Quantum Mechanics
-
Does not the physics of QM provide for "true randomness" in the Universe? I'm debating a friend who seems to think everything is predetermined, period. My argument against, is that his proposal would be a finite machine, one which could be moved either forward or back. Additionally, my argument continues, if true randomness exists, then it can't be predetermined nor undone. Am I incorrect? Any thoughts?
Randomness tends to apply at the individual particle level - once you observe it, thus fixing some set of its properties (but not others - that's the outcome of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle[^]). Before that, particle properties can be specified as a probability distribution. As you gather together large numbers of particles, they tend to be statistically distributed according to that probability distribution. Electron diffraction[^] (any diffraction, I guess, presuming you go with a particulate nature for light) illustrates this. If you slow the rate of particles so you can detect individual particles, then diffracted particles appear to be deflected by random angles. Aggregate lots of particles together and you get a smoothly curved distribution of particles, which defines the probability that any individual particle will be deflected at a specific angle. What does that mean for your argument? Well - at an everyday (and also at most cosmological) level, motion of objects is actually pretty predictable - look how well we can predict planetary motion, for example.
achimera wrote:
My argument against, is that his proposal would be a finite machine, one which could be moved either forward or back. Additionally, my argument continues, if true randomness exists, then it can't be predetermined nor undone.
The second law of thermodynamics (total entropy of an isolated system increases over time[^]) implies directionality of time. What has that to do with randomnss? Well, as far as I can tell, high entropy states are the most likely states for systems to end up in, as (because of the high homogenity of the system) they describe the highest fraction of the possible states of the system. Confused? Yeah, well, I am.
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
-
My verbage isn't that great, but I think I get my point accross ok... Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This can be taken as true in any form from an atomic level to a macro level (solar systems and galaxies). As far as I know, you can safely say that each molecule affects the molecule next to it, to some degree, and in the same regard each atom reacts from interaction with other atoms around it. Like a game of marbles, each flick of a marble has an impact on all the other marbles near it; you project the marble with force, and based on so many variables such as gravity, speed, acceleration, mass, velocity, surface area, etc, etc, it hits another marble sending it moving along it's OWN course. Obviously losing energy through other resistances such as friction the second marble may hit a third marble, repeating these effects, but to a lower degree, until all that energy is disipated and the marbles no longer move. You could say that throwing that marble a billion times will NEVER render the exact same results; there will always be some kind of "randomness" associated with the event, and this is completely true. Throw it forever, and you will no doubt never see the same outcome. However, this does not mean that true randomness exists in our universe. Say we were using the big bang as a point of origin for an event. Similar to the marbles, the explosion sends debris, rocks, elements, gasses, energy, etc eminating, rather speeding away from the event horizon heading out into the universe (or as some presume, CREATING the universe itself by expanding at the speed of light). Now at a macro level these bits and pieces hitting each other cause enormous explosions and other major disruptions in space-time, which in turn ricochet off on their own courses, causing more explosions, et al. Imagine, however, what is happening at an atomic level. Atoms changing, breaking apart(?), forming molecules, etc, but importantly, the path of each individual atom is governed entirely by the forces and resistances surrounding it, and of course in large part by other atoms hitting it (or coming close and deterring them electromagnetically(?)). If you knew the position of every single atom in existence at any one point in time :wtf: , you could without error predict the movement of the entire universe, or the exact, and i mean EXACT path of a marble that has been hit by another marble, that was itself hit by a marble being flicked.... You could predict EXACTLY the movement of the leaves on a tree, an
I knew you were going to say that. :rolleyes:
-
Does not the physics of QM provide for "true randomness" in the Universe? I'm debating a friend who seems to think everything is predetermined, period. My argument against, is that his proposal would be a finite machine, one which could be moved either forward or back. Additionally, my argument continues, if true randomness exists, then it can't be predetermined nor undone. Am I incorrect? Any thoughts?
-
My verbage isn't that great, but I think I get my point accross ok... Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This can be taken as true in any form from an atomic level to a macro level (solar systems and galaxies). As far as I know, you can safely say that each molecule affects the molecule next to it, to some degree, and in the same regard each atom reacts from interaction with other atoms around it. Like a game of marbles, each flick of a marble has an impact on all the other marbles near it; you project the marble with force, and based on so many variables such as gravity, speed, acceleration, mass, velocity, surface area, etc, etc, it hits another marble sending it moving along it's OWN course. Obviously losing energy through other resistances such as friction the second marble may hit a third marble, repeating these effects, but to a lower degree, until all that energy is disipated and the marbles no longer move. You could say that throwing that marble a billion times will NEVER render the exact same results; there will always be some kind of "randomness" associated with the event, and this is completely true. Throw it forever, and you will no doubt never see the same outcome. However, this does not mean that true randomness exists in our universe. Say we were using the big bang as a point of origin for an event. Similar to the marbles, the explosion sends debris, rocks, elements, gasses, energy, etc eminating, rather speeding away from the event horizon heading out into the universe (or as some presume, CREATING the universe itself by expanding at the speed of light). Now at a macro level these bits and pieces hitting each other cause enormous explosions and other major disruptions in space-time, which in turn ricochet off on their own courses, causing more explosions, et al. Imagine, however, what is happening at an atomic level. Atoms changing, breaking apart(?), forming molecules, etc, but importantly, the path of each individual atom is governed entirely by the forces and resistances surrounding it, and of course in large part by other atoms hitting it (or coming close and deterring them electromagnetically(?)). If you knew the position of every single atom in existence at any one point in time :wtf: , you could without error predict the movement of the entire universe, or the exact, and i mean EXACT path of a marble that has been hit by another marble, that was itself hit by a marble being flicked.... You could predict EXACTLY the movement of the leaves on a tree, an
MichaelGallagher wrote:
my atoms are being affected by other atoms
affected != determined :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google - the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get - use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
-
At what point does unpredictable determinsim become randomness?
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
Randomness is a lack of order, purpose, cause, or predictability.
-
MichaelGallagher wrote:
my atoms are being affected by other atoms
affected != determined :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google - the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get - use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
But aren't they one in the same? If you played a game of snooker, and slowed it down to one atomic movement per frame, you could see the interaction between all of the molecules, on every level from what you see as the pool ball all the way down to the most finite part, an atom. Each of those interactions, frictions, movements and collisions would all cause a determined reaction on the next atom, and the angle at which that atom flies off would be determined by the angle of approach by the previous atom, just like the white ball hitting another ball, hitting another, and then hitting the black, etc. From a macro view, watching and playing the table, you have a certain amount of control, to put the ball in the hole using other collisions before hand. If you had control at an atomic level, you could direct each ball with 100% certainty in any direction, and DETERMINE exactly where it should go, and therefore know exactly where the hits after that would go also, assuming you had no other resistances such as the pool table itself, etc. Apart from all of that, string theory says that, since there may be something smaller than an atom, randomness may exist after all. If the string theory determines the properties of an atom, or of the nucleus, proton, electrons or something else, then if the absolute smallest element of matter should be studied to see how IT affects the overall nature of energy and mass itself. :confused:
-
But aren't they one in the same? If you played a game of snooker, and slowed it down to one atomic movement per frame, you could see the interaction between all of the molecules, on every level from what you see as the pool ball all the way down to the most finite part, an atom. Each of those interactions, frictions, movements and collisions would all cause a determined reaction on the next atom, and the angle at which that atom flies off would be determined by the angle of approach by the previous atom, just like the white ball hitting another ball, hitting another, and then hitting the black, etc. From a macro view, watching and playing the table, you have a certain amount of control, to put the ball in the hole using other collisions before hand. If you had control at an atomic level, you could direct each ball with 100% certainty in any direction, and DETERMINE exactly where it should go, and therefore know exactly where the hits after that would go also, assuming you had no other resistances such as the pool table itself, etc. Apart from all of that, string theory says that, since there may be something smaller than an atom, randomness may exist after all. If the string theory determines the properties of an atom, or of the nucleus, proton, electrons or something else, then if the absolute smallest element of matter should be studied to see how IT affects the overall nature of energy and mass itself. :confused:
MichaelGallagher wrote:
But aren't they one in the same?
No. In an election, your vote will affect the score and may affect the outcome, but (unless you found a way to cheat) you can't determine the outcome. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google - the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get - use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
-
My verbage isn't that great, but I think I get my point accross ok... Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This can be taken as true in any form from an atomic level to a macro level (solar systems and galaxies). As far as I know, you can safely say that each molecule affects the molecule next to it, to some degree, and in the same regard each atom reacts from interaction with other atoms around it. Like a game of marbles, each flick of a marble has an impact on all the other marbles near it; you project the marble with force, and based on so many variables such as gravity, speed, acceleration, mass, velocity, surface area, etc, etc, it hits another marble sending it moving along it's OWN course. Obviously losing energy through other resistances such as friction the second marble may hit a third marble, repeating these effects, but to a lower degree, until all that energy is disipated and the marbles no longer move. You could say that throwing that marble a billion times will NEVER render the exact same results; there will always be some kind of "randomness" associated with the event, and this is completely true. Throw it forever, and you will no doubt never see the same outcome. However, this does not mean that true randomness exists in our universe. Say we were using the big bang as a point of origin for an event. Similar to the marbles, the explosion sends debris, rocks, elements, gasses, energy, etc eminating, rather speeding away from the event horizon heading out into the universe (or as some presume, CREATING the universe itself by expanding at the speed of light). Now at a macro level these bits and pieces hitting each other cause enormous explosions and other major disruptions in space-time, which in turn ricochet off on their own courses, causing more explosions, et al. Imagine, however, what is happening at an atomic level. Atoms changing, breaking apart(?), forming molecules, etc, but importantly, the path of each individual atom is governed entirely by the forces and resistances surrounding it, and of course in large part by other atoms hitting it (or coming close and deterring them electromagnetically(?)). If you knew the position of every single atom in existence at any one point in time :wtf: , you could without error predict the movement of the entire universe, or the exact, and i mean EXACT path of a marble that has been hit by another marble, that was itself hit by a marble being flicked.... You could predict EXACTLY the movement of the leaves on a tree, an
MichaelGallagher wrote:
If you knew the position of every single atom in existence at any one point in time , you could without error predict the movement of the entire universe, or the exact, and i mean EXACT path of a marble that has been hit by another marble, that was itself hit by a marble being flicked....
I believe Socrates already debated that particular argument thousands of years ago. As I understand it, QM provides the exact state of an atom cannot be determined, it can only be estimated or predicted. If so, then there is never any certainty -- thus the uncertain portion would lead to "randomness", would it not?
-
Yes and it's called Uncertainty Principle[^]
-
My verbage isn't that great, but I think I get my point accross ok... Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This can be taken as true in any form from an atomic level to a macro level (solar systems and galaxies). As far as I know, you can safely say that each molecule affects the molecule next to it, to some degree, and in the same regard each atom reacts from interaction with other atoms around it. Like a game of marbles, each flick of a marble has an impact on all the other marbles near it; you project the marble with force, and based on so many variables such as gravity, speed, acceleration, mass, velocity, surface area, etc, etc, it hits another marble sending it moving along it's OWN course. Obviously losing energy through other resistances such as friction the second marble may hit a third marble, repeating these effects, but to a lower degree, until all that energy is disipated and the marbles no longer move. You could say that throwing that marble a billion times will NEVER render the exact same results; there will always be some kind of "randomness" associated with the event, and this is completely true. Throw it forever, and you will no doubt never see the same outcome. However, this does not mean that true randomness exists in our universe. Say we were using the big bang as a point of origin for an event. Similar to the marbles, the explosion sends debris, rocks, elements, gasses, energy, etc eminating, rather speeding away from the event horizon heading out into the universe (or as some presume, CREATING the universe itself by expanding at the speed of light). Now at a macro level these bits and pieces hitting each other cause enormous explosions and other major disruptions in space-time, which in turn ricochet off on their own courses, causing more explosions, et al. Imagine, however, what is happening at an atomic level. Atoms changing, breaking apart(?), forming molecules, etc, but importantly, the path of each individual atom is governed entirely by the forces and resistances surrounding it, and of course in large part by other atoms hitting it (or coming close and deterring them electromagnetically(?)). If you knew the position of every single atom in existence at any one point in time :wtf: , you could without error predict the movement of the entire universe, or the exact, and i mean EXACT path of a marble that has been hit by another marble, that was itself hit by a marble being flicked.... You could predict EXACTLY the movement of the leaves on a tree, an
MichaelGallagher wrote:
If you knew the position of every single atom in existence at any one point in time , you could without error predict the movement of the entire universe, or the exact, and i mean EXACT path of a marble that has been hit by another marble, that was itself hit by a marble being flicked
This is the point of Quantum Mechanics, and more specifically, Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. You cannot know precisely the positions and velocities of anything exactly. You can only know it to within a very, very, very small degree of uncertainty. Below a certain threshold the universe is fuzzy. The more you try and measure the position of a particle, the less you will be able to measure its momentum, and vice versa. Hence, you will never, ever have an exact answer on where something is or how fast it's travelling, and hence will never be able to, with certainty, calculate exactly the movement of, say, leaves on a tree. The universe is fuzzy and uncertain and random.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
At what point does unpredictable determinsim become randomness?
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
At the smallest level you are trying to measure, ħ
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
MichaelGallagher wrote:
If you knew the position of every single atom in existence at any one point in time , you could without error predict the movement of the entire universe, or the exact, and i mean EXACT path of a marble that has been hit by another marble, that was itself hit by a marble being flicked
This is the point of Quantum Mechanics, and more specifically, Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. You cannot know precisely the positions and velocities of anything exactly. You can only know it to within a very, very, very small degree of uncertainty. Below a certain threshold the universe is fuzzy. The more you try and measure the position of a particle, the less you will be able to measure its momentum, and vice versa. Hence, you will never, ever have an exact answer on where something is or how fast it's travelling, and hence will never be able to, with certainty, calculate exactly the movement of, say, leaves on a tree. The universe is fuzzy and uncertain and random.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
Below a certain threshold the universe is fuzzy. The more you try and measure the position of a particle, the less you will be able to measure its momentum, and vice versa.
Ok, this is what I also believe, but isn't that only if WE attempt to measure or intercept a particle? The laws of physics that govern a particle or something so small are different to the laws for objects the size of, say, a human being, or Earth. So trying to measure or observe the characteristics of a particle in our real-time 'macro-verse'(?) could potentially report incorrect results, or missing or contradictory information. Are the properties of the 'fuzzy' parts of the universe not completely defined simply because we cannot measure them effectively? Don't a particles properties exist as a uniform constant regardless of the outcome that the observers best attempts had at defining them? Does a falling tree make a sound if there's no one there to hear it? :-\ Am I completely off track? I have to review every bloody sentence I write! :doh:
-
MichaelGallagher wrote:
If you knew the position of every single atom in existence at any one point in time , you could without error predict the movement of the entire universe, or the exact, and i mean EXACT path of a marble that has been hit by another marble, that was itself hit by a marble being flicked....
I believe Socrates already debated that particular argument thousands of years ago. As I understand it, QM provides the exact state of an atom cannot be determined, it can only be estimated or predicted. If so, then there is never any certainty -- thus the uncertain portion would lead to "randomness", would it not?
Yeah that sounds quite logical, but just because an exact state can't be determined, does that mean an exact state doesn't exist? I'll have to read up on Socrates, sounds really interesting. The thing I love about science is that a lot of fundamentals were uncovered by guys in the last couple thousand years, without all the technical abilities and tools we have today, because the principles are all around us, in nature, in many forms, and to have a fundamental understanding of them you don't really need to understand the mathematics, just picture the process in your head. In fact, they may have had an advantage over others today; not having been already brainwashed with certain "facts" about our universe and not having the preassure of religion telling them they are unequivocally wrong (well, not all the time). So simple, yet so complex! Einstein, what a legend.
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
Below a certain threshold the universe is fuzzy. The more you try and measure the position of a particle, the less you will be able to measure its momentum, and vice versa.
Ok, this is what I also believe, but isn't that only if WE attempt to measure or intercept a particle? The laws of physics that govern a particle or something so small are different to the laws for objects the size of, say, a human being, or Earth. So trying to measure or observe the characteristics of a particle in our real-time 'macro-verse'(?) could potentially report incorrect results, or missing or contradictory information. Are the properties of the 'fuzzy' parts of the universe not completely defined simply because we cannot measure them effectively? Don't a particles properties exist as a uniform constant regardless of the outcome that the observers best attempts had at defining them? Does a falling tree make a sound if there's no one there to hear it? :-\ Am I completely off track? I have to review every bloody sentence I write! :doh:
Since you mentioned snooker, imagine that balls are in fact subatomic particles. So if you try to pot a ball, you need to know its position and its color. But since mere observation can affect it you can determine only one property, either color (and lose information about position) or position (and lose information about color). Well you have third possibility, not to look at the table at all. But all in all, game of snooker would simply be random hitting and potting of the balls on the table. And this phenomenon is not because we don't have sophisticated technology to measure properties without distracting the state of the particles. It's the nature of observation at such small scale. It's like traveling faster then light. It's not possible, not because we don't have technology, but because it's nature of our universe.
-
But aren't they one in the same? If you played a game of snooker, and slowed it down to one atomic movement per frame, you could see the interaction between all of the molecules, on every level from what you see as the pool ball all the way down to the most finite part, an atom. Each of those interactions, frictions, movements and collisions would all cause a determined reaction on the next atom, and the angle at which that atom flies off would be determined by the angle of approach by the previous atom, just like the white ball hitting another ball, hitting another, and then hitting the black, etc. From a macro view, watching and playing the table, you have a certain amount of control, to put the ball in the hole using other collisions before hand. If you had control at an atomic level, you could direct each ball with 100% certainty in any direction, and DETERMINE exactly where it should go, and therefore know exactly where the hits after that would go also, assuming you had no other resistances such as the pool table itself, etc. Apart from all of that, string theory says that, since there may be something smaller than an atom, randomness may exist after all. If the string theory determines the properties of an atom, or of the nucleus, proton, electrons or something else, then if the absolute smallest element of matter should be studied to see how IT affects the overall nature of energy and mass itself. :confused:
No. You can't sit there and watch each of the atoms, electrons, protons, etc. To 'watch' them, you have to interact with them (throw photons at them, for instance). Interacting with them only allows you to get so much information about them - it has to do with how small a wave length you use to interact with the particle is. If you want to find out 'exactly' where it is, you have to use a high frequency wave packet. In QM, high freq means high energy. So you throw this high energy wave packet at the atom, and it localizes the interaction, but adds some indeterminate momentum to the atom. Since (as it turns out) you don't know exactly what the wave packet was doing, you only have a statistical understanding of it's motion - that is, you are uncertain of the 'real' location and momentum of the wave packet - you only have a statical understanding of the momentum of the particle it interacts with. You can not know where something at that scale is, and know it's momentum - there is a trade off, so you can know location to any degree you wan, but it costs you information on the momentum. You can use as large a wavelength as you want to find it's momentum, but the large wave length means you don't know where it is. So no, you can't know where everything is, and how fast it is moving, so you can't know what everything is going to do.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Does not the physics of QM provide for "true randomness" in the Universe? I'm debating a friend who seems to think everything is predetermined, period. My argument against, is that his proposal would be a finite machine, one which could be moved either forward or back. Additionally, my argument continues, if true randomness exists, then it can't be predetermined nor undone. Am I incorrect? Any thoughts?
achimera wrote:
Does not the physics of QM provide for "true randomness" in the Universe?
If you will pardon the pun it is uncertain if that is the case. We do not know how to get from our description (which are a probability distribution of where a particle might be) to where it is - our tools do not allow it. We don't think there are 'hidden state variables' that contain more information than we are able to discern, so we currently believe that the outcome of any quantum reaction is truly random. Even if it is not truly random, we don't know what will happen, and it sure looks that way to us. It could be predetermined at some level that we don't know about, but we have no data available to us about that level. In the end, we are only able to state with certainty that we can not characterize it at anything other than a probabilistic manner. So, it is a nice argument to have, and you can say that, at our current level of knowledge, which we believe to give an almost complete understanding of 'normal' conditions (and a pretty good one of relativistic conditions) we are only able to give a statistical description of what will happen. So to us, it looks random, and we do not know more than that, or even if there is more than that to know. Maybe it is predetermined, maybe it is not, you can only know what you can know. I think it was best described as "you can't get there from here". If, on the other hand, your friend believes that God made everything, and that He predetermined everything, ask him if the Bible does not also talk about free will. God may fully know everything that will happen, while at the same time having let us do whatever we want. While we see time go by, and make our free will decisions, God seems to have a complete view of 4-D space-time at once, based on Bible reading, so, in his view, it has all 'happened'. Thinking about the motion of 4+ dimensional 'branes may be fully capable of frying brains.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Yeah that sounds quite logical, but just because an exact state can't be determined, does that mean an exact state doesn't exist? I'll have to read up on Socrates, sounds really interesting. The thing I love about science is that a lot of fundamentals were uncovered by guys in the last couple thousand years, without all the technical abilities and tools we have today, because the principles are all around us, in nature, in many forms, and to have a fundamental understanding of them you don't really need to understand the mathematics, just picture the process in your head. In fact, they may have had an advantage over others today; not having been already brainwashed with certain "facts" about our universe and not having the preassure of religion telling them they are unequivocally wrong (well, not all the time). So simple, yet so complex! Einstein, what a legend.
MichaelGallagher wrote:
does that mean an exact state doesn't exist?
My understanding is that yes, that's exactly what it means - in the 'slit' experiment with a single photon going through the slit, its state does not exist until it is measured.
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
Below a certain threshold the universe is fuzzy. The more you try and measure the position of a particle, the less you will be able to measure its momentum, and vice versa.
Ok, this is what I also believe, but isn't that only if WE attempt to measure or intercept a particle? The laws of physics that govern a particle or something so small are different to the laws for objects the size of, say, a human being, or Earth. So trying to measure or observe the characteristics of a particle in our real-time 'macro-verse'(?) could potentially report incorrect results, or missing or contradictory information. Are the properties of the 'fuzzy' parts of the universe not completely defined simply because we cannot measure them effectively? Don't a particles properties exist as a uniform constant regardless of the outcome that the observers best attempts had at defining them? Does a falling tree make a sound if there's no one there to hear it? :-\ Am I completely off track? I have to review every bloody sentence I write! :doh:
MichaelGallagher wrote:
nly if WE attempt to measure
I knew CPians were important - but surely not omnipotent :)
MichaelGallagher wrote:
The laws of physics that govern a particle or something so small are different to the laws for objects the size of, say, a human being, or Earth.
They;'re not different - it's just that you can ignore very small things most of the time - like you don't take into account the increase in mass of a train accellerating away from the station - because the increase in mass is tiny compared to the mass of the train - but it still happens.
MichaelGallagher wrote:
Are the properties of the 'fuzzy' parts of the universe not completely defined simply because we cannot measure them effectively
No they are fuzzy because they are not determined until a measurement happens and no that measurement isn't 'by us' but by anything -
MichaelGallagher wrote:
Does a falling tree make a sound if there's no one there to hear it?
Of course. But does a photon go through the left or right slit if nobody is watching? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.
MichaelGallagher wrote:
Am I completely off track? I have to review every bloody sentence I write!
The issue is, I find, that the mathematically challenged (and by this I mean those without a Phd in the subject) have to necessarily have concepts 'dumbed down' and it is the language that confuses.
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Does not the physics of QM provide for "true randomness" in the Universe? I'm debating a friend who seems to think everything is predetermined, period. My argument against, is that his proposal would be a finite machine, one which could be moved either forward or back. Additionally, my argument continues, if true randomness exists, then it can't be predetermined nor undone. Am I incorrect? Any thoughts?
Hi, Quantum Mechanics is a such big topic in physics. And more important, it is the topic try to describe ALL physics system at microscopic scale. The word "predetermined" in physics, most likely means, if you have a input, then you can compute the output. The randomness in quantum physics is because of the daul features of small particles. I guess you mix the true physics with science fiction. Besides, physicists are also try to make the randomness less random. To them, the randomness is not random, it is just something they still cannot formulize yet. When you talk about predict the future and undo the past, it sound more like time travel. By right now, no one konws it can be done or not. It is only theoretic. There are something called Novikov self-consistency principle and parallel universes. You may want to read. I personally more prefer parallel universes. Regards.
-
Does not the physics of QM provide for "true randomness" in the Universe? I'm debating a friend who seems to think everything is predetermined, period. My argument against, is that his proposal would be a finite machine, one which could be moved either forward or back. Additionally, my argument continues, if true randomness exists, then it can't be predetermined nor undone. Am I incorrect? Any thoughts?
I am 1 graduate course away from a phd in Quantum Mechanics.... Dictionary.com says: ran⋅dom /ˈrændəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ran-duhm] Show IPA –adjective 1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers. 2. Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen. o.k. in order: :doh: 1; quantum particles behave according to their "nature" they usually are "aimed" (at the lowest local energy state), the reason is entropy(usually) and they have a pattern(albeit poorly defined: See Heisenberg uncertenty principle.. which basically says that if a particle is then it exists somewhere in the universe, but you will never know where it is... ) 2; the positions of any given quantum particle can never be know, however it is to all reasonable approximations residing in bounding frustrum in space-time(its physical extent..from a certain perspective). However the exact probability that a quantum particle is ever in any position is 0 (i.e. it doesn't exist). [Check this out^] so to answer your debate: (if you believe in string theory and that there exists a grand unified field theory) everything in the universe is pre-determined by something that is so complicated that we percieve it as random, although were we capable of peering into an alternate dimension we could (knowing absolutely EVERYTHING) possibly account for all particles(assuming that that universe exists of only one sub atomic particle.. (n=9)^27 after that (n=81)^27 the calculation becomes .... unstable or simply to big to compute... but even if you could compute it it wouldn't matter because that universe would have already cooled and you would need to recompute the answer... (if you only go to quantum theory) then yes there is randomness in this universe (below the quantuum classical barrior aproxamatly less then 200 microns ) (if you believe that newton was the last scientist ever) then no there is no randomness. your finite machine depend on scale if it's "pointer" is >200 microns your friend is absolutely correct(sorta) if your below the threshold but still greater then one particle(in a universe)