QM randomness...

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

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,472
    We have ruled out all ordinary causes - those that obey the rules of standard logic, that either do or do not exist at any given moment, for example - for radioactive decay.
    There is no evidence whatsoever for any "trigger event", and no one has any idea what it would look like, how it could possibly work or even exist.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    So we keep trying, while working on what is in hand. Right now what we have is random nature of radioactivity, tmro this may change. This is a scientific theory, its falsifiable.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Contemplation Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    Particle physicist are not able to see inside of particles while they are still in once piece, because they try to figure out what is going on inside of them by smashing them apart in particle accelerators. Then it is really anyone's guess what is actually going on inside of those particles based on what they see come out of them. That is why they are a ton of super-symmetry theories and string theory. None of those theories can be actually proven, because they don't make predictions that are different from The Standard Model of quantum physics. In order for a mechanism to be defined that describes the rate and time of occurrence of radioactive decay, then someone would have to develop a super-symmetric theory that accurately predicts it, but that would most likely be a wild goose chase. The entire basis of quantum electrodynamics was developing mathematics that could describe any truly random set of events...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,472
    Of course it is in principle falsifiable. But it can only be replaced by something that accounts for the observations, the data. And nothing that looks like what we now call a "cause", a physical reality that determines another physical reality, is going to do that.
     
  8. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    This does not sound good from a guy, who has been pushing non-determinism so hard. Just chill.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,472
    Chill? Non-determinism?

    I'm the guy who pointed out that randomness produces the hardest core, most reliable, least avoidable deterministic predictions available, that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is the Law whose violation would require the best evidence, the most complete justification, and so forth.

    The random nature of radioactive decay is an observation, not a theory. Any new theory has to reproduce it, along with the Bell violations and so forth, and all the other observations that agree perfectly with QED. That puts severe restrictions on hypothetical causes - to the point one questions the classification as "cause".
     
  10. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,618
    Belief in determinism is like religious faith. Evidence is ignored.

    It amazes me that a view of reality discredited circa 1920 in favor of randomess at the quantum level is still a POV held by many.

    I have some otherwise knowledgeable friends who do not accept the existence of random processes, but are not strict believers in determinism.

    Double think ala the novel 1984?
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Quantum randomness can be found in the ZPF ( zero point field ) .

    It is this field that allows randomness to exist , next question why ?

    Because the ZPF , juggles the quantum particles all the time .
     
  12. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190
    Randomness is a conjecture, you first need to argue for it. Not everyone is in agreement - science is build upon the foundation of the law cause of effect - when we start thinking about randomness, we lose sense of the science.
     
  13. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190
    No, the uncertainty principle is about a limited amount of information we can extract from a system using any two given complimentary observables. Though people think of the fluctuations of space and the uncertainty principle in such terms of randomness, its most likely wrong.
     
  14. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Hmmm....

    What are complimentary observables ?
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,472
    Most causes are probabilities, when rigorously described.
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Randomness is necessary for the creativness of things .

    Randomness allows things to exist .

    Randomness comes from the subatomic . It allows the subatomic to miggle in such a way that natural elements become manifested .
     
  17. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190
    There was a time people thought free will indicated that determinism did not exist. We have been pleasantly shocked: https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ly-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/

    Are things actually random, what is a probability? We often think of probability as it is linked to the probabilistic wave function - again what is probability, on a quantum scale, when things are causually ordered macroscopically? Are we to just abandon now any notion of determinism because quantum mechanics seems so alien to us? I hope some of us have more backbone than this.
     
  18. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190

    Complimentary observables, are observables whose existence depend on each other in complimentary ways. However it does not imply randomness at all - there are just some things that do not commute and they never did even classically-speaking. So we need to be careful, about idea's of determinism with physics.
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,123
    That's because the probabilistic event happens in our past which makes it determined in our present.
     
  20. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190
    But can a deterministic world arise from a non-deterministic one? If such a case is possible, how does order on the scale we observe, become manifest from a non-causal world? If causuality is not fundamental in such a case, why do we live in a causally constructed macroworld?

    Of course, things may seem very random in a world with phenomenon we do not understand - for instance, quantum entanglement, tend to thread matter with matter, space with matter and space with space! This universe is far from being understood... things are connected in ''unseen'' ways but should never mean that's all just random stuff without any meaning. If there was no meaning to things, we would not be here.
     
  21. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190
    This is why idea's like pilot waves and hidden variables have still not yet died out.
     
  22. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190

    A good example is a recent investigation of my own, which shows that even classical cases have the information inside of them to describe commutation.

    \((\nabla_i\nabla_j - \nabla_j \nabla_i) =\frac{\partial \Gamma_i}{\partial x^j} + \frac{\partial \Gamma_j}{\partial x^i} + \Gamma_i \Gamma_j = \frac{1}{\Delta L\ c \Delta t} \geq \frac{c^3}{G \hbar}\)

    This may look complicated, but its actually related to what we are discussing... what are the commutating variables here?

    Its a derivative of space \(\nabla_i\) and one with time \(\nabla_j\) - these derivatives are important though! They are the gravitational field connections! Those derivatives are nothing more than uncertainties taken in the observable or complimentary components \(\Delta L\) and \(\Delta t\) - which is hinted at being a non-trivial relationship and so I argue, a non-trivial application of two fundamental ideas.

    This is how classical theories can tend to agree with quantum ones at times.
     
  23. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190
    Be careful! Time isn't an observable, but in these dimensions it is because \(ct = x\) giving rise to

    \(\Delta X_a\Delta X_b\)
     

Share This Page