QM randomness...

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

  1. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190
    Ok... despite what you may have heard.... randomness is NOT a fundamental feature of a statistical nature of any wave function. This may seem like big leap, but based on what we actually know, we realise we know nothing. Some have taken this to mean we have model of randomness... this alone is a disgusting line of investigation that has already determined by logic. The wave function was never an indication of statistical ''randomness.'' But rather.. an indication we can only have a limited amount of information from a system.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190
    Dare I say.. It could be gods rule that things are not precisely known.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,375
    About the debate between thermodynamic and information entropy.

    First of all, what is temperature? It seems to me that temperature and pressure, in a closed volume of gas, are different interpretations of the same random input: the momentum of gas particles.

    Why is there any difference between the reading of a pressure gauge and of a thermometer? Maybe we should start there.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190
    I can answer your question.. what is temperature, but the kinetic motion of energy... and what is decay... but the rate of motion itself.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,129
    In all environments?
    Who is disputing that? It is the reason why we use statistical models in the first place. Lack of detailed information.
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    9,802
    And detailed information , beyond statistics , is so complex , that statistics becomes relevent to thought .

    Here is the thing ;

    Stastistics eliminates the details of which the statistics are based .

    And therefore misses information which , necessarily , needs to be included in any understanding of this Universe .
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2017
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,129
    I don't disagree with that, but consider the scope and amount of information which is constantly interacting even at unobservable scales. You'd need a computer the size of the universe to be able to process the unimaginable amount of information. The amount of values (numbers) are staggeringly large, even though they exist of some 32 numbers and a handful of equations, as per Tegmark.

    But to know tendencies is sufficient information for practical use. When we are in a rainstorm, no one cares exactly where a raindrop will hit the earth. We measure rainfall by total amounts in inches. Texas is a great example of accurate predictions made on statistical information.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2017
  11. river

    Messages:
    9,802

    Understand

    But here is the thing , the longer one misses the information , the more information we miss .

    The information we miss ........the less we are aware .
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,129
    I'm not sure if I agree with that except in a philosophical or theoretical science setting.

    We have plenty evidence of human assisted GW. Yet we "resists" the information , because it is practically inconvenient to change. Lots of information, no one pays attention.
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    9,802
    GW means ?
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,129
    Global Warming. You do know human industries contribute to this natural phenomenon, by various other names? AGW, Climate Change, all nice "soft" words to ease our conscience.

    Have you heard anyone identifying hurricane Harvey as a result of AGW, except as a temperature increase of the oceans?
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2017
  15. river

    Messages:
    9,802
    From posts # 243 and 244 .

    Decay " rate of motion itself " .

    Explain further , Geon .
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,129
    You can dare, but you'd be wrong. Potential is what rules things that are not precisely known.

    Potential, a latent ability which may become reality.
     
  17. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190

    Sure you can think about potential, but something cannot come from nothing. If you are satisfied in the idea of ''randomness'' that's fine. But I have given to the table a different interpretation where statistics are not random at all. In response to hidden variables and whether the universe was deterministic, Susskind once said on the matter, ''will probably turn out Einstein was right again.''
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,476
    Wave functions are mathematical entities. They don't "feature" randomness, or causality, or force, or anything of the kind, unless one chooses to interpret them in particular ways. And they don't have a "statistical nature", whatever that is.
    The question was whether such "hidden variables" represented anything one could label a "cause". So far, we have shown that we would need something that produced violations of Bell's Inequality - which rules out most people's intuitive notions of "force" and the like.

    My suggestion, to those who want to have causes and effects (which are really nice to have, in human thought) is to observe the relationship between cause/effect explanations in general and probability in general, in fundamental theory such as Darwin's or the 2nd Law, and extrapolate: accept probability itself as a "cause", as a mathematically perceived aspect of reality unavailable to our senses. Something like "time".
    No, you can't. The new distinguishable states are not restorations - they have no such relationship with the states prior to entanglement.
    The newly measured states - just as "expected" by theory - violate Bell's Inequality. That is impossible for a priori correlated states. Any formerly existing correlation has to have been destroyed.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2017
  19. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190
    Read an article today that hints at things I have been speaking about:

    But can quantum reconstructions also help us understand the “meaning” of quantum mechanics? Hardy doubts that these efforts can resolve arguments about interpretation — whether we need many worlds or just one, for example. After all, precisely because the reconstructionist program is inherently “operational,” meaning that it focuses on the “user experience” — probabilities about what we measure — it may never speak about the “underlying reality” that creates those probabilities.

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-theory-rebuilt-from-simple-physical-principles-20170830/
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,476
    You are attempting to "speak about" the underlying reality that your author as quoted by you states is not spoken about by this "reconstruction from first principles".
    So what are the "hints"?
     
  21. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190
    Larmor radiation increases with the speed of a system and was once called an electromagnetc inertia by Feynmann. In this case there is a hint that the decay of a system through the loss of radiation can be seen in this instance, related to the motion of a system.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,129
    Yep, Potential, inherent in the fabric of the universe itself.
    I read it and came to the irrefutable conclusion that if we can "operationally reconstruct" universal conditions, then that means;
    a) Universal laws permit (do not forbid) this procedure.
    b) The potential was already present as an implicate, which we made explicit in our reality..
     
  23. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,375
    Yes, they do if you don't measure the states. If you do any measurements the entanglement is destroyed, not the correlations. If the correlations were destroyed quantum computation would not be possible.

    If you entangle two qubits with a Hadamard transform of one of them followed by a CNOT on both, you can reverse this with the inverse of the Hadamard/CNOT gates. But not if either qubit has a classical measurement made on it before the inverse 'circuit' occurs.
    I think you're confusing classical correlation with quantum correlation.
     

Share This Page