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 09:56 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.
From: haiku jones on 13 Nov 2009 11:04 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.
From: John Stafford on 13 Nov 2009 11:16 In article <hdjs2g$tbv$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Quantum mechanics says that there is no way to predict when an atom will > decay radioactively. > > This doesn't mean that the decay is random. We wouldn't, for example, > claim that a person who suddenly appears from behind a bus is exhibiting > a new, mysterious, physical state called randomness. Who claimed that random was mysterious? And too bad about that analogy to the bus and man. > So! - why would we say that the appearance of an outcome of hidden > quantum events is random? Quantum events are necessarily hidden because > physical space itself hides very small objects - but they are still only > "hidden", like the man behind the bus. Scale is not important to randomness. > I rest my case. Upon what?
From: *Anarcissie* on 13 Nov 2009 11:30 On Nov 13, 11:16 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > In article <hdjs2g$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.
From: Nomen Publicus on 13 Nov 2009 11:39
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? > 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. -- Faith is believing what you know ain't so. -- Mark Twain |