Puzzled About Galactic Collisions

[JimC]

And then there's Kaos Theory...

[MiM]

And then there's Kaos Theory...

That too, but if quantum mechanics is right, and e.g. the exact timing of the decay of a radioactive isotope is a truly random event, then determinism is just lost, even without chaos theory.

My getting a radiation induced cancer will depend on the random events of ionizing radiation breaking my DNA. The yield of an atom bomb (especially if made with low grade Pu) will greatly depend on the exact timing of random spontaneous fission events in the core, which could decide whether the bomb will kill 1 or 2 million people...

[pErvinalia]

And then there's Kaos Theory...

The Chief was all over that.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It would be interesting to explore the parallels between this and quantum versus Newtonian physics. The large, in Newtonian physics, is predictable but the tiny, as we know is all over the fuckin' shop. Like us.

Actually, to map the collision of two galaxies accurately, with the enormous distances, velocities and gravitational influences involved, would require relativistic physics rather than classical Newtonian.

[cronus]

It would be interesting to explore the parallels between this and quantum versus Newtonian physics. The large, in Newtonian physics, is predictable but the tiny, as we know is all over the fuckin' shop. Like us.

Actually, to map the collision of two galaxies accurately, with the enormous distances, velocities and gravitational influences involved, would require relativistic physics rather than classical Newtonian.

Maybe for the entanglement outcome...before they hit you don't need so much math, not like they've got vector thrusters to change direction with?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It would be interesting to explore the parallels between this and quantum versus Newtonian physics. The large, in Newtonian physics, is predictable but the tiny, as we know is all over the fuckin' shop. Like us.

Actually, to map the collision of two galaxies accurately, with the enormous distances, velocities and gravitational influences involved, would require relativistic physics rather than classical Newtonian.

Maybe for the entanglement outcome...before they hit you don't need so much math, not like they've got vector thrusters to change direction with?

You can't even model the orbit of Mercury accurately without relativity, let alone model the relative motion of two galaxies, tens of thousands of lightyears across, full of supermassive blackholes, spinning like fuck and on a collision course!

[cronus]

That aside all you need is to measure the direction of travel and big things don't usually budge from that. They used Hubble to determine the direction of travel and that the MilKy Way will hit Andromeda. The details of what happens afterwards are a bit more cloudy but the event itself is certain.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There must be something happens somewhere where the unloaded little dice are swapped for a much larger loaded one?

Why "must"?

[cronus]

There must be something happens somewhere where the unloaded little dice are swapped for a much larger loaded one?

Why "must"?

Yes, that's a point.

[pErvinalia]

[Tero]

Scumple, turn off your free will limiter. It's behind the ear in the rear of the brain.

[Rum]

It would be interesting to explore the parallels between this and quantum versus Newtonian physics. The large, in Newtonian physics, is predictable but the tiny, as we know is all over the fuckin' shop. Like us.

Actually, to map the collision of two galaxies accurately, with the enormous distances, velocities and gravitational influences involved, would require relativistic physics rather than classical Newtonian.

True enough, however it still doesn't help with the small as Einstein himself ventured.

[MiM]

It would be interesting to explore the parallels between this and quantum versus Newtonian physics. The large, in Newtonian physics, is predictable but the tiny, as we know is all over the fuckin' shop. Like us.

Actually, to map the collision of two galaxies accurately, with the enormous distances, velocities and gravitational influences involved, would require relativistic physics rather than classical Newtonian.

True enough, however it still doesn't help with the small as Einstein himself ventured.

General relativity and quantum mechanics don't really play nicely together. Einstein kind of fell of the wagon, when sticking with his "doesn't play dice".

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It would be interesting to explore the parallels between this and quantum versus Newtonian physics. The large, in Newtonian physics, is predictable but the tiny, as we know is all over the fuckin' shop. Like us.

Actually, to map the collision of two galaxies accurately, with the enormous distances, velocities and gravitational influences involved, would require relativistic physics rather than classical Newtonian.

True enough, however it still doesn't help with the small as Einstein himself ventured.

Actually, relativity has been successfully included in Quantum Field Theory for decades. The sticking point is the Quantum and Relativistic versions of gravity which are, so far, profoundly incompatible.

From wikipedia:

Most theories in modern particle physics are formulated as relativistic quantum field theories, such as quantum electrodynamics (QED), quantum chromodynamics (QCD), and the Standard Model.

There is currently no complete quantum theory of the remaining fundamental force, gravity. Presumably, the as yet unknown correct quantum field-theoretic treatment of the gravitational field will become and "look exactly like" Einstein's general theory of relativity in the "low-energy limit", or, more generally, like the Einstein-Yang-Mills-Dirac System.

Full article.

[MiM]

It would be interesting to explore the parallels between this and quantum versus Newtonian physics. The large, in Newtonian physics, is predictable but the tiny, as we know is all over the fuckin' shop. Like us.

Actually, to map the collision of two galaxies accurately, with the enormous distances, velocities and gravitational influences involved, would require relativistic physics rather than classical Newtonian.

True enough, however it still doesn't help with the small as Einstein himself ventured.

Actually, relativity has been successfully included in Quantum Field Theory for decades. The sticking point is the Quantum and Relativistic versions of gravity which are, so far, profoundly incompatible.

From wikipedia:

Most theories in modern particle physics are formulated as relativistic quantum field theories, such as quantum electrodynamics (QED), quantum chromodynamics (QCD), and the Standard Model.

There is currently no complete quantum theory of the remaining fundamental force, gravity. Presumably, the as yet unknown correct quantum field-theoretic treatment of the gravitational field will become and "look exactly like" Einstein's general theory of relativity in the "low-energy limit", or, more generally, like the Einstein-Yang-Mills-Dirac System.

Full article.

And gravity plays quite a major role in relativity, so...