In our world there are rules that govern how we study science. There are also groups of people who doubt those rules and replace them with the idea of ​​chance. Chance is the ability for something to happen truly randomly, in a way that is not attributable to any external force, at least as far as we know. A key factor in this debate is whether or not humans are capable of knowing everything we think we know in the present. Throughout history, things that humans thought were scientific facts have been proven wrong when we made new observations. The reasons behind the laws of nature are actually beyond our knowledge, and therefore are not hard facts or laws at all. Quantum mechanics supports this argument due to the fact that we are unable to simultaneously know both the position and motion of quantum particles and how quantum particles behave differently when observed. The fact that the simple act of observation or measurement changes the outcome of how particles behave demonstrates that humans at this time are incapable of knowing the truth scientifically. Furthermore, the scientific knowledge we have acquired by studying quantum physics makes other scientific facts that we thought certain uncertain. Newton's laws of nature gave way to quantum mechanics and the world descended into uncertainty, or in probably the most likely case: chance. All the things that humans measure might be that way simply because we measure them, and only at the time those particular things are measured. This creates room 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 that we don't actually know what at this point we may not be able to know and what we think we know but are actually wrong about. Although there are laws that govern quantum mechanics, sometimes these laws may be broken. They are nothing more than man's attempt to explain random events that could happen in an infinite number of ways. The laws of nature actually go beyond our understanding, so they are simply 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 attempt to explain. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Quantum mechanics was developed alongside Newton's laws of physics, but it was not so easy to understand and therefore not very accepted. Newton stated that “[e]very object persists in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line unless forced to change that state by forces impressed upon it,” that “[t]he force is equal to the variation of momentum per change over time,” and that “[for] 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 for quantum mechanics to be publicly established or to explain the inexplicable (Whitehead, 10). The reason why Newton was much more influential than quantum physicists is because his “favored stable, political orders and the modern idea of ​​democracy, weakening the arguments for absolutism” (Crease). People wanted itbelieve Newton because he craved answers. Curiosity about how the universe works and how things work is a fundamental element of the human mind, so “Newton's achievement had an almost cult-like fascination with the public; it provided information about the operations of the universe that had previously been reserved for religious authorities and mystics” (Crease). This intuition, supported by evidence, was new to humanity and gave Newton's laws a strong foothold in the scientific community. In the 1600s, “most people could fathom only a small part of the world, which seemed like a supernatural organism composed of several parts” (Crease). Now they knew the parts and the organism, that is, the universe, was much easier to handle and consider. Despite the fact that Newton's laws provide answers and explain the nature of physics in the present, they shed no light on how things will work in the future. We can assume it will be the same, but there's no way to know for sure. This is because Newton, in reality, did not explain the present but merely provided a scientific observation of how things happen in most cases. Thus, “the future is not determined in terms of a complete description of the present, but in the nature of things even the present cannot be completely described” (Crease, 147). We cannot ignore the discoveries that occurred and are occurring in the study of quantum mechanics during and after Newton. Everything Newton discusses depends on his initial state, which he assumes is inert matter with no potential energy until some other external force somehow intervenes. “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 would behave with other initial states (Allday, 54). Newton's theories are beginning to be replaced by more complicated theories and hypotheses about quantum relations, just as Newton completely replaced the theories of his predecessors. “The fate of Newtonian physics warns us that there is a development in scientific first principles, and that their original forms can only be saved by interpretations of meaning and limitations of their scope” that evolve over time (Whitehead, 10) . This means that at every stage of scientific investigation and discovery, humans are capable of learning more, but are simultaneously limited by several factors. Despite Newton's laws of physics, quantum particles can and do behave in ways we don't understand, which supports random events and randomness. One quantum study in particular sheds light on how little we actually know about particle behavior. “Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer at Bell Laboratories in the United States and published in 1927 [conducted an experiment] shows that Newton's intuitive picture of the world is wrong” (Cox, 20). This experiment became known as the double-slit experiment. It has been repeated in many different ways. Davisson and Germer measured "[t]he intensity of scattering of a homogeneous beam of electrons with adjustable velocity incident on a single crystal of nickel... as a function of direction" (Cox, 20). In general, “[t]he experiment consists of a source that sends electrons towards a barrier in which two small slits (or holes) are made. On the other side of the barrier is a screen that lights up when an electron hits it” (Cox, 20). All the scientists measured the pattern formed by the electrons once they hit the screen on the other side of the barrier with the slits. Common sense would suggest that electrons dothey would group into two groups as they have to pass through the cracks. However, “we never find that a launched…and detected…electron took the left slit [or] that the same electron took the right slit” (Mohrhoff, 235). The design that appears is similar to 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, travel in a straight line toward the slits, pass through with perhaps a slight deflection if they overhang the edge of the slit, and continue in a straight line until they hit the screen. . But this would not result in an interference pattern – it would give the “pair of stripes” we expect (Cox, 23). Scientists, baffled by these results because they appear to defy Newtonian laws of physics, have tried to explain the phenomenon by saying that a single electron split and passed through both slits. However, “[saying] that an electron has passed through both slits can only mean that it has passed through [the left and right combined into a single unit:] L&R – the cutouts in the slit plate considered as an undifferentiated whole” (Mohrhoff , 235). This is something that science cannot explain at this time. Furthermore, the wave pattern is strange because it occurs in such close proximity from the electron launcher to the receiver, and “a wave, by its very nature, spreads over some regions of space. And it is not easily compressed into a small domain” (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 becomes further complicated by the observation effect and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The observation effect occurs when a particle changes the way it behaves when it is measured. The same thing happens with people; “That observation modifies 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 than when it is not. In other words, “the noetic-noematic correlation: what an object shows us about itself – the noema – depends on how it is observed – the noesis. As each changes, so does the other” (Crease, 183). This makes it virtually impossible to measure anything about a quantum particle because we are only left with information about its behavior as it is measured. This goes hand in hand with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which emphasizes that "[the] more precisely the position [of a particle] is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known at this instant, and vice versa" (Ford , 197). The problem is that measuring the particle causes it to break out of its wave pattern and make 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 make a measurement of a particle's position too precisely then we run the danger of compressing its wave packet, and this change its next movement” (Cox, 81). In other words, "an electron (or any quantum system) spreads through space like a wave, and when a measurement is performed, revealing a specific position or other property of the particle, the wave function 'collapses'" ( Ford, 260) . It is therefore impossible to know with certainty both the position and the movement of a particle. Scientists can make predictions about.