What is the cause of Radioactive Decay

You could not find any straightforward explanation; still you are making a statement based on Bell's Theorem.

In the post #12, you can see the link.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's no verbal explanation. The math is beyond the scope of this thread.

I saw a link, which has been reported as a plug for your own personal ideas.
You can take them up in the Alt Theories section, but it does not qualify as a resource here in Physics and Math.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because it is not science and yet it is presented as science.

There is nothing that can be discovered with your musings. It is not a law. It is not science. It is an idea that you made up without any clear understanding of the subject you were trying to discuss.

No, not even close.

No you explained nothing.

Anyone can makeup crap, it means absolutely nothing.

I will not reply to anymore of your off topic questions. I notified you that I reported your post out of courtesy, not to get into a thread hijacking debated.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Developing unknown forces??
Can we some how block (erase or replace with ****) this instantaneous force and inertia words from Hansda's future contributions.

 

The quest is to find out these unknown forces, if any.

 

This is the question I floated, if a process can be explained based on probability maths, then can we say for sure that the process itself is probabilistic? On the face of it, it appears plausible but it really isn't.

 

Probability can model what happens, but does not explain how it happens.

 

The basic difficulty you face is that there is a significant conflict or incompatibility between what people are normally willing to call "forces" and what can produce the measured and verified violations of Bell's Inequality that QED predicted.

"Forces", in the normal sense, either act or they don't, are either present or not present, affect behavior or do not affect behavior. They act over time and space, and what they do happens in a defined sequence in both time and space from any one viewing perspective. Such factors cannot produce violations of Bell's Inequality.

One can equivalently - and just as correctly or accurately - state that cause and effect can model what happens, but not explain how it happens.

My suggestion is to come to a different understanding of probability.

 

I'm not sure I follow that.

If one can state what the cause is, and the resultant effect, one has stated how it happened.
I can deduce probability from empirical observation, without having any idea what's causing it.
But I can't state cause and effect without knowing what's causing it.

 

It's not a matter of "knowing" what's causing it, but deciding what available abstraction, what human invention of the mind, meets your criteria of a cause.

Example: you overfill a balloon with pressurized air, and it pops.

Cause of popping? You have a range of possibilities: air pressure is the most common and immediately at hand, it meets the normal criteria for a "cause" in the situation. Does that mean you know what air pressure is, and how it popped your balloon? Really? If people who don't know what atoms are, who have never seen the Ideal Gas Law, who cannot do basic arithmetic let alone handle the equations of statistical mechanics or thermodynamics, say air pressure caused the balloon to pop, have they provided a cause and effect explanation?

Takehome: A cause/effect explanation mostly marks the level at which you decide to stop asking how whatever happened happened, and name some simplified abstraction from the patterns of what you are dealing with a "cause".

The human brain is built to do that, and does it very well. It has no such facility with "probability". But that does not make one more fundamental or real than the other.

 

....
You are stretching this too far from one thread to another thread. The another thread is still fresh in my mind.

There is no comparison between the cause and the probability, both are disjoint entities. The probability talks about the happening of an event, while the cause talks about process and possible reasons behind. For examples, the solar flares (cause) can cause world wide communication system failure, but the probability that any such failure will happen in next 11 years is almost nil. Another...probability that x, a healthy man, dies of aircrash is almost nil, but if it happens (or if he dies otherwise) there will be a cause behind aircrash or his death.

The point is you are writing good, but all meaningless. Pl do not confuse between cause and the probability.

 

I have to confess ... The God is ... not wrong.

 

Correction pl.....The God is......never wrong.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm recommending a serious revision of that approach. It has led you wrong, and into paradox.

There will be many possible factors available to employ as causes in the various descriptions of the event, each useful and valid in its proper circumstances or area of analysis. (I have seen a very solid and well documented assignation of the following "cause" to an airplane crash: both pilots were native speakers of the Korean language, and used it in the cockpit. That is what caused the airplane to run out of fuel in midair, and all on board to die in the subsequent crash).

Every one of them will be based on (be a unique manifestation of) an underlying probability distribution, and contribute to (be a unique element within) an inclusive or "overlying" distribution. That is worth pondering, imho.

Maybe start with the balloon example posted above. What causes a ballon to pop?

 

I am free of paradox.
You have read too much into this probability stuff, that you are finding probability behind every event but fail to see the cause behind.

Cheers, no more argument with you on probability, you are an intelligent guy, you will get into self correcting mechanism on this very soon.

 

Not if you are attempting a hidden force causal description of quantum phenomena.

There is probability behind every event, and at the core of the rigorous description of every "cause".

This is easy to overlook in many simple, macroscopic, and slowly changing cases - situations in which averages and summaries are good enough, and the law of large numbers dominates. It is impossible to set aside if the highest standards of rigor and precision are needed, if approximations will not serve: the type specimen of this is individual quantum level phenomena.

The philosophy hasn't caught up. The human brain is much better at abstracting and handling cause/effect than probability - there's a strong bias toward using the more natural or easily employed tool. That does not make this better tool a more fundamental property of the universe.

What causes a balloon to pop?

 

Consider alpha decay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_decay . It is basically due interaction of nuclear force and Electromagnetic force. If these forces can not explain alpha decay completely, some unknown force must exist there.

 

From my Post 11

Until early in the 20th century, mainstream science (& I guess most folks who considered the issue) believed in a completely deterministic universe ala the following

Nobody believed you could both collect all the data & do the calculations fast enough to actually make predictions in real time or faster.​

In the early 20th century, Quantum Theory concluded otherwise. Perhaps earlier than the development of Quantum Theory there were those who refuted the notions of determinism based on the knowledge of random processes like radioactive decay.

The current mainstream scientific view is that the classical world of our senses is built on a Quantum level reality which is governed by probabilistic laws.

 

It's not entirely random, if at all.

Take for instance, radiation due to motion - a particle will decay when accelerating through space by radiating photons. The decay rate increases with the velocity of the system. This is known as Larmor radiation.

In fact - in a series of experiments, it can be shown you can modify the decay rate of systems. https://www.newscientist.com/letter/mg20327190-100-nuclear-decay-puzzle/

 

No. Nothing that behaves like a conventional "force" or similar heuristic, shortcut, etc, can fit the observations.

It is entirely random, according to every piece of evidence we have.

Changing the rate of decay is changing the probability distribution over time as measured from a particular frame of reference.