Electrons

[Holiday20310401]

Ok so I have just been educated with how electrons do not actually orbit the nucleus, but exist in energy levels and in 'clouds' which are just the probability for an electron being in that given space.

However there is apparently no way of knowing exactly where an electron is going to be because its projectory is supposedly random.

And there is no way of knowing its state until measured.

Lets say that nothing is purely random, because I believe that a lot, so from reading terms Arjen has supplemented on the paradoxes thread, are electrons an example of an antinomy, or a dialetheia?

Seems to me that we are just not seeing an influence causing an actually well defined path in space, making this an antinomy?

[validity]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Ok so I have just been educated with how electrons do not actually orbit the nucleus, but exist in energy levels and in 'clouds' which are just the probability for an electron being in that given space.

The probability is for an electron being in that given space when we look. For until we look, definite position is not a property that an electon has.

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

And there is no way of knowing its state until measured.

Quantum theory would have us say that there is no definite state until it is measured. QT does not place a limit on our ability to know the state of a system, rather QT tells us that reality is fundamentally different to what it is that we percieve.

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Lets say that nothing is purely random, because I believe that a lot, so from reading terms Arjen has supplemented on the paradoxes thread, are electrons an example of an antinomy, or a dialetheia?

Seems to me that we are just not seeing an influence causing an actually well defined path in space, making this an antinomy?

Could you please link what you refer to as "so from reading terms Arjen has supplemented on the paradoxes thread". I looked but I could not find.

This "we are just not seeing an influence causing an actually well defined path in space" is what the Bohr-Einstein debates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia were about. Alas, Einstein did not see the experimental evidence that would favour nonlocality.

[Zetherin]

Validity,

Maybe this link to the Double Slit Experiment would be helpful, as it seems this is what you're touching on:

YouTube - Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment

I know it looks a bit cheesy at first, but it's interesting. Wait until about the 2:00m mark for the quantum electron part.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by validity

The probability is for an electron being in that given space when we look. For until we look, definite position is not a property that an electon has.

And once we have looked it is undefinable until we measure it again right?

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum...8-paradox.html

What I think is happening, is at a small enough level, the flow of time breaks down and is only measurable in instances, causaciously speaking. I don't like the idea that time is in instances. Time is not absolute. It is relative and of the mind.

I've got an idea about dimension here. What if the dimensions we perceive are only stable under the macro/normal perception we have. And as we get away from the normal perception to the micro level and its opposite, then dimension breaks down, that is, the dimension we perceive; because perhaps dimension is just a construct of the mind as an organizing method of the data construed by actuality.

[validity]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

And once we have looked it is undefinable until we measure it again right?

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum...8-paradox.html

According to quantum theory, yes as dynamical laws are indeterministic.

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

What I think is happening, is at a small enough level, the flow of time breaks down and is only measurable in instances, causaciously speaking. I don't like the idea that time is in instances. Time is not absolute. It is relative and of the mind.

Nice. What I think is happening is that concepts that work well in our direct experience do not work on small levels.

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

I've got an idea about dimension here. What if the dimensions we perceive are only stable under the macro/normal perception we have. And as we get away from the normal perception to the micro level and its opposite, then dimension breaks down, that is, the dimension we perceive; because perhaps dimension is just a construct of the mind as an organizing method of the data construed by actuality.

I would certainly agree that we need new concepts.