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?
As I understand it QM is indeterministic based on the standard formalisms but it is not possible to rule out deterministic hidden variables theories. However, any such theories must be non-local. There are deterministic interpretations such as David Bohm's and David Deutsch's. So your friend might still be right.
Kevin
-
Balboos wrote:
due to the very fast (ps) scale of intramolecular vibrational energy transfer, the weakest bond always broke (ergodicity)***. If the pulses were faster, then the bond-specific scission would be feasible.
alas we are still mostly bound by our understanding of the laws of physics.
Balboos wrote:
The problem, of course, is that these are multi-photon processes and take huge photon-fluxes to accomplish: and the faster the pulse, the more likely one ends up with a dielectric breakdown (plasma-time). That, itself, lends the possibility of shortening the pulses, such as in inertial confinement. ... .... To resolve the (even faster) intramuscular processes, one must be able to probe them -
which I presume implies resonance with, if not the process of interest, then to a precursor or elsewhere in the (reaction) chain that could be perturbed. The resonance, however, begs a wavelength match - and usually a pretty damn good one. But the short pulses are sort-of white. And if it's not in resonance****, except for the most trivial systems, how would one know what one was probing?This is why most experiments use pumping, using a couple of tuned lasers, and the calculated(experimentally or en silico) excited states, to make the process more surgical, or alternatively sensitizers which allow the experiment(synthesis) to proceed at lower intensities. Not sure at what your getting at with the resonance comment, most of the muscular (biomechanics) research I'm familiar with is done in an optical tweezers. Where they focus more on Doppler or proximity effects, However those intra-muscular studies I believe use non-native analyte (peptides/intermediate analogs) which show up like a basketball player in a room of Asians...(personal experience :wtf: ) So, to see shifts in such things is made easier by wise choice of how they analyze... (wow so far off the original track!) also talking about the "white" pulse you mention, as long as part of it overlaps with a region of interest you can make it work. These things rarely work out as good in reality as they could on paper given perfect resources...
ely_bob wrote:
Not sure at what your getting at with the resonance comment,
Muscle Tissue? A very different world, indeed - huge molecules in solid state - from my point of view, nearly black absorbers. To me, a large molecule would be something like water, maybe methanol, H2S, &etc. Such molecules have very discreet states and absorption of energy (at least in the gas phase) require resonance with the transition (and access to the state, such as the ground state to excited state, or, with multiple pumps, excited state to excited state). Examining rates of (slow) processes, such as inter-system crossing, singlet-triplet transitions, etc; or lower energy vibrational probing - and always in the gas phase. Not at all the same scenario you'd observe on a block of meat. I'd imagine the states to be very diffuse. On the other hand, with such closely packed states, the need for some very fast lasers is pretty clear. Memories of real life - where did I go wrong?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to stop bothering them and just go away?" - Balboos HaGadol"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment. Sadder still, if that's where you need to find it." - Balboos HaGadol
-
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
Just one problem. With atomic and sub-atomic particles you can never know both the particles position and velocity at the same time. The more precisely you measure one, the less sure you can be of the other. This means you can never predict with any certianty where a particle will be or how fast and in what direction it will be traveling. You can only speak in terms of probablity. It is unkowable, and can only be given a probablity, just like a random event.
-
1. I never claimed you COULD know these states, and 2. I've never been convinced the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was correct; it seems to be a limitation of physics technology. Who could say future developments couldn't allow such measurements? Recall that some time in the 1800s it was "proven" that heavier-than-air devices could never fly, and we all know how that turned out.
:doh: Sorry for late answer... @1: In a dream everything is possible - so live in your determined world ("Newton-Level"). @2. From a philosophical view you can always say you don't believe in something. But your reason... I know, cause of the simplified "meassure kick" explanations many people get that wrong. So I'd suggest you read some book about it, it's a really fascinating topic. I like to say that it seems that no way what you do, the universe keeps its secrets (a similar "uncertainty" is even in the Math! think about Gödel, unnatural numbers etc...)