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: Virgil on 14 Nov 2009 23:10 In article <hdns88$77r$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > If position and momentum are not players on the field, then how does one > assert something? One normally asserts something in words. If you have a better way, please let us in on it.
From: kunzmilan on 15 Nov 2009 01:56 On 13 lis, 15:56, 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 rest my case. 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. The first study of random events was Poisson's study of deaths of French cavaliers by falling from their horses. What makes a difference between hidden causes of a death of a man and of an atom? kunzmilan
From: tg on 15 Nov 2009 07:34 On Nov 14, 8:32 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr...(a)sprynet.com> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:56:33 +0000, 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 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. > I'm fascinated by JJ's ability to elicit responses with his language which closely approaches quantum randomness. However, there is a reasonable underlying language/philosophical question. We believe that there is no cause that can effect the lifetime of the decay of a particle. So it seems to me that we could attribute a label of 'hidden variable' to that information itself. IOW, while we do not claim a cause, we could argue that the lifetime could as easily be *determined* at the instant of creation of the particle as at the instant of decay. So there would be a piece of information about the particle which is inaccessible rather than non-existent. -tg > 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: David C. Ullrich on 15 Nov 2009 10:31 On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 03:30:06 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >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 think we're all blind? You asserted 'but they are still only "hidden", like the man behind the bus', right there where anyone can see. That assertion is simply false - you think it's so because you know nothing about the topic you're discussing. as usual. >> >> 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. 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 15 Nov 2009 14:40
Virgil wrote: > In article <hdns88$77r$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> If position and momentum are not players on the field, then how does one >> assert something? > > One normally asserts something in words. But without position and momentum there is nothing substantial to assert. > > If you have a better way, please let us in on it. |