There is a whole little section that you are missing in this. Quantum, being probability, is always only probability. Probability can be very precise, depending on how much probability a scientist wants to put into it. The interesting thing about probability is, you can prove anything with quantum.
Let's say that you set out to use quantum to prove that evolution is true. You could do it. At the same time, let's say that the scientist in the next room set out to prove that evolution could never happen because of cause and effect. He could do it as well.
Quantum can prove anything, even very precisely. Quantum can even be used to prove the likelihood of evolution to be higher or lower, depending on the way the scientists uses quantum. At the same time, the scientist next door can use quantum to prove various levels of evolution improbability.
Essentially, quantum gives a scientist direction for testing his ideas and theories, and the encouragement to not give up until he has proven that his ideas are true or false... proven through other methods than quantum/probability, since probability alone proves nothing.
DAMN YOU'RE SO IRRITATING!!!!!!!!!!!!
For the last fucking time: Quantum theory is NOT probabilities!
It's a very precise and simple explanation of how the world works!!!
From THIS explanation, we can conclude that any observation on a very tiny little part of our universe (nanoscale) is IMPOSSIBLE because when it gets too small the only thing you can get are probabilities!
Can't you see the difference???
I am not trying to be irritating or to upset you in any way.
The fact that quantum is probability is not my idea. It is the idea of scientists that work with quantum. However, tiny is what quantum is all about. And your explanation of tiny becoming probability is probably correct, except where you say that it is impossible. In fact, this is exactly what quantum is all about... tininess that gets so small that all that is left of it is probability.
But don't take my word for it. Listen to Brian Cox .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo.
Yeah sure listen to the 60 seconds of Brian Cox where he can explain correctly for sure!!!
Here is an article summing up the thing correctly. And please next time you try to get a point give a REAL proof, not the only time where a scientist had so little time (60 seconds IS short) he couldn't make the distinction between the theory and the application.
"In 1900, physicist Max Planck presented his quantum theory to the German Physical Society. Planck had sought to discover the reason that radiation from a glowing body changes in color from red, to orange, and, finally, to blue as its temperature rises. He found that by making the assumption that energy existed in individual units in the same way that matter does, rather than just as a constant electromagnetic wave - as had been formerly assumed - and was therefore quantifiable, he could find the answer to his question. The existence of these units became the first assumption of quantum theory."
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/quantum-theoryOkay. I don't work with quantum theory. And I don't want to get into it. But Brian Cox is accepted worldwide. So probably, if you carry what Max Planck was doing to its limit, you would wind up with what Brian Cox is saying.
Notice one thing about this whole quantum area. It is right in the site address you listed above. It is quantum
THEORY. When you have one science theory trying to prove another science theory, you are writing a science fiction story. If either of them happened to be a law of science, then you might have something.
Science theory is based on probability. Quantum theory is, therefore, the theory of theories. Probability fits this description to a tee.
Ahahah xD
I think you'll kill us of frustration xD
Brian Cox had 60 seconds in your video and COULD NOT separate the theory and the application. He didn't talk about the quantum theory but about what we're using it for, which is different.
"Notice one thing about this whole quantum area. It is right in the site address you listed above. It is quantum
THEORY. When you have one science theory trying to prove another science theory, you are writing a science fiction story. If either of them happened to be a law of science, then you might have something."
Notice how it's the same thing for everything else.
You're talking about laws but you're the only one.
The worldwide scientific community is talking about entropy theory, not entropy law!
Scientists separate the theory (the whole explanation) and the law (precise part of the explanation) because one theory is most of the time composed of many laws! That's absolutely not hos you use the word law.
In the case of quantum, when you get down to the tiniest of tiny, there is no separation of theory and application. In fact, that is the whole idea of quantum.
In the scheme of things, a scientific law might be found to be false. The fact of the law is that many people have found it to be true in many ways, but nobody has found it to be false.
Theory, on the other hand, fits all the other possibilities that are outside of law.
For example, cause and effect/action and reaction is law because it exists in everything that everyone works with and understands. Science might come up with a theory that suggests that cause and effect is wrong, but if they do, it is complicated enough that nobody can say for certain that it can not be contradicted. So, it remains theory. and the law remains law.
All this is simply you and me talking about stuff. Cause and effect, at least in the form that Newton expressed it in his 3rd Law, has never been contradicted successfully. And you certainly aren't going to tell me that the universe is not complex. And at its base and core, entropy simply explained is the dispersal and diffusing of all complexity into its simplest form throughout all space and time.
Combining these proves the existence of God.
