Quantum mechanics Vs. Relativistic Physics - Matched or Imbalanced

[PB666]

Strange title, for certain.

The basic problem that I see in this forum is that someone comes with a niave question or theory, and ten or twenty post later we see something like . . . . . Quantum physics explains everything to [some very low absolute variance].

i thought about this from my own observation point and I think that were the two disagree is the realm of science. There are two areas of human occupation where obsolescnce is fundemental to activty.

Art, for example is that which expands on the boundaries of art. Once something is created, a repetition of the original act is merely a copy, a design element. Science is that which expands on th boundaries of science.

If, as has been implied, we know everything about quantum physics then the LHC is not needed, but the folks doing experiments on the LHC claim they are looking for additional Bosons of the force carrying type.

The problem when comparing Newtonian physics, Einsteinian physics, and Quantum mechanics has everything to do with scale. Although K2 and I have argued about this, fundemental quantum mechanics accepts a divergence with physics of 'mass-action' scale as on approaches planks scale.

It is unknown whether scale is continous below these units of time and space. IOW if one tried to move an particle the size of an electron neutrino 10^-50 meters it might only move 1.5 x 10^-35, or some multiple of that distance. We tend to think of this as an error but its not, because the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics rely alot on the experimental perspective. In this case because of Comptons wavelength and the prediction of the most higly energentic EM, and since practical limits are 12 magnitudes or more or above this it is impossible to know which is the case.

However, there are common observations that tell us that the universe at very small scale is less predictable than the observable universe.

Aside from the diffraction slit experiments with photons, the is the case of radioactivity. So lets say that

i place a strong oxidant (so strong that it reacts reductants of redox potential below zero) at 1k. If i surround the oxidant with reductant, it will undergo reduction as soon as a reductant is encountered. Since this is on the Angstrom scale, first order rate kinetics apply.

Next I have a similarly unstable material, except this time I have an

¹²⁵Iodine atom. I can have this atom as a free ion in solution, as a dried salt of sodium or covelanlt linked to an aromatic 6 member ring with a high level of energy stabilization. I could cool the compound to 0.001K and isolate for every source of known radiation, or I could place it within the center of an array of high powered lasers at all the exciation frequencies of Iodines electron, blasting the electrons into solar system size orbits. None of which makes a difference, half of the iodine molecules will undergo decay in about 60 days, 1/4 th will undergo decay between 60-120 days and so on. Now we can change this, using heat, pressure, additional particles, but the consequences are often a different type of decay that is not spontaneous.

Einsteinian physics can explain how much energy the gamma particle will release on decay, it helps to explain whether a particular decay emits a beta or alpha partcle or neither. It does not explain at all precisely the rate at which particles decay, and neither can pedict accurately when a decay event might occur.

The problem in quantum mechanics is predicting the effect of cumulative events when the effect time only covers one or few events or the effect scale only encloses one or few particles. In the case of Iodine, if you are doing an assay you only care about the specific activity at Reference time and the decay rate and you can predict instantaneous rate of decay, but if you have a emission counter you will certainly observe the actual number of emmisions go up and down and the rate of flux is easily explained by the binomial probility distribution and statistically verified using Fisher Exact Test (given you can accurately determine the number of radionucleotides in a unit space).

The affect of uncertainty at this level is not trivial, it could determine for instance whether a dominant lethal mutation appears that eventully kills the bearer. It can determine if a cell could become cancerous at some later point in life, but more important uncertainty is the foundation of evolution and all living things. The statement was made that God does not play dice with the Universe, of course the subject is also of topic of uncertainty, but the creator of life is certainly playing chance with life.

The critical argument, at least from my perspective, is how far outside Planks scale, or more importantly a distibution of likelihoods at distances in which Einsteinian physics attenuates to Quantum mechanics, and with the outer limits of this range can unexpected physical effects still be observed. We have afterall a trillion fold difference between the predicted lower limit and the observable lower limit.