Questions.....

[Blue-ninja]

Does Quantum mechanics (theories) and black holes sound far-fetched?

Because, really, black holes are one of the many mysteries in the deep outer spaces that we know little about, and quantum mechanics may or may not really exist, because it's all guesswork.

Your thoughts?

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Of course they sound far-fetched...they're topics that we have very little data on or relevance to.  However, quantum mechanics isn't really guesswork.  We KNOW there are subatomic particles, we KNOW they have different masses, we KNOW they interact with other particles in a certain way, etc.  A lot of what you read about is based on observation, and the theories (multiple dimensions, etc.) have a logical basis to them.

On the other hand, quantum mechanics exist like gravity exists.  We see the forces, and we can determine equations that define them in certain contexts, but those equations are almost certainly wrong at a fundamental level.  That's why we have special relativity for large objects and quantum mechanics for small objects, and that's why we're searching for a fundamental, unifying theory (superstring theory).

Are the concepts of hidden dimensions, antimatter, etc., strange? Of course.  We're used to relying on what we can see and observe, and Occam's Razor says that the simplest cases are probably the correct ones (mass attracts mass, instead of everything being made up of vibrating strings in ten different dimensions).  On the other hand, it would be ignorant to say that we know everything about the world, and the way we're used to observing the world reflects true reality.  Therefore, it should come as no surprise that some aspects of the universe seem pretty crazy.  If the math works, why argue against it?

[Blue-ninja]

Yes, well, quantum mechanics does exist, because of the mathematical calculations, and the fact that they can interact with other particles, but what makes quantum mechanics so mystifying is that we don't even have the right technology to either explain or give tactile proof that it exists.

As of right now, if we had quantum mechanics in the hands of technology, we'd have absurdly fast internet connection speeds. And the best we have is fiber optics, and that pretty much tells us how far [or close, respectively] to the goal of reaching quantum mechanics by technological means.

Black holes on the other hand, have masses that are so dense, it bends light so much that it cannot escape. Objects spinning around the black hole can reach speeds of near light speed. And yet, it's almost invisible except for the fact that we can use x-ray telescopes to detect the heat of dust near black holes.

[Xaero]

I personnally don't care. Have enough other stuff to think about

[Biscuiteer]

Remember that virtually all (if not all) sciences are based opon theory after theory. What we know now about X or Y is the best we can understand of it at this point, and what we understand is very likely to change in the near future as we learn more about the many and varied topics in mind.

[Mangled*]

We will never know the absolute truth about either because of event horizons and the uncertainty principal. Theories are the only way to go about understanding them.

I don't think either sound far fetched at all. Black Hole theory is intertwined with Big Bang theory, they work using the same calculations and mechanics and principals.

I know less about quantum mechanics, it's much more complicated, the way that particles are described is quite perplexing if you haven't studied advanced specialized science in quantum mechanics.

I'm very sure that both the current quantum and singularity theory are correct. Observations back them up 100%

[LtKillroy]

Although I think these theories are mostly correct, observations back them up 100% isn't always the best arguement on things like this. For example, 700 years ago observation backed up 100% the theory that the earth was flat, etc. But it is probably correct and even if it isn't we probably won't know in my lifetime.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I'm very sure that both the current quantum and singularity theory are correct. Observations back them up 100%

Observations backs up a LOT.  That's why it's important to realize that perception and reality are often entirely different.

[Mangled*]

For example, 700 years ago observation backed up 100% the theory that the earth was flat, etc.

That's completely false. 700 years ago they didn't observe at all, they just jumped to seemingly reasonable conclusions. Had they actually stopped to look out to the horizon they might have realised that the Earth was at least dome shaped.

I'm trying very hard not to stray into the topic of religion here.. as you know way back when the religions were starting, people thought the world was flat and that we were in a geocentric universe.

Assumptions aren't observations.

[Blue-ninja]

Assumptions are a more primitive form of observations.

[LtKillroy]

For example, 700 years ago observation backed up 100% the theory that the earth was flat, etc.

That's completely false. 700 years ago they didn't observe at all, they just jumped to seemingly reasonable conclusions. Had they actually stopped to look out to the horizon they might have realised that the Earth was at least dome shaped.

I'm trying very hard not to stray into the topic of religion here.. as you know way back when the religions were starting, people thought the world was flat and that we were in a geocentric universe.

Assumptions aren't observations.

I didn't say anything about religion, sorry if you saw it like that. All I was saying is that often science changes its mind. I also said it was probably true. Humans have this tendacy to think they are smarter than they are is all I was saying.

[a-4-year-old]

Assumptions are a more primitive form of observations.

so putting a pot of rice out for a week doesn't create rats?!?!?!

[GunPowder]

Science doesn't change its mind, it just discovers different things on looking deeper into stuff, however. The general direction of thought remains the same, like for example the search for even smaller subatomic particles. It's always on the science agenda, but with different approaches.

It's always just a matter of looking deeper into things, if I ask you to get me an equation f(x) that has a solution of x = 2, f(x) = x - 2 fulfills that, BUT, x =2 can also solve f(x) = x^2 - 5x + 6, it can also solve a 3rd degree equation and so on. You get the point.

@ Humanity 700 years ago : We're as smart as humanity was 700 years ago, science is accumulative you know, all that is different between us and them is that we have 700 years of science more than they did.

[Eclipse]

Assumptions are a more primitive form of observations.

so putting a pot of rice out for a week doesn't create rats?!?!?!

A Better assumption would be leaving a briefcase with 10 Grand in a crowded city like india doesnt cause fights?

[Smegma]

I'm trying very hard not to stray into the topic of religion here.. as you know way back when the religions were starting, people thought the world was flat and that we were in a geocentric universe.

And they used observations to map the planets movement accordingly. I don't think they were wrong, just overly complex.

[Rhombus]

Assumptions are a more primitive form of observations.

so putting a pot of rice out for a week doesn't create rats?!?!?!

A Better assumption would be leaving a briefcase with 10 Grand in a crowded city like india doesnt cause fights?

Yes, india is a very big, crowded city. actually... it's so big, most people call it a country. I would love to watch that happen though