Unification theory?

[Valley]

Ok the idea I get behind the seeming un-uniformity between the macro and the micro, is that ultimately we seem to be only able to assert a field within which it is probable that a micro-object exists, i.e. an electron. Where as peopel "think" that on the macro scale we can assert a deffinite location of an object. but think of it, In reality it seems to me while we say the earth, for example, is at position x. in reality it is not constantly at that position, really it is moving constantly, it is just that it is moving on a really small scale "relative" to the size of the object of consideration. Where as the probability issue seems to arrise at the micro scale most likely because in reality the micro-object is moving but at that scale it is moving to such a degree that relative to it's actual size it seems that its actual position is indeterminate. When in reality both macro and micro objects have indeterminate location. Plus you could go so far as to say that actual position and movement is relative anyways. is not our earth moving around the sun, the sun around the galaxy, the galaxy moving about (I don't know that we know what it is moving "around") and at the same time any observer is moving as well. So it would seem that any position that you assert as being the actual position, is really just an estimate, such that the estimate is highly accurate on the macro scale and more in-accurate on the micro scale. Ultimately i would say the problem of the observer effecting the observed is universal, macro to micro, it just so happens that on the micro scale the effect is more evident, where as on the macro scale, the effect of observation has little effect on such large masses.

[Farsight]

I'd say forget about the observer bit, Valley. Focus on what you were saying about indeterminate position. I think you're right, but that you don't go far enough. I think that because at a fundamental "quantum" level, particles like the electron are waves. They really are, we really can diffract electrons. And there's not a huge difference between a wave and a field - after all an electromagnetic wave is an electromagnetic field variation. So think of the electron's electromagnetic field as being part of what it is. It extends out into space, with no real boundary. Now make the electron move too, and things start getting really indeterminate!

[Valley]

I think that because at a fundamental "quantum" level, particles like the electron are waves.

I thought that the idea of E=MC^2 suggest that everything is mass and everything is energy they are essentially just one or the other in a different state?

Now make the electron move too, and things start getting really indeterminate!

I'd say everything is moving to begin with. It is only when you take movement relative to an observer that you seem to arrive at the "problems" you seem to be suggesting by your statement.

[James S Saint]

I think that because at a fundamental "quantum" level, particles like the electron are waves.

I thought that the idea of E=MC^2 suggest that everything is mass and everything is energy they are essentially just one or the other in a different state?

Now make the electron move too, and things start getting really indeterminate!

I'd say everything is moving to begin with. It is only when you take movement relative to an observer that you seem to arrive at the "problems" you seem to be suggesting by your statement.

And there I was about to think that Valley was a lost cause...

[Valley]

And there I was about to think that Valley was a lost cause...

I'd say if you wish to "proove" anything to me, I probably am.

[Farsight]

I thought that the idea of E=MC^2 suggest that everything is mass and everything is energy they are essentially just one or the other in a different state?

Pretty much. Waves convey energy.

I'd say everything is moving to begin with. It is only when you take movement relative to an observer that you seem to arrive at the "problems" you seem to be suggesting by your statement.

Yes, everything is moving. Take a look at a "motionless" electron and it's got spin angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment, so there's motion in there. The best analogy I can think of is a whirlpool. Imagine a whirlpool in a flat calm ocean, and you're hovering above it in a helicopter. The whirlpool isn't moving so it's "motionless", but it consists of moving water, so it isn't really motionless. You can point to the middle of it, but that isn't quite "where it is". The whirlpool consists of moving water, and it doesn't have any outer boundary. So "where it is" is spread out. Then if the centre of the whirlpool was moving with respect to you, "where it is" is even more indeterminate.