QM randomness...

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Seattle, Jun 2, 2017.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,080
    Well that settles it then., except for the question of the origin of the dark energy, which puts you in exactly the same position as I am.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. uhClem Registered Member

    Messages:
    15
    It seems to me that you are trying to steer the conversation away from my original objection. Gravity affects mass and energy, but energy is not a fundamental quantity. Energy has a unit of mass in its definition.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,080
    I am not trying to steer the conversation in any way. I let the facts speak for themselves.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. uhClem Registered Member

    Messages:
    15
    I see. The facts speak for themselves. And you define the facts. You could point out where what I said about energy and mass is wrong, but hey, let's just declare you the winner. Yay you!
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,080
    Noooo....I never said you were wrong and I am not here to win arguments. In fact I specifically said that in regard to the question of the causes which create the apparent wave like function of expansion and contraction of the universe, we are at the same ignorant state.

    No winners, only confirmation of mutual ignorance. Does that make you feel better?
     
  9. uhClem Registered Member

    Messages:
    15
    Does it make me feel better? I don't know. I am feeling pretty OK.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,618
    Did I say rest mass?
     
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,618
    Well, a conversion from radiation to matter, certainly. But don't forget: energy is not "stuff". You cannot have a bottle of energy. Energy is a property of a physical system, including the system of oscillating fields that constitutes radiation. Mass is also a property, of matter.
     
  12. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,365
    Gibb's paradox I think illustrates a problem of having a good heuristic for randomness, in that once indentical 'particles' are accounted for, or once the non-distinguishability of particles is included in the multiplicity of states, there is no "information paradox" with free energy and all that.

    But quantum randomness is because of true indistinguishability, whereas with classical particles, it's ok to label them; you can say you have say, a bowl of identical silver coins, and a bowl of identical gold coins, but this is only macroscopically true, each coin will have different marks on it, the number of minute scratches will depend on how much interacting the coins have had with each other and with other objects hard enough to scratch metal.

    The coins are identical if you only identify their colouring, and the number of sides. The 'patterns' on the sides, or faces, must also be an identical pair for all the same-coloured coins. This is just deciding, or choosing, how much information a coin can 'store' at a time, or equivalently how much information is stored in a coin, given some context for that information. And that depends on how distinguishable states are defined-we have freedom to choose this at the classical level but not as we take the context to microscopic scales, because their is a limit to how much information can be stored wherever you choose.

    Randomness of a sequence of coin tosses is apparent only at some threshold of n throws--how large is n? Randomness of a sequence of quantum measurements depends on n random orientations of some measuring device.
    But then, if you expect correlations because of entanglement, subsequent comparison of the two random sequences has correlations, which are not random, why because there is distinguishability when you compare them.
     
  13. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    You said radiation will have same mass....

    For the radiation (travelling at light speed) the more meaningful concept is momentum not the mass.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,425
    Entanglement destroys correlation. One does not expect correlation because of entanglement - one expects violations of Bell's Inequality, instead, which are impossible with correlated entities (as long as Relativity holds, and ordinary logic is valid, anyway).
     
  15. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190

    First time I have heard of Gibbs Paradox, and its not entirely an easy theorem to understand. The non-distinguishability of particles though is a key belief for all particles of the same family - but not of different family of particles.

    For instance, a rule of indistinguishability exists for every electron. Such a principle was taken to an extreme even by Wheeler in his one-electron universe - of course, the universe consists of a much larger zoo than that, the same principle would have to apply to all particles... a one-particle universe for each particle due to indistinguishability so my question is, does his ''solution'' take into account the non-distinguishability of the larger quantum zoo?
     
  16. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190
    You can also think of this non-distinguishability as related to the Hierarchy problem.
     
  17. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,365
    Destroys it how? If it was true you would not be able to also 'disentangle', i.e. restore the distinguishable states, but you can.

    I'll quote John Preskill: "John Bell’s fruitful idea was to test Einstein locality by considering the quantitative properties of the correlations between measurement outcomes obtained by Bob and Alice."

    Bob and Alice can obtain the two random sequences I refer to, then compare them. What explains (the expectation of) the correlations except knowing Bob and Alice each get half a Bell-pair? Please expand on this idea that you can have measurement correlations after the state correlations have been "destroyed" by entanglement?

    John Preskill again:
    --http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/ph229/notes/chap4.pdf
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2017
  18. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,365
    Alice and Bob each gain no information, in the given context, because each time they measure their qubit the result is random (unless they repeat the same measurement in the same direction). The quantum information is in the correlations between the separate results.

    So it's down to whether or not we have to accept randomness is a truly intrinsic property of each measurement of a quantum state. What if it isn't?
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,080
    But is it a given that quantum interaction is random? Do things fly about randomly or does the majority follow certain patterns which inevitably will result in a quantum interaction?
    If quantum were truly random, why do we exist at all? Would it not be a logical argument that QM is a probabilistic function within a confined space? Randomness may be a misleading term, when considering other universal conditions, such as gravity, temperature, geometrics, etc.?
    Was the Cern experiment which proved the Higgs boson a quantum event? That experiment was based on mathematics and if we can predict a quantum event, can we still argue for randomness?
    Moreover, now that we have done this, is it possible to refine our mathematics to predict the direction the Higgs boson must follow when it is created?

    Just a few questions.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2017
  20. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,365
    Randomness pertains to predictability and chaos.

    Order and disorder are arbitrary states. If you choose a salt crystal as an ordered state, a dissolved state is less ordered. But it depends what you intend order to mean, or be in that case. You can say the salt in solution is an ordered state because it conducts electricity better than a crystal, which is "charge disordered" (you might get away with it, too). The charges have more room to move, so to speak, in a fluid.

    Randomness, predictability and chaos have little to do with any of these choices of ordered (and correspondingly disordered) states of matter. Nay, the former trio are really about probabilities, expectation and so on.

    When a chaotic system spontaneously falls into an ordered state, that's unexpected, there is more "information" (whatever it is) in a state with low expectation.

    It sure was, son.
    But what was the expectation . . .
    It was based on more than mathematics, actually. It was based on certain symmetry requirements of the Standard Model. If they had not found a Higgs boson by now there would be much casting about for alternatives to the SM; they should have called it the "thank God!" particle.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2017
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,080
    But is temperature not intimately connected with fluidity. The colder, the denser the medium becomes.

    I am just trying to piece bits of the puzzle together.
     
  22. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,365
    Depends on the kind of fluid, maybe.
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,080
    Are you not underestimating the 40 years of work that resulted in the uncovering of the Higgs boson?
    It was all in the precise mathematics based in part on the symmetry requirements of the Standard Model.

    The point was that we created a quantum event and made a random particle visible. Perhaps we can now incorporate its behavior and predict a specific quantum event with deeper understanding of how and why QM functions the way it does..
     

Share This Page