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: jcon on 13 Nov 2009 17:23 On Nov 13, 10:30 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...(a)gmail.com> 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 > As has Galilean Relativity and Young Earth Creationism. But that doesn't stop nutters from posting about any of them. -jc > 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.
From: David C. Ullrich on 14 Nov 2009 08:32 On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:56:33 +0000, 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. You rest your case in spite of the fact that you've given no argument in support of your thesis, just bare assertion. You're simply ignorant of the actual physics. Of course modern quantum mechanics _could_ be all wrong, but your just saying it's wrong doesn't make it so. And in fact, as you'd know if you had any knowledge of the subject you're pontificating on, according to the best available evidence the decay _is_ random. The distinction you make between "really random" and "just appears random because some information is hidden" is valid, maybe even important. But you're simply wrong about the physics: Unless everyone is simply wrong the randomness in radioactive decay really _is_ random, not just apparently so due to hidden information. If you want to claim it's not so you then need to explain the result of various experiment. Experiments that you've clearly never heard of... >But ponder this...wasn't the scientific term "random" >invented to support a verbal fantasy world created by the quantum >physicists? It's understandable. 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. David C. Ullrich "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to." (John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads." in sci.logic.)
From: John Jones on 14 Nov 2009 22:20 haiku jones wrote: > 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. You made no such argument here. Nor was any argument forthcoming from elsewhere. > > 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 Yes and I said that the former use bore no relation to the Quantum use.
From: John Jones on 14 Nov 2009 22:24 Herman Rubin wrote: > 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. Then you assert that appearance itself has degrees of appearance. I already said that this was not an adequate response. > 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. If position and momentum are not players on the field, then how does one assert something?
From: John Jones on 14 Nov 2009 22:30
David C. Ullrich wrote: > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:56:33 +0000, 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. > > You rest your case in spite of the fact that you've given no argument > in support of your thesis, just bare assertion. I asserted nothing. I examined the grammar. > > You're simply ignorant of the actual physics. Physics has nothing to do with it. The problem is grammatical. > Of course modern > quantum mechanics _could_ be all wrong, It's not that they're wrong, it's that they are incoherent. > The distinction you make between "really random" and "just appears > random because some information is hidden" is valid, maybe even > important. But you're simply wrong about the physics: Unless > everyone is simply wrong the randomness in radioactive decay > really _is_ random, not just apparently so due to hidden > information. The fact that some things are radioactive, and others aren't, must lead to SOME assertion of cause. Unless facts themselves have degrees of appearance. |