QM randomness...

Seattle

Seattle

Valued Senior Member
Is it possible that QM randomness is just lack of information that could change to determinism in a new refinement of QM?

I understand (I think) that QM requires a certain randomness and is not just a lack of perfect knowledge as is the case in Classical Physics. Isn't it possible that with more knowledge in the future about how the quantum world works that the predictions of QM today could still be upheld but the underlying math changed in a more deterministic manner?

For instance Classical Physics explains our everyday world. So does GR but in a more precise way. QM explains the quantum world but a future refinement of the theory could keep the current results (would have to) and offer more precise results using different math based on future discoveries of how things work.

Just as the Pilot Wave theory (in my limited understanding) does that for QM now.

The bigger, subjective, question is how likely is it that the more "mysterious" nature of QM might go away in the future with more knowledge of how the quantum world works?

It seems to me there is a very fine line between randomness, a chaotic system, and a deterministic system with less than perfect knowledge.
 
Seattle said:
Is it possible that QM randomness is just lack of information that could change to determinism in a new refinement of QM?
Click to expand...
Nope. I never meant to suggest anything like throwing out the statistical physics models which permeate quantum physics. It's essential in too many ways and working models to ignore.

G-d allows people to play dice in Donald Trump's casinos, does he not? Not G-d's fault if people are that stupid; he gifted them all functioning brains, and not just for hat racks. Think of it as evolution hard at work. See how statistical nature really is? Even someone like Trump rides those odds like they were his horses, because they got him this far.
 
From Seattle Post 1
Is it possible that QM randomness is just lack of information that could change to determinism in a new refinement of QM?
Click to expand...
There are physical processes which are truly random.

Radioactive decay is a well known random process. There are others.

It is interesting that the classical world of our senses which seems deterministic is built on a quantum level governed by probabilistic laws.

BTW: Even when mainstream science believed in a deterministic universe, nobody believed that it was possible to make accurate predictions of all future events.

In the early 20th century mainstream, science abandoned the notion of a deterministic universe due to the development of Quantum Theory.

For example: If the decay of a radioactive atom is discovered to be due to some quark level event, it would merely push the randomness down a level.

In some context, it was said
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, & quacks like a duck you should believe that it is a duck.
Click to expand...
Various processes obey probabilistic laws. One should believe that such processes are not deterministic.
 
Dinosaur said:
There are physical processes which are truly random.

Radioactive decay is a well known random process. There are others.
Click to expand...
I'd surmise that Seattle would ask:

How do we know it's random? How do we know there's isn't a deeper symmetry to decay?
 
I understand (I think) that QM requires a certain randomness and is not just a lack of perfect knowledge as is the case in Classical Physics. Isn't it possible that with more knowledge in the future about how the quantum world works that the predictions of QM today could still be upheld but the underlying math changed in a more deterministicmanner?
Click to expand...

Perfect knowledge ? QM will always be random , because the knowledge gained now is yesterdays news so to speak .

The only way to for QM to be predictable is to control the randomness of QM to the point that QM is no longer , random .

The consequence being the creativity of QM , the Natural dynamic of QM , creativity its self , is lessened , actually nulled entirely .

So why do this ? Control QM ?
 
I'm just asking a question and not making a statement. :)

For instance with the "measurement problem" there seems to be a mystery there. However if you consider that any measurement/observation has to be due to an interface between the macro world and the micro world then that creates the randomness potentially.

Were it possible to know what was happening without that interface it might be entirely deterministic?

I'm pretty sure that the superposition/many worlds view is just a mathematical construct rather than a description of what is happening in reality.

I do agree that things like radioactive decay seem to be random (or maybe not as was pointed out).

The quantum world does seem unknowable with specificity past the Planck limit but I'm not sure it's actually always a case of being random in a world with perfect knowledge.

I'm just trying to get a better handle on QM. The math makes the correct predictions so it's here to stay. The interpretations are all over the place and there is no (currently) correct interpretation. I just tend to lean towards the less mysterious interpretations but I try to understand the underlying problem correctly or accurately and thus the questions.
 
From DaveC426913 Post 7
I'd surmise that Seattle would ask:

How do we know it's random? How do we know there's isn't a deeper symmetry to decay?
Click to expand...
Why are you guessing what Seattle would ask?

From my Post #6
For example: If the decay of a radioactive atom is discovered to be due to some quark level event, it would merely push the randomness down a level.
Click to expand...
I think my above remark answered the question.

Also from my Post #6
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, & quacks like a duck you should believe that it is a duck.

Various processes obey probabilistic laws. One should believe that such processes are not deterministic.
Click to expand...
 
From Seattle Post 1
Is it possible that QM randomness is just lack of information that could change to determinism in a new refinement of QM?It seems to me there is a very fine line between randomness, a chaotic system, and a deterministic system with less than perfect knowledge.
Click to expand...
The random system is not predictable no matter how powerful the computer.

The chaotic system is predictable, but some such systems might not be predictable in real time. Id est: The calculations might take longer than the time requited to wait & see the result of the system.

A deterministic system with less than perfect knowledge is still deterministic, although I do not know how one could decide it was deterministic.

From DaveC426913 Post 7
I'd surmise that Seattle would ask:

How do we know it's random? How do we know there's isn't a deeper symmetry to decay?
Click to expand...
I believe I answered the last of the above as follows
If the decay of a radioactive atom is discovered to be due to some quark level event, it would merely push the randomness down a level.
. . . . .
Various processes obey probabilistic laws. One should believe that such processes are not deterministic.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, & quacks like a duck you should believe that it is a duck.
Click to expand...
 
Seattle said:
Were it possible to know what was happening without that interface it might be entirely deterministic?
Click to expand...
Yes. Total determinism is one of the standard explanations of all quantum phenomena - no cause and effect, no laws or forces, not even the passage of time, but everything just as it is irrevocably and unchangeably. It was put forward early on by Bell himself as one logically defensible explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

It is my initial starting point for my own take on the matter, btw - I regard it as misleadingly described by most, and when better described quite plausible.
 
What is random?
Can we get something called "true random"?
If we throw a coin, can we call the outcome as random? Then we throw a dice with 6 faces, will the outcome (1 to 6) be random? Now let us increase the number of faces to n > 6, will the outcome be still random? It will become random only when n = infinity. That will fail the maths. So nothing is random, it is just that our knowledge is lacking.
 
The God said:
So nothing is random, it is just that our knowledge is lacking.
Click to expand...
That does not appear to be the case with quantum phenomena. So far no one has thought of any generally agreed and persuasive knowledge - of any kind, even currently unobtainable - that would allow us to predict the outcomes of certain measurements other than as chance.
 
iceaura said:
That does not appear to be the case with quantum phenomena. So far no one has thought of any generally agreed and persuasive knowledge - of any kind, even currently unobtainable - that would allow us to predict the outcomes of certain measurements other than as chance.
Click to expand...

Thats precisely is lack of our understanding.

Anything having non-zero probability cannot be random or cannot be chance.

1. All man made AI based or otherwise so called random number generators are based on some algorithms. They are good enough for the purpose for which they are designed and required but they are deterministic.

2. Radioactivity is modelled as random phenomenon, it's more because we may not have full understanding of nuclear, sub nuclear phenomena.

3. All these QM measurement based uncertainties are not chance, they are deterministic and they indicate lack of or incompleteness of our prevalent theories.

The day we understand fully that vacuum fluctuation or quantum fluctuation is not at-will-pop-in-and-pop-out phenomenon but is absolutely and determinitically causal, the things would change.

...These are my views, and may not be as per prevalent held belief of randomness at QM level....
 
Let's throw a coin, its general agreement that everything being same with no bias the chance of H or T will be same. Really?

This is good enough for general need or usage of such tossing, but I am very confident a complex maths involving initial thrust, coin material, the direction of initial thrust, the side configuration at the time of throw, the spin, air drag, upward motion, drop height etc etc can determine the outcome. We can predict the outcome of a throw, it may not be worth for day today toss requirement, but we can certainly eliminate the chance theory here.
 
The God said:
Thats precisely is lack of our understanding.

Anything having non-zero probability cannot be random or cannot be chance.

1. All man made AI based or otherwise so called random number generators are based on some algorithms. They are good enough for the purpose for which they are designed and required but they are deterministic.

2. Radioactivity is modelled as random phenomenon, it's more because we may not have full understanding of nuclear, sub nuclear phenomena.

3. All these QM measurement based uncertainties are not chance, they are deterministic and they indicate lack of or incompleteness of our prevalent theories.

The day we understand fully that vacuum fluctuation or quantum fluctuation is not at-will-pop-in-and-pop-out phenomenon but is absolutely and determinitically causal, the things would change.

...These are my views, and may not be as per prevalent held belief of randomness at QM level....
Click to expand...

You are correct , I disagree with the determination of QM as being causal .

Cause -affect -effect .

Effect is the cause of the cause of the affect .
 
The God said:
3. All these QM measurement based uncertainties are not chance, they are deterministic and they indicate lack of or incompleteness of our prevalent theories.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the available ways in which the prevailing theory is lacking and incomplete all offer even worse alternatives than true randomness, to most people. And meanwhile the prevailing theory has proved itself completely reliable and fantastically accurate in prediction, in all circumstances - it is as of now the most thoroughly vetted and reliable theory in all of science.

There are only so many ways the observed behavior can be generated by a deterministic sequence, and none of them agree with human intuition any better than true randomness does (at least, until I get more persuasive than I have been). Meanwhile, the assumption that true randomness is involved keeps handing us correct answers and accurate predictions.

The violations of Bell's Inequality illustrate that well.
 
iceaura said:
The problem is that the available ways in which the prevailing theory is lacking and incomplete all offer even worse alternatives than true randomness, to most people. And meanwhile the prevailing theory has proved itself completely reliable and fantastically accurate in prediction, in all circumstances - it is as of now the most thoroughly vetted and reliable theory in all of science.

There are only so many ways the observed behavior can be generated by a deterministic sequence, and none of them agree with human intuition any better than true randomness does (at least, until I get more persuasive than I have been). Meanwhile, the assumption that true randomness is involved keeps handing us correct answers and accurate predictions.

The violations of Bell's Inequality illustrate that well.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but I see QM as cause - effect - affect , within a circle of movement .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top