In our world, there are rules that govern how we study science. There are also groups of people who doubt these rules and replace them with the idea of ​​chance. Chance is the ability for something to happen in a truly random way, in a way that is not attributable to any outside force, at least as far as we know. A key factor in this debate is whether or not humans are capable of knowing as much as we think in the present. Throughout history, things that humans thought were scientific facts turned out to be incorrect when we made new observations. The reasons behind the laws of nature are actually beyond our knowledge and are therefore not concrete facts or laws at all. Quantum mechanics supports this argument due to the fact that we are not able to simultaneously know the location and motion of quantum particles and how quantum particles behave differently when observed. The fact that the simple act of observing or measuring changes the behavior of particles shows that at present humans are not capable of knowing the truth scientifically. Additionally, the scientific knowledge we have gained from studying quantum physics makes other scientific facts that we thought were certain uncertain. Newton's laws of nature gave way to quantum mechanics and the world descended into uncertainty, or in perhaps the most likely case: chance. All the things humans measure can be measured simply because we measure them, and only at the time those particular things are measured. This creates space for an abundance of uncertainty and takes away validity from cosmological forces. The more humans learn and study science and quantum mechanics in particular, the more we realize what we don't actually know, what we perhaps can't know at this point, and what we think we know but are wrong about. . Although there are laws that govern quantum mechanics, these laws can sometimes be broken. They are nothing more than man's attempt to explain chance events that could happen in an infinite number of ways. The laws of nature are actually beyond our understanding and are therefore mere explanations of what usually happens rather than concrete laws. Chance is the primary governing body of the universe, but it operates in patterns that we try to explain. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essay Quantum mechanics was developed alongside Newton's laws of physics, but was not as easy to understand and therefore under-accepted. Newton asserted that “[e]very object persists in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces imposed on it,” that “[f]orce is equal to the change in momentum. by change of time”, and that “[f]or every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” ( ). We can see that these laws are accurate based on what happens most of the time. When something else happens, we call it extraordinary or exceptional. “Newton, rightly satisfied with his physical principles, renounced metaphysics” and closed the door to the public establishment of quantum mechanics or the explanation of the inexplicable (Whitehead, 10). The reason Newton was so much more influential than physicistsquantum is that his "project favored stable political orders and the modern idea of ​​democracy, weakening the case for absolutism" (Crease). People wanted to believe Newton because they were hungry for answers. Curiosity about the universe and how things work is a fundamental part of the human mind, which is why “Newton’s work has exercised an almost cult-like fascination over the public; it gave insight into the operations of the universe that had previously been the preserve of religious authorities and mystics” (Crease). This insight, supported by evidence, was new to humanity and it gave Newton's laws a firm foothold in the scientific community. In the 1600s, “[m]ost people could understand only a small part of the world, which resembled a supernatural organism composed of many parts” (Crease). Now they knew the parts, and the organism, that is, the universe, was much easier to manipulate and consider. Although Newton's laws provide answers and explain the nature of physics today, they do not tell us how things will work in the future. We can assume it will be the same, but there is no way to know for sure. This is because Newton did not actually explain the present, but simply provided a scientific observation of how things happen most of the time. Thus, “the future is not determined in terms of a complete description of the present, but, in the nature of things, the present cannot be completely described either” (Crease, 147). We cannot ignore the advances that occurred and are still occurring in the study of quantum mechanics during and after Newton. Everything Newton talks about depends on its initial state, which he considers to be inert matter with no potential energy until actuated in some way by another external force. “These finely tuned systems are extremely sensitive to their precise initial state; so, in practice, it is impossible to make sensible predictions” about how other things with other initial states would behave (Allday, 54). Newton's theories are beginning to be replaced by more complex theories and hypotheses about quantum relationships, just as Newton entirely replaced the theories of his predecessors. "The fate of Newtonian physics warns us that there is an evolution of first scientific principles, and that their original forms can only be saved by interpretations of their meaning and limitations of their field of application" which evolve with time (Whitehead, 10). This means that at each stage of scientific research and discovery, humans are capable of knowing more, but are simultaneously limited by different factors. Despite Newton's laws of physics, quantum particles can and do behave in ways we do not understand, favoring chance and random occurrences. One quantum study in particular highlights how little we actually know about particle behavior. “Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer of Bell Laboratories in the United States and published in 1927 [conducted an experiment] show that Newton's intuitive picture of the world is false” (Cox, 20). This experiment became known as the double-slit experiment. This was repeated in several different ways. Davisson and Germer measured “[t]he scattering intensity of a homogeneous beam of electrons with adjustable speed incident on a nickel single crystal… as a function of direction” (Cox, 20). In general, “[t]he experience consists of a source which sendselectrons towards a barrier pierced with two small slits (or holes). On the other side of the barrier there is a screen that glows when an electron hits it” (Cox, 20). The scientists all measured the pattern the electrons formed once they hit the screen on the other side of the barrier with the slits. Common sense would suggest that the electrons would group into two groups since they have to pass through the slits. However, “we never find that an electron launched…and detected…has taken the left slit [or] that the same electron has taken the right slit” (Mohrhoff, 235). The pattern that appears resembles a wave; the “electrons also produce an interference pattern, [and this] is very difficult to understand. According to Newton and common sense, electrons emerge from the source, move in straight lines toward the slits, pass through them with perhaps a slight deviation if looking out the edge of the slit, and continue in a straight line until until they reach the screen. . But this would not result in an interference pattern – it would give the pair of stripes that one would expect (Cox, 23). Scientists, intrigued by these results because they appear to challenge the established Newtonian laws of physics, attempted to explain the phenomenon by saying that a single electron split and passed through both slits. However, “[s]aying that an electron passed through both slits can only mean that it passed through [left and right combined into a single unit:] L&R – the cutouts in the slit plate considered a all undifferentiated” (Mohrhoff, 235). This is something that science cannot explain at the moment. Additionally, the wave pattern is strange because it occurs close to the electron launcher to the receiver, and a "wave, by its very nature, propagates over a certain region of space." And it is not easy to compress it into a small area” (Ford, 195). This double-slit experiment is an example of something that not only challenges Newtonian theory, but also reveals the lack of scientific answers we currently have. This study is further complicated by the observation effect and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The observation effect occurs when a particle changes its behavior when measured. The same thing happens with people; “That observation changes human behavior is a truth known informally to attentive human beings since ancient times and formally to contemporary psychologists” (Crease, 152). In quantum mechanics, a particle behaves differently when it is observed and when it is not. In other words, “the noetic-noematic correlation: what an object shows us about itself – the noema – depends on the way in which it is observed – the noesis. As each changes, so does the other” (Crease, 183). This makes any measurement regarding a quantum particle virtually impossible, because we simply obtain information about its behavior during the measurement. This goes hand in hand with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which emphasizes that "the more precisely [a particle's] position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known at that instant, and vice versa" (Ford, 197). . The problem is that measuring the particle takes it out of its wave pattern and makes it stationary at the time it is measured. While it is entirely possible to use a slope to determine position, "this seems like a dangerous thing to do because if we measure the position of a particle too precisely, we risk compressing its packet by waves, and this change its further movement” (Cox, 81). In other words, "an electron (or any quantum system) propagates through space as a wave, and when a measurement is.