IslamicBoard
Thread: New Law of Physics Could Explain Quantum Mysteries
Darn, and I was just getting acquainted with the string theory.. which I actually rather like since it combines two theories into one..

wonder if the physicists, mathematicians and engineers on board would care to comment on this?
 
a physicist here:coolalien (who has just chosen her major as physics) and finds this article incomprehensible....
personally i would rather vote for string theory as the most reasonable candidate for 'the theory of everything', because it is more bizzarre, is built on the frame work of head spinning mathematics and it has an aura of extreme incomprehensibility about it, an even stronger one than this article, which makes it even more sensible because in order to claim to explain everything, it has to be complicated enough.(i once happened to turn fifty pages of a book on string theory, and i was impressed by coolest diagrams in 11-Dimensions :hmm
God, how strange can physics be!
 
Masha'Allah I hope you are on a successful distinguished road sis..
physics can be very poetic.. It was one of the courses I enjoyed in undergrad.. I liked it more than math and organic chem..
it uses simple formulas to explain every day occurrences and natural phenomenon... I have always felt it had alot of relevance to the real world and even the more esoteric aspects of it were strange and appealing...

I wish you luck with your studies..

:w:
 
Jazakillah khair :satisfie . may Allah fulfill your goals too. Ameen.
 
String theory, super string theory, silly string theory...

Well, actually, the last one relates to joke shops.

Anyway. The Invariant Set Postulate looks very fascinating. For some reason, it seems chaos theorists (chaoticians?) would have more than a leg up when it comes to fully comprehending the nuances of quantum mechanics.
 
I did read it two weeks ago if I remember correctly, interesting but doesn't make much sense unfortunately.
a minor point, but the logic behind it is somewhat circular, a world is unreal because it is outside the invariant set, it is outside the invariant set because it is unreal.

major point, no empirical evidence equals nothing proven. though not much these days in physical theories is based on empirical evidence.

ie. at the most abstract level all we do is create theories, then information is formed-not found, eg. math-physics is less abstract than mathematics in this, thus we need to find empirical proof as well.

reality remains undefinable at the level many would like it to be, seeing as everything depends on observers-not necessarily conscious-, all in the end is in relation to something else, how do you separate it without losing meaning?

kudos to you for reading it btw
 
Last edited:
alcurad said:
I did read it two weeks ago if I remember correctly, interesting but doesn't make much sense unfortunately.
a minor point, but the logic behind it is somewhat circular, a world is unreal because it is outside the invariant set, it is outside the invariant set because it is unreal.

major point, no empirical evidence equals nothing proven. though not much these days in physical theories is based on empirical evidence.

ie. at the most abstract level all we do is create theories, then information is formed-not found, eg. math-physics is less abstract than mathematics in this, thus we need to find empirical proof as well.

reality remains undefinable at the level many would like it to be, seeing as everything depends on observers-not necessarily conscious-, all in the end is in relation to something else, how do you separate it without losing meaning?

kudos to you for reading it btw
Click to expand...

Lol, nice cheap shot at the end. Basically says: "This is wrong for X reasons, just a theory, but good reading it sport!".

I know it's a theory, but perhaps you could go into further detail explaining why it's wrong? I didn't understand you that well.

Also, I'd like to see you come up with your own theory as to explain 'Quantum Mysteries'.
 
I didn't want you to feel down given my-harsh?-criticism thus I wrote the last part. it is a good thing to expand, just that we should take everything with a grain of salt when doing so lest we believe without asking for proof.

no experiments could be done to falsify or prove what he said, so unless he presents it in a way that could be experimentally tested, his theory amounts to no more than meta-physics.

'Quantum mysteries' are not explainable with the level of science we have now, some of the brightest minds in our entire history failed to explain, which says a lot.

forget the rest, I was getting sentimental
 
The string theory appeals to me because it basically postulates that the universe is made up by strings that vibrate, and the way they vibrate determine the kinds of particles they become. In other words, the universe is made up by strings that sing.

This is in agreement with QS. Al Israa:44
The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise Him, and there is not a thing but hymneth His praise; but ye understand not their praise. Lo! He is ever Clement, Forgiving

which basically say that everything in the universe performs the tasbeeh (singing in praises) to Allah, but we don't know how it works.
 
ah, I liked that part too, given the same reasons actually ^), but we should keep in mind that all theories reached 'till now point more to the fact that no theory is ever a theory of everything, or at least that it gets much more complex each time.

this was informative: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/13487
 
Oh come on men I'd like to see you come up with a theory to explain quantum mysteries and dealing with quantum mechanics and get it published on a highly respected physics news website where is your degree? show me men

Ohhhh, the part about the strings and vibrations is just.... beautiful.
 
How about you be the trail blazer oh leader of the pack 'blazing flames' and lead the herd by example?

all the best
 
ad hominem.

my position on the subject has nothing to do with me needing to provide an alternative, surely you see that?
 
alcurad said:
ad hominem.

my position on the subject has nothing to do with me needing to provide an alternative, surely you see that?
Click to expand...

Definition of Ad Hominem.

Yes, if you want to keep saying what you are saying then you are going to have to provide an alternative. Explain why you can do better, come up with your own 'law of physics'!

–adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Gossamer Skye,

Oh, although I would, you know, all flames have to be started by something! Wanna get some gasoline and some matches or a lighter? The flame has to start before I take off!
 
As Morpheus would say, 'You have to focus, Trinity'. But I doubt any of you dress up in black leather before jumping out of windows.

So just sticking to the topic would be fine.
 
Muezzin said:
As Morpheus would say, 'You have to focus, Trinity'. But I doubt any of you dress up in black leather before jumping out of windows.

So just sticking to the topic would be fine.
Click to expand...

Wish Morpheus would pay me a visit I have been up for 33 hrs..