relativistic mechanics and newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics are just Einsteins equations with a very low velocity. If you were to use Einsteins full equations and set very low values for velocity you would get a very similar result to Newton. As you get faster the error in Newtons equations becomes bigger. The treatment for large mass is more complex, because General relativity is more complex but the principle is similar. So really there are only 2 regimes.

To reconcile quantum mechanics think of a sheet of paper with equally sized black and white stripes. If you are close then you see black and white stripes, if you go further away you see a Grey sheet of paper, because your eyes can no longer resolve the stripes. This is in some ways an analogy between discrete quantum states and continuous classical mechanics, its not that the two are different its just when you are 'zoomed out' like we are on everyday scales, its not that the quantum effects aren't there, its just all we see is the average, this we call classical mechanics.

Of course all is not this nice, because at a deeper level there is a fundamental difference between the maths of General relativity, describing gravity and space-time and quantum mechanics describing other particles. This currently has no resolution, its where things like superstring theory come into play.

 

Tony

You mean.. We dont know shit.
Common say it.. wo'nt hurt.. may do some good.
The more we learn . the more we realise how stupid we are.
No reason to give up though. a challenge is it;s own justification.

Occam

 

Think of this scenario, whereby we are considering the relationship between two variables, x, and y.

we know that xZ(x) = yZ(y).

Z(x)=q^2 and Z(y) = p^2

imagine that q and p represent the scale we are looking at.

when we are looking at things in teh same scale, so, q and p are about equal, then we can say Z(x) and Z(y) are about equal and thus we can treat x and y linearly.

but if q and p are not equal, we must use a new law that treats x and y with respect to the difference between q and p.

When we are looking at small scales of velocity and the like, the difference between using Newtonian physics and Special relativity is so small that we would be writing lots and lots of decimal places for all of our values that wouldnt be relevant at all to our initial motive for using physics in the first place.
That is why there are different laws. because in certain conditions, the difference between the more complex equasions, and more approximated equasions becomes negligably small.

the different sets of laws arent necessarily ordered heirarchially though. for example, quantum physics applies to subatomic and atomic levels. On the scale of the visible world however, we would have to have a quantum state for each atom we are dealing with, which is a ridiculous notion. maybe some supercomputer could deal with the calculation. but in the end te result would be so similar to newtonian physics that it would never be worth making the (near infinite) extra effort.

And if we wanted to take even more effort, we could use special relativity laws which would give us yet another approximation that would be more accurate than the newtonian method, but still, so similar that it would never be feasable to use anything other than the newtonian method for situations that are on our human scale of events.

There arent actually different sets of laws acting on the univers at different levels - laws represent our ability to comprehend the 'motion of the ocean'. we use different methods of comprehension when dealing with different scales because of economy and our required accuracy.

 

The fact that sub-atomic events are non-deterministic does not imply that the macro world is also.

By analogy, with honest dice, the probablity of 1,2,3,4,5,6 are all equal.
But, over time, at the craps table, 7 is a clear favorite.

 

Mike

I dont think anyone is suggesting the newtonian/einsteinian universe
of gross insensate 'macro' is non deterministic.. It is.
And can be 'again' .. verified as such .

As far as i can see. only 2 things are not wholely deterministic.
High level rational 'choice'.[coloured by desire].the product of a process.
And quantum indeterminancy. [the product of ?]

Occam