Radioactive decay and the myth of randomness
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Can we predict the outcome of a tossed coin?
Next: group of formal differences vs. Grothendieck group
From: John Jones on 13 Nov 2009 15:19 haiku jones wrote: > On Nov 13, 7:56 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> Quantum mechanics says that there is no way to predict when an atom will >> decay radioactively. >> >> This doesn't mean that the decay is random. We wouldn't, for example, >> claim that a person who suddenly appears from behind a bus is exhibiting >> a new, mysterious, physical state called randomness. >> >> So! - why would we say that the appearance of an outcome of hidden >> quantum events is random? Quantum events are necessarily hidden because >> physical space itself hides very small objects - but they are still only >> "hidden", like the man behind the bus. > > I take it you didn't really read my post, in which I discussed exactly > this idea -- what physicists call "local hidden variables" -- > and how the general consensus among quantum physicists > is that the experimental investigations of Bell's inequality > have led to the conclusion that local hidden variables -- > again, exactly the sort of thing you suggest -- are not > possible. > > Could this change some day? Is our current conception > of such things not final? > > I am utterly open to such new insights. But until then, > your pitching an idea which had been debated for > the better part of a century, and is currently considered > to be bogus by most (but not all) workers in the field, is not > the sort of thing that will change my mind. > > >> I rest my case. But ponder this...wasn't the scientific term "random" >> invented to support a verbal fantasy world created by the quantum >> physicists? > > Given that the OED gives examples of "random", meaning > exactly what it does today, dating back to the mid 17th > century, I'm going to say "no". > > >> It's understandable. > > Not to mention "bogus". > > Haiku Jones > >> After all, every discipline, including >> maths, likes to have its own non-religious menagerie of supernatural >> objects and processes, where infinities abound far beyond the mortal >> realms of grammar and sense. > I don't know what this post is about.
From: John Jones on 13 Nov 2009 15:31 Nomen Publicus wrote: > John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> Quantum mechanics says that there is no way to predict when an atom will >> decay radioactively. >> >> This doesn't mean that the decay is random. We wouldn't, for example, >> claim that a person who suddenly appears from behind a bus is exhibiting >> a new, mysterious, physical state called randomness. >> >> So! - why would we say that the appearance of an outcome of hidden >> quantum events is random? Quantum events are necessarily hidden because >> physical space itself hides very small objects - but they are still only >> "hidden", like the man behind the bus. >> >> I rest my case. But ponder this...wasn't the scientific term "random" >> invented to support a verbal fantasy world created by the quantum >> physicists? > > No. It's quite easy to discover the history of of probability and randomness > on the web, so why make wild, inaccurate assumptions? Probability was a standard way of measuring outcomes based on ignorance of their physical conditions. For example, the probability of a man jumping out in front of a bus. Quantum theory turned unknown physical conditions into a physical state. No reason can be gathered for this move except that it looked promisingly mysterious.
From: John Jones on 13 Nov 2009 15:33 *Anarcissie* wrote: > On Nov 13, 11:16 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: >> In article <hdjs2g$tb...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >> John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> Quantum mechanics says that there is no way to predict when an atom will >>> decay radioactively. >>> This doesn't mean that the decay is random. We wouldn't, for example, >>> claim that a person who suddenly appears from behind a bus is exhibiting >>> a new, mysterious, physical state called randomness. >> Who claimed that random was mysterious? And too bad about that analogy >> to the bus and man. >> >>> So! - why would we say that the appearance of an outcome of hidden >>> quantum events is random? Quantum events are necessarily hidden because >>> physical space itself hides very small objects - but they are still only >>> "hidden", like the man behind the bus. >> Scale is not important to randomness. >> >>> I rest my case. >> Upon what? > > > It was my understanding that the hidden-variable thing had > been pretty well disposed of a long time ago. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory > > Of course, I suppose it could be like the gods. We don't > see any, but there might be one under the bed when we're > not looking. Same with hidden variables, I imagine. A hidden variable is the only possibility in QM. If there is nothing there then there is no outcome. If there is something there then it is hidden.
From: haiku jones on 13 Nov 2009 15:34 On Nov 13, 1:19 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > haiku jones wrote: > > On Nov 13, 7:56 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> Quantum mechanics says that there is no way to predict when an atom will > >> decay radioactively. > > >> This doesn't mean that the decay is random. We wouldn't, for example, > >> claim that a person who suddenly appears from behind a bus is exhibiting > >> a new, mysterious, physical state called randomness. > > >> So! - why would we say that the appearance of an outcome of hidden > >> quantum events is random? Quantum events are necessarily hidden because > >> physical space itself hides very small objects - but they are still only > >> "hidden", like the man behind the bus. > > > I take it you didn't really read my post, in which I discussed exactly > > this idea -- what physicists call "local hidden variables" -- > > and how the general consensus among quantum physicists > > is that the experimental investigations of Bell's inequality > > have led to the conclusion that local hidden variables -- > > again, exactly the sort of thing you suggest -- are not > > possible. > > > Could this change some day? Is our current conception > > of such things not final? > > > I am utterly open to such new insights. But until then, > > your pitching an idea which had been debated for > > the better part of a century, and is currently considered > > to be bogus by most (but not all) workers in the field, is not > > the sort of thing that will change my mind. > > >> I rest my case. But ponder this...wasn't the scientific term "random" > >> invented to support a verbal fantasy world created by the quantum > >> physicists? > > > Given that the OED gives examples of "random", meaning > > exactly what it does today, dating back to the mid 17th > > century, I'm going to say "no". > > >> It's understandable. > > > Not to mention "bogus". > > > Haiku Jones > > >> After all, every discipline, including > >> maths, likes to have its own non-religious menagerie of supernatural > >> objects and processes, where infinities abound far beyond the mortal > >> realms of grammar and sense. > > I don't know what this post is about. You don't? I thought it was pretty straightforward. You suggested that quantum events only look random because the tiny scale prevents us from seeing behind the scenes, observing the machinery that causes radioactive decay to be caused in a non-random manner. I replied that quantum mechanics had, over the last thirty years or so, dealt with exactly that possibility, and the conclusion had been reached that it was not possible that any such machinery exists. Not even as a theoretical abstraction. And just for grins, I replied to your ".wasn't the scientific term "random" invented to support a verbal fantasy world created by the quantum physicists?" by pointing out that the word "random" was in use, with its present meaning, two and a half centuries before the discovery of quantum mechanics. Haiku Jones
From: Herman Rubin on 13 Nov 2009 16:09
In article <hdkfq3$kp3$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >*Anarcissie* wrote: >> On Nov 13, 11:16 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: >>> In article <hdjs2g$tb...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >>> John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: ................ >> It was my understanding that the hidden-variable thing had >> been pretty well disposed of a long time ago. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory The hidden variable theory is not compatible with the properties of the wave function usually used in quantum mechanics. >> Of course, I suppose it could be like the gods. We don't >> see any, but there might be one under the bed when we're >> not looking. Same with hidden variables, I imagine. >A hidden variable is the only possibility in QM. If there is nothing >there then there is no outcome. If there is something there then it is >hidden. Observed outcomes behave like probability. If hidden variables would explain the situation, there would be a joint distribution of position and momentum. It is easy to give examples where this joint distribution does not exist, since probabilities have to be non-negative. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin(a)stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |