Questions on Quantum Mechanics

[dvst8]

I just finished a book about the mysteries of modern science, and one of the questions raised was 'Does there exists an objective reality?'

The arguments presented were all qunatum-mechanical in nature, and while it made for fascinating reading, I'm not sure I fully understood the conclusions reached (which was that an objective reality does in fact exist).

When struggling with quantum mechanics, Einstein once stated "Do you really think that when we look away from the moon, it disappears?" (or something to that effect) While this argument may be somewhat naive (since quantum objects are much more subtle), it raises a good point. Does observing something give it reality?

One theory advanced is that it is the consciousness of the observer that gives the object reality. Interesting.

What about the wave equation? This equation claims to give a probabilistic account for the position/momentum information of a particle at all instances when it is not being obeserved. When it is observed, the wave equation collapses into one reality. So if the particle is never observed, does it ever in fact come into existance?

Another interesting point raised, was the fact that a radioactive atom observed withing subsequent 'Zeno' times can be prevented from decaying. This blew my mind.

Another question I have, is regarding 'observing' something. How does the quantum system know it's being observed? The following variation of the double slit experiment really intrigued me (I think R.P.Feynman did this):

As the electron went through the slit, they were microscopicly tagged - so that we would be able to deduce which slit the electron went through--, in such a manner that did not interfere with the particle. But when this happened, the interference pattern disappeared on the screen, and the electrons started behaving like particles. However, an apparatus was set up between the slits and the screen, which would un-tag the electrons -- so that we would no longer have any knowledge of which slit they went through-- and the interference pattern returned on the screen (electrons behaving as a wave).

What does this mean? How did the system know that the observer had no possible way of knowing its path when the un-tagger was turned on?

Also, can someone explain 'consistent histories'.

I think this quantum mechanics stuff is really interesting...if I could only get my head around it!

dvst8

http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/forum/

[Guv]

dvst8

First, to the best of my knowledge, the Quantum Theory conclusion is that "objective reality" does not exist. I use quotes to suggest that a phrase is jargon which might not mean exactly what you or I think it means. The argument is based on an experiment involving "matched pairs" of photons (or some particle) which are sent through polarizing detectors. I think the experiment might be a "thought experiment" for use in explaining to laymen like us, rather than a real experiment (I am not sure about this point). "Matched pairs" occur as the result of some process, the details of which I have forgotten.

The basic idea is that the "paired particles" are polarized in the same direction. The experiment is analogous to shooting pairs of long nails though the slats of vertical Venetian blinds (the two nails in a pair are parallel to each other). If the detectors (slats) are aligned the same way, the results at both detectors are identical. Id est: If one particle (nail) of a "matched pair" passes through its detector (slats), the other particle (nail) will pass through the other detector (slats). The measurements can be represented as a random series of ones & zeros: One for a particle (nail) getting through the detector (slats) or zero it did not. I advise pausing for a minute or two to get the basic idea of the experiment firmly in your mind. At least I had to go back track a few times when I read the article (In some issue of Scientific American, I think).

When the slats are aligned, the two random sequences of ones & zeros are always identical (for "matched pairs"). If you run the experiment many times, the random sequences are different, but the sequence at one detector always matches the sequence at the other detector.

Now imagine that one detector (set of slats) is rotated clockwise from vertical just enough make the two sets of measurements disagree 25% of the time. Id est: 25% of the time a particle (nail) gets through its detector (slats) and its measurements is a one, while the "paired particle" (nail) does not get through its detector (slats) and its measurement is a zero. 75% of the time the measurements agree.

Logic & Quantum Theory predict that if you rotate one detector counterclockwise the same amount, you will also get measurements which disagree 25% of the time. Got the picture so far?

Here's were the quantum weirdness kicks in. Now imagine rotating one detector (slats) clockwise and the other counterclockwise the amount described above. Id est: The alignment differs twice as much as in the previous experiments.

Classical physics (and common sense) would predict the measurements to disagree 50% of the time or less. Imagine the random sequence of ones & zeros you would get as measurements using aligned detectors. This imagined random series would differ by 25% when compared with the measurements from the clockwise shifted detector. It would also differ by 25% when compared with the measurements from the counterclockwise shifted detector. If there were some double mismatches, the two random series actually measured would differ by less than 50%. If there were no double mismatches, the two random series would differ by exactly 50%.

Quantum Theory predicts that the two random series will differ by 75%. When the experiment is performed, it validates the Quantum prediction.

One way to explain the experimental results is to assume that certain laws of logic used in the above argument do not apply to the Quantum world.

Another way to explain is to assume that "local causality" does not apply to Quantum phenomena. "Local causality" states that cause effect relationships are limited to events "close" to each other. "Close" means that the velocity of light is less than (maybe equal to) the quotient of distance between the events and the time difference between them. I am not sure how breakdown of local causality would help here. I trust the professionals on this issue.

The final explanation is to deny "objective reality." I think I understand what they mean here. The idea is that one of the three random series used in the above argument was imagined, not from a set of measurements that were actually obtained form a real experiment. What they are saying is that if you ran a certain experiment, you would get measurements describing certain properties of the Quantum objects. If you do not run the experiment, you cannot assume that the Quantum objects have the properties associated with the measurements you could have but didn't obtain from a real experiment. I do not understand why they say the properties do not exist until you measure them, instead of saying that the measurements do not exist until you run the experiment.

If you understand what I said on a first time reading, you are smarter than I am. I reread the article several times and I still do not feel comfortable with what I think they are saying.

I hate to say this, but please do not ask me to give an exact citation for the above. I do not have time to go to a local library and check indices to Scientific American for the last 20 years. I am pretty sure the article is from Scientific American.

There is a paper back book titled "The Cosmic Code" which has pertinent articles, but I do not think it describes the above experiment in detail. It has a cute chapter on 3 "Reality Shops." One sells a universe in which logic breaks down, describing some of the obvious theorems which could not be proven if explanation one (above) is chosen. The second sells a universe in which local causality fails (All sorts of magic is possible). The third describes a universe in which objective reality does not exist (I forget how bad this is on a macro scale).

This Post is already too long. I will ignore the other issues you raised. If you Post again, I will try to find time to answer. Perhaps somebody else will address your other questions.

[Gen-X]

I will say from the start I haven't read all of this... I just skimmed something I found of interest and thought I would focus on that

"If I turn away from the moon does it disappear?"

I find this very interesting....

If the act of "turning away" is the trigger which causes the moon to disappear then that indicates the moon itself (or whatever is responsible for us seeing it) has some intelligence in being able to predetermine whether we are looking at it or not.

What then would happen if we turned away but managed to catch our line of sight in a mirror that reflected in the direction the moon was? Would it still disappear or would the moon be smart enough to know we were still looking at it?


I think this is where all theories of things only existing because we are looking at them... or kedaman's "Its an illusion" reality fall completely to pieces... because no matter which way we analyse it, no matter how we do it... we will ALWAYS see the moon.

Its not possible to "trick" the moon into not ever being there and in all of 2000 years of human curiosity and experimentation we have never been able to get so much as a single blade of grass to ignore the laws of physics.


If that is not enough evidence to indicate to people we are living in an objective reality where things actually exist (rather than a head in a tube being fed stimuli) then frankly I wonder if these people should be given that evidence?

BTW, for those that say "What if we were in a Matrix world?" I would answer that they found "glitches" in that world to prove it wasn't real... we haven't found any in ours so until we do I think it only prudent we accept what we can repeatably and objectively determine to exist.

[Guv]

Gen-X
Noticed your Post.

Quantum Theory seems to get your attention. Did you notice that I Posted a quote and a citation under Thread "From a philosophical point of view nothing is random."

You and Sam asked me (politely, not confrontationally) to back up what I said about Quantum randomness and the universe being indeterminate.

If that post is not sufficient, let me know. I was in a bit of a rush when I made the post.

[dvst8]

Guv

Thanks for the reply.

I've heard of a similar experiments where regular rules of logic fail miserably when we try to extend them to the quantum world. Quantum meachanics, it seems, violates intuition. I guess it's our intuition that's wrong. And I guess that's because the macroscopic world behaves differently from the quantum world. But just what differentiates a 'qunatum' object and a 'regular' object, I'm not exactly sure... maybe you know?

Regarding what you said on objective reality.

What they are saying is that if you ran a certain experiment, you would get measurements describing certain properties of the Quantum objects. If you do not run the experiment, you cannot assume that the Quantum objects have the properties associated with the measurements you could have but didn't obtain from a real experiment. I do not understand why they say the properties do not exist until you measure them, instead of saying that the measurements do not exist until you run the experiment

I don't know. I still think that we CAN assume a quantum object to have certain properties at all times regardless if we are observing/measuring it. Let's take a photon. Consider the photon as existing just as a probability wave, until a measurement is carried out on it. When we carry out this measurement, the probability wave is forced to collapse into a single 'reality'. I think this is how we can conceive of a photon going through two slits at once when we are not measuring it.

So does the photon have a position, momentum before we measure it? Yes I think it does, but it is probabilitic in nature until the measurement is carried out.

Does this make sense?

Thanks for the recommendation on the book. I'll check it out.

Gen-X

If the act of "turning away" is the trigger which causes the moon to disappear then that indicates the moon itself (or whatever is responsible for us seeing it) has some intelligence in being able to predetermine whether we are looking at it or not.

The moon is a macroscopic object, and not necessarily subject to quantum laws. Certainly the particles that make up the moon are, but as a large object as a whole it is forced to obey Newtonian or Relativistic laws which have yet to be reconciled with quantum laws.

or would the moon be smart enough to know we were still looking at it?

I don't think it's a question of being 'smart' enough....but in the quantum world, somehow (i don't know how) the system CAN determine if the observer is trying to glean information. see the tag/untag variation on the slit experiment i described in my original post. how do explain that one? blows me away.

there are apparently methods being taken to carry out quantum measurements without interfering with the system at all. it's very complicated, but apparently they can predict outcomes with up to 70% accuracy (soon to be 85%) and this can seemingly get around the heisenberg uncertainty principle. if anyone's interested, i can bring the book into work tomorrow and offer a better explanation of this....

dvst8

[Sam Finch]

dsv8

just what differentiates a 'qunatum' object and a 'regular' object

I think you answered this one yourself later in the post, but I'll try to explain a quantum object is one quantum object, a regular object is lots of quantum objects stuck together.

imagine one of those big boards with nails in aranged in a triangle in such a way that if you drop one in the gap between the top 2 nails it hits another and bounces randomly to one side which is a gap between 2 other nails, at the bottom there are some trays so that if a ball goes between a particular pair of nails on the bottom row it will land in a particular tray.

                    *      <---Drop ball here
                   . .
                  . . .
                 . . . .
                . . . . .
               . . . . . .
              . . . . . . .
             . . . . . . . .
            . . . . . . . . .
           . . . . . . . . . .      <----Nails
          . . . . . . . . . . . 
         . . . . . . . . . . . .
          u u u u u u u u u u u <---- ball lands in one of these trays

if we drop a ball down from the top we have no Idea which tray it's going to go in, we can think of this as a bit like a quantum object but every time you check the position of this bell you have to take it out and drop it from the top again, so we can't say it has a position, only a probability of various positions every time we check for it.

now imagine a regular object as 1024of these balls dropped down from the top (I chose 1024 to make the numbers easier, but it's a fairly big number which is the main thing)

now we still stick to the same rules as before so every time we observe it we empty the balle out and drop them in from the top again.

If you do some maths the number you would expect in each teay would be

1   10   45   120   210   252   210   120   45   10   1

I simulated this a few times and got these results

0   7    47   127   217   267   190   121   39   8    1   
0   13   48   123   219   259   195   102   51   14   0   
1   10   47   135   215   260   200   97    47   12   0   
0   9    54   122   203   249   208   110   55   12   2   
0   5    51   114   225   243   205   120   47   13   1   
0   14   37   125   200   246   216   127   49   10   0   
1   9    40   104   222   252   238   114   33   9    2   
1   6    46   115   197   257   227   115   41   18   1   
0   10   37   116   218   240   218   129   41   14   1   
2   8    46   106   206   261   217   113   52   13   0   
2   14   39   109   196   253   233   133   35   10   0   
0   13   43   113   210   252   216   124   45   8    0

you can see that they aren't perfect but the number of balls in each tray is always roughly the same, ie the shape of the object stays roughly the same, this is with 11 trays, and 1024 bals, with 100 trays and (2^99) balls the shape of the object would be almost identical each time.

with a regular object like the moon the number of quantum objects is astronomical, and the shape of the moon stays the same for the same reasons as the shape of the balls did (or sort of did).


Guv

when I asked you to back up your Idea, I didn't ask you to back up the idea that quantum effects were random, I asked you to back up the Idea that they weren't predetermined, somewhere in that thread I made an argument that just because something is random doesn't mean it is not predetermined, in Quantum mechanics this is a fairly trivial point, but in the other thread which deals with more phillosophical aspects it is.

I don't even know if you said it definatley wasn't predetermined, however gen-X's respose seemed to indicate that you said it was, and I believed him because I tend to miss things in peoples posts.

So basicly

Are you saying that it has been probed that the universe is not predetermined or just that it is random

[dvst8]

Sam
Thanks for the good analogy Sam. That aspect of QM makes more sense now.

dvst8

[Guv]

All of you
Compared to the average guy/girl at a ski lodge, I am an expert in Quantum physicists. An expert would consider me an average guy at the ski lodge. My knowledge is based on articles written for the benefit of non experts with a good background in physics & mathematics. I do not have the knowledge to prove any of this to anybody. I trust the expert opinions I have read about, and assume that they have valid evidence for what they say. By the way, Neils Bohr was a world class skier.

dvst8
The experts deny the existence of properties not measured (at least I think they say they do) because their experiments tell them about the interaction between their measuring equipment and the quantum objects they are investigating. The idea is that any experiment which attempts to measure quantum properties disturbs them. The "properties" measured/seen are properties of the interaction between the experimental apparatus and the quantum object. Consider the following.

When you "see" a car, what is "really happening" is that there is electo-chemical activity in your brain initiated by nerve signals from the retina. This activity creates a perceptual model of the car in your mind. The brain activity is influenced by "hard-wired" programs and some experience-derived programs. The nerve signals created by the retina was the result of interactions between the retina and a lot of photons which bounced off the car. What is out there is several layers of reality away from what you think you see.

We have good reason to believe that the process of seeing the car results in a perception which is
a very accurate model of the car. At least we can be sure that the photons which bounce off of it did not change it much. Note that when your brain has constructed the perceptual model of the car, the car (even if moving) is not very far from where it was when the photons bounced off of it.

Now suppose that we had to "see" a car by firing thousands of 100-pound steel balls at it, and collecting data about how they were deflected by the car. Our perception of the car (now demolished) would not be an accurate model of either the original or the demolished car. The "properties" of the car that we record are really properties of the combined interaction of the car and our steel balls. Those properties do not exist until you "see" the car (Id est: run the experiment). Note that the quantum object (if not destroyed) by the experiment is not any where near where it was when measured.

The above analogy was made up by me many years ago. I believe it had some validity for purposes of explaining what I understand about what the experts are saying. At least, it was not objected to by some very bright (but not expert) friends of mine.
Sam
You seem to believe that "random" does not preclude "deterministic." In some philosophical sense, this might be valid in the classical world, but not in the quantum world (at least not in the view of the experts).

When we roll dice, it is possible that we could predict the outcome, given enough sophisticated measuring equipment and a lot of computing power. This implies that what we call a random process is actually deterministic. Note that we could only predict in principle. In practice, I do not think we could collect initial condition data accurate enough for precise prediction of dice throw events in a back alley or a Vegas casino, even though the statistics would be the same as those in a very controlled laboratory experiment.

There are those who claim that even with perfect knowledge of what is happening, the throwing of dice must still be considered a random process. They argue that such an event is so complex that it is influenced by quantum randomness. I am agnostic on this particular issue. I also believe that it is an argument relating to the classical world, not applicable to the quantum world.

Einstein did not believe that quantum phenomena were random processes, and had many arguments on this issue. I do not believe that he ever changed his mind. I believe that mainstream physicists consider him wrong, and they furthermore believe that he would have changed his mind if he had lived long enough to become aware of developments of the last 20-30 years. I think that they have some proof or good reasons that refute his "Hidden Variables" hypothesis. Even if you are wrong, you have at least one damn smart companion who shares your opinion. Who knows what the experts will believe 100 years from now? I personally believe that they will still consider the universe non deterministic.

Please do not take advantage of my comment about 100 years from now. Remember that the views of mainstream science have been becoming a better and better approximation to reality for perhaps a thousand years or more (at least for the last 300-400). I intend to create a thread in which I claim that mainstream science has never been wrong.

I repeat a quote from another Post (remember it is way past the beginning of the article). The following is from http://www.c-parr.freeserve.co.uk/hcp/quantum.htm

But why do we expect the quantum world to permit exact predictions, why do we expect it to be deterministic? If indeed it were, then the macroscopic world would necessarily be deterministic also. But the converse argument is false. Because of the large number of quantum events contributing to one macroscopic event, the statistical quantum laws account for the determinism of the world of familiar experience just as readily as if they were strictly causal, and should cause us no surprise. It is merely our familiarity with the determinism of everyday life that leads us to expect the fundamental laws of nature to display the same property.

I interpret the above quote to indicate that the author believes that statistical laws are applicable, and that the universe is not deterministic. I think he is saying that our world only seems deterministic because the law of large numbers makes quantum statistics very accurate.

Statements like the above and the probabilistic nature of many quantum phenomena (EG: radioactive decay) convince me that the universe is not deterministic.. I trust the professionals on this one.

[dvst8]

You advance some good arguments, and your analogy is a good one I think. But what you are saying seems to contradict a recent book I read. I did not fully understand what I was reading, so I will go over it again tonight, bring the book into work tomorrow and give you a summary of the arguments advanced for the existence of an 'objective reality'.

dvst8

[Sam Finch]

Guv

I think there is some general confusion on this forum between the Ideas of Predetermined and Deterministic.

Predetermined means that events in the universe have a definite way they are going to go, so If you ran the universe again it would always go the same way.

Deterministic means that Given all possible information it is possible to work out what that path is going to be without having seen it run before.

We have established that the universe has a random aspect to it. This means it cannot be deterministic, but it does not mean it isn't predetermined.

So basicly I don't believe that the universe is deterministic but I do believe it may be predetermined.

Sam, what does this mean or how was this established? Unless you are using "aspect" as a qualifier.

We have established that the universe has a random aspect to it.

[Guv]

Sam
I understand the distinction you are making, but I always thought deterministic & predetermined implied essentially the same concept. Using your definitions, I cannot imagine a predetermined universe that is not deterministic.

By predetermined, do you mean that god (small cap, I am an atheist) decided in advance how it was going to be and is enforcing his will? If not god, who/what predetermined it? If you believe that god predetermined it, I will not argue with you.

Do you believe that the future is invariant, but impossible (even in principle) to predict?
If not predetermined by god or magic, is it predetermined by forever unknowable laws of physics? I have always believed that there are some limits on what human beings can know, but I always believed that it was possible to work out all the laws of physics (except perhaps for what happened in the very early universe and before the Big Bang, assuming that the Big Bang is the right idea).

It seems to me that you do not believe in free will. I always wanted to believe that human beings (particularly I) have free will. I never believed that a probabilistic universe guaranteed free will, but at least free will is a possibility if the future is not invariant.

In everything I have read, I do not remember anyone who stated that predetermined was some how different from deterministic. Do you know of anybody else who makes this distinction?

[Gen-X]

Sam

I think you know better than that sam

We spent several posts a while ago going through "same experiment" not actually being the same.

You say they have repeated experiments and the result was different.... Of course the result was different, but not because of randomness... but because the earth was on the other side of the sun at the time of the second experiment, because it was winter not summer, it was 2 degrees celcius cooler that day, the person doing the experiment had a different after shave on, the earths magnetic field was "slightly" different because of a large drift of magma beneath the tectonic plate of the continent the experiment was done one... etc, etc, etc, etc, etc

The point is that as macroscopic entities we are completely and TOTALLY incapable of being able to repeat an experiment to EXACTLY the same parameters we used previously.

This doesn't affect us doing macroscopic tests because the changes are too slight to make a difference (hence scientists use error factors to express somthing like +/- 0.000001 %)

BUT....

If we are doing quantum experiments then all of these factors play a monumental role in the results that are produced. You ended up having to construct a perfect sphere at 0 kelvin with null-gravity and anti-magnetism devices shooting electrons inside it just to be able to repeat the same experiment... remember that? Even in the end you STILL couldn't come up with a "chamber" capable of measuring quantum entities without influencing it with some non-quantum entity such as a telescope or photon stream.


Like I have said before... don't confuse an innability to 'know' all the factors involved with it being random.

You can give me any quantum experiment they tried to repeat and I will tell you 10 factors that affected the outcome of that experiment so significantly that its no wonder the results were different.

[Sam Finch]

Science and phillosophy have been kept seperate since the Romans marched into Athens, Now with QM they have suddenly been forced back together.

When I say The universe may be predetermined I mean that we can't rule out the possibility that the universe is predetermined. That's all I mean.

As a rule I'm not the sort of guy who's ganna draw conclusions without the relevent information, and the rest of your questions require a lot mor information than a bloke who went to look for a website that offered programming help and interesting discussions.

As for free will I know we have the illusion of free will and that we must act as if we can change the future in our actions, other than that I don't know what you mean by free will.

[Sam Finch]

Gen-X
Sorry I missed your post

Fire an electron gun at a screen sutch that it goes through a slit, calculate the power of the electron gun sutch that there can only be one electron between the gun and the screen at any time, the electrons all hit different parts of the screen, the conditions of the experiment cannot change as the electron gun works like a laser, but the results are different for each electron.

We can modify this experiment to show that there is no pattern to where each electron hits the screen other than that each one has the same probability of hitting each part of the screen

[Gen-X]

Sam

Electrons are charged particles right?

That means they are affected by the electro-magnetic force and call me a pink bunny rabbit but any experiment done on earth is affected by the magnetic field of the earth.

Of COURSE you won't predict where the electron is going to land exactly each time because you can't predict the exact forces (on a quantum level) of everything around the electron, including the flow of magma under the plate or the gravitational pull of the sun on the earth of the moon on the earth.

Then you get back into your argument and say "its in a vaccum, anti-grav, anti-this, anti-that"... but we can't do that.

The experiment you said is still affected by the world around it because you CANNOT currently perform an experiment in a completely isolated environment. The electron has to actually LEAVE the gun at some point and considering the tip of the gun is made up of thousands of atoms, how do you know exactly what other atoms created an effect at that instant?

What if as the electron was leaving the atom it was living on passed close enough to the atom next to it to be attracted for a billionth of a second? Just enough to throw its course off?

Lets not get back into the argument on this... it took up nearly 30 posts and you ended up with Mr Fantastics Wonderful Psychadelic Improbability Nullification Machine that costed somewhere in the vacinity of the worlds GNP a billion times over

[Sam Finch]

Gen-X

Every time I want to build a machine the size of a planet with several lasers people start calling me crazy.


I think I forgot to mention that the electrons land in a pattern, always the same pattern, set up the same experiment on the moon or anywhere you will always get the same pattern.

the pattern is a line of spots, in the centre of the line (where the gun it pointed) the spots are bigger, towards the ends of the line they get smaller.

If you change the experiment and set up geiger counters (or whatever you use tho detect an electron) you can find the order of which electrons go to different spots, this order is always completley random.

If the path of the electron is determined by tiny charges around the system (which incedently would have to be huge to produce the kinds of deviation that happen) why are they aranged in spots?

[Gen-X]

Sam... your not going to get this are you

When they say "the order is random" they are saying "we are currently unable to determine WHY they hit where they do".


If they are random what is their explaination of the "force" which changes their path? Do they actually view the electron suddenly changing its path in flight?


I think I am going to have to open up a can of simplicity on you

Imagine a gun, its locked into position within a device that stops it from moving, in a sealed room, with a target a specific distance away.

You fire a bullet and it hits the dead centre of the target.

You fire a second bullet...

Does it go exactly through the first hole you made???? No, it goes ever so slightly to the left or the right, grazing the edge of the hole fractionally.

Why? everything was exactly the same... so it must be some "Quantum Randomness" causing the difference right????

Wrong

Firing the first bullet generated heat, and heat is a source of energy... so firing the second bullet meant the chamber it was travelling down was slightly different (could have expanded 0.00001 of a mm) and so the bullet coming out would be at a slightly different vector.

So what you thought was "random" just turned out to be a factor you didn't or couldn't that into consideration


I am really finding it very hard to understand why you keep overlooking the fact that the tools we use to "measure" these experiments at a quantum level actually AFFECT the outcome of those experiments.

They have never found randomness... they have only ever found the interaction of the 4 forces and nothing more.... Yet you keep coming back to some unknown quantity that cannot be seen, cannot be touched and yet you are so damn sure its there....

You have argued against people who have used the exact same methodologies... accept their argument was "God" not "Randomness".

[Sam Finch]

No No No No No.

No No No.

Number 1 there are lots of test that can be done to determine whether or not something is random, I mentioned one of these tests earlier but most of them are a bit advanced for me. But suffice to say they are random, not that we can't find a pattern, they are random.

Number 2 The path of the electrons in the strongest 5 spots differs by about 30 degrees, even I'm a better shot than that with or without a clamped rifle.

I've seen this experiment done and we got an enormously powerful magnet to try to change the paths of the electrons without the slit there and it didn't change it as much as the slit did. (And these magnets were strong, we stuck 2 of them together to piss the physics depertment off and it took 6 people to pull them apart.)

If you fire your rifle 2000 times the bullets will be aranged in a circle, more bullets will fall in the center of the target than around its edges but other than that there is no pattern, there are no particular areas you will always get lots of bullets and none where the target will stay intact.


The only way we have managed to explain the spots on the target is through the probabiliy wave that has been described so many times in various posts.

how exactly could the earth's magnetic field vary by so much and in such a set pattern, which has always been repeated exactly the same wherever has been done?

Answer me this and I'll recomend you for a Nobel prize.

NB, I'm glad we've found something we disagree on, It was getting quite boring repeating the same arguments to people who weren't listening anyway. - Bows to worth Opponent.

[Gen-X]

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes



Sam... (bows in return)...

How can you actually say "It isn't that we haven't found a pattern.. its random!!!"

That like saying "We haven't travelled around the world but its flat!!!"

How do you know there isn't a pattern???? Just because you haven't been able to find one? That is the exact same mistake scientists have made for centuries... thinking there wasn't any connection until they "discovered" what the connection was.

They predicted certain atomic weights and some of them came out wrong... They thought "Whats this? Is it random? Is there no pattern?" only to discover something else later that "explained" why it was so and suddenly the pattern was back.

You yourself said "The 5 strongest spots"...

If it was truely "random" then there wouldn't BE any strong spots because random doesn't focus anywhere... its a changing distribution such that the next time you did the experiment there would be 20 strong spots, or 7 strong spots.... If you left the experiment running for 10 years it would be different again...

But it isn't... you tell me yourself it is within a confined area with high probabilities of being in certain places... That is a PATTERN.

You really should read up on Chaos/Complexity theory again

[Sam Finch]

OK, Pick a Continuously Differentiable Function Frm the Real Numbers to the real Numbers (This means a function where you pua value of X in and get a value of Y out that can be differentiated at any point, ie don't use things like ABS(), AND, NOT, XOR) And Give me some coordinates from it, I will tell you whether or not you have used random numbers in that function or not, I won't be able to work out the formula but I will tell you whether there is a pattern or not.

(NB If you make your expression complex I will need a lot of results and I won't be able to do it tonight because I'll have to write quite a lot of code to do it)

The reason I need a continuously differentiable function is because I havn't studied this topic but the people who have can do it for all functions, continuously differentiable or not (it's one of the ways code crackers use to see If an encryption algorithm uses random encryption or not)

Believe me results have been taken from quantum experiments and have been subjected to rigorous testing and they have been shown to be random.

(Actually I'd really rather you didn't send me a huge amount of data for me to determin it's randomness because it'd be a lot of work that I really don't wanna be doing, but I am confident that I could do It given enough data)

It's the fact that there is a pattern that shows that it isn't experimental error. all along the line there is a probability that any electron will hit that point, the probabilities are highest in the spots that I mentioned, these probabilities have been shown to match interference waves that we can only explain with the Idea that the electron is in fact a probability wave.

I find it very hard to believe that someone who accepted string theory so readily will not accept the most basic principal of quantum mechanics that string theory is based on.

[Gen-X]

Sam

Lets take this 1 step at a time

1. Encryption

(it's one of the ways code crackers use to see If an encryption algorithm uses random encryption or not)

Don't you realise a computer cannot generate a random number? It generates a "pseudo-random" number (well until the P3, but I would think thermal noise follows some pattern as well eventually) which means if I give it the same seed it will give me the same string of numbers.

There isn't any randomness in there at all!!!!!

2. Testing

Believe me results have been taken from quantum experiments and have been subjected to rigorous testing and they have been shown to be random.

So you are saying just because our current technology and understanding cannot find patterns that they simply don't exist!?!?!?!?

Mummy Spank!!! Even you should know that in years to come we find things we missed now for exactly the reasons you stated... we believe it within the limits of our knowledge.. that "currently" no pattern has been found. Of course using the definition of "random" that I gave above you WOULD call it random because random means "We haven't worked out the pattern yet".

3. Probability

Do you understand what the term probability means? It means we have "BOUNDARIES". This means you have a pattern. If we take a 6 sided dice then the Probability of it showing up from 1 to 6 is the same... THAT IS A FRIKKEN PATTERN!!!!

I think you are not truely understanding what "random" is... it means we CANNOT apply probabilities to it.. because in applying them it is no longer random but predictable? (ie 95% of the time it will be HERE).

Random says that I have just as much chance of being wrong as I do of being right... but the probability shows we have MORE chance of being right than wrong.

I find it very hard to believe that someone who accepted string theory so readily will not accept the most basic principal of quantum mechanics that string theory is based on.

I didn't say I accepted string theory.. I said that it reads logically and reasonably.... just as the principals of quantum mechanics read logically and reasonably...

But the fact that an electron has a probability wave doesn't say its "random"... it says it definately has a pattern to which all possible answers can be attributed a definable chance of its existance in that position.

I'm finding it hard to believe you can't see this... random is RANDOM... it means you cannot quantify it in any way... doing so means it isn't random any more.

[Sam Finch]

Encryption

As Far as I'm aware the way computers generate random numbers is that they contain a table of random digits and this data is interpreted in different ways to give random sequences, as I have argued before and still maintain just because something is predetermined doesn't mean it isn't random If I'm wrong about this then correct me, but I do know that VB has a limited amount of random numbers and by randomizing you are just picking a new start point. If not, how are Computerized random numbers generated?


Testing

You still have no faith in mathamaticians have you.

When I say a sequence can be tested as random I do not mean that we can't find a pattern, Mathematicians have proved that Sequences of numbers which follow a pattern (any pattern, not just one we can find) exhibit certain properties which random sequences do not have. This is going back to the Idea of proof, Mathematical proof is proof, it's not like scientific proof, it's real proof. A test for randomness doesn't look for patterns, it tests for properties.


Probability

OK, we're kinda moving the target here aren't we. in my definition of random (which incedently coincides with everybody elses definition of random) if a system is not determinist ic i must have some elements which are randomn, in your definition this is not true. so by using your definition we're not really getting anywhaer with the whole deterministic Idea.

[Gen-X]

Glossary www.dictionary.com

Random
1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective
2. Of or relating to the same or equal chances or probability of occurrence for each member of a group


Deterministic
1. Describes a system whose time evolution can be predicted exactly


Pattern
5a. A composite of traits or features characteristic of an individual or a group
6.2. The distribution and spread, around a targeted region, of spent shrapnel, bomb fragments, or shot from a shotgun



Ok, now we have that out of the way, lets look at what we have....

just because something is predetermined doesn't mean it isn't random

Since determinism means being able to predict its evolution or pattern, and random is having NO pattern... how then does your above statement hold true?

If not, how are Computerized random numbers generated?

Random numbers are generated by using the number of seconds since midnight as the seed to be placed in the random number generation tables. As you don't turn your computer on the exact same second (millisecond) every day, this is considered your "random" instance. By the definition of "random" above it holds because there is no purpose or objective in the precise millisecond you turn your computer on and so it is pseudo-random.

When I say a sequence can be tested as random I do not mean that we can't find a pattern

Mmmmm.... The definition for "pattern" above shows clearly that it can include those events which have probabilities such as a "spread" or range of values. Random is defined as having NO pattern, which means it has no spread, no probability and therefor cannot have a pattern as such.

Again, by the definitions which "everybody" uses what you are saying is totally contradictory.

A test for randomness doesn't look for patterns, it tests for properties.

And what are "properties"???? Things in common? So now you are saying that which is random has "precise and common properties"... What does that tell you??? There is a "pattern"???? So I guess what you thought was random isn't really random at all if they all exhibit the same property.

OK, we're kinda moving the target here aren't we.

No it has remained in the same spot it always has. The bottom line is that if a system is not deterministic it does NOT mean it has elements which are random... it means it has elements that we cannot currently determine patterns to.

There is a difference. Perhaps now that you have read the definitions to which I am referring to, and those which most other people in the world are using you will finally see where your confusion in this lies.

(Yes I am being a little facecious here)

But honestly Sam... you keep overlooking the "possibility" that we just haven't discovered the pattern yet... why is that? Can you not at least acknowledge we have not reached the level of understanding?

I have already acknowledged the possiblity that at some higher level of abstraction randomness "could" result... yet you cannot acknowledge the opposite... sounds like Maths is your religion and you are just as Mr No 7 as the other people

In my humblest opinions to someone I respect...

[Sam Finch]

I should probably read dictionaries more often.

I doubt that you will deny that many argments in the past have resulted from two parties not using the same definitions for words. (Particularaly the word Faith)

Personally I hate dictionaries, They are bound by the fact that they have to give very short definitions for words and do not give good enough definitions for the purpose of argument. Also dictionaries differ in their definitions.
(I ran a few words through and dictionary.com is an American dictionary, which will differ slightly from an English one (which version do the Aussies use BTW, how do you spell words like colour centre and cheque))

With these definitions undeterministic <= Random but not the other way around, therefore establishing that the system may not be random under this definition is not enough.

My definition of random is purely and simply impossible to predict. and hence undeterministic <=> Random.

We are also using several different definitions of pattern at the same time.

1. that property which a deterministic sequence must have in order to be defined as deterministic
2. The shape of an uneven spread of events or objects.

OK, 2 definitions, I'll think of more as we start using them.


I do agree with your definition if deterministic though, which is handy.

But you seem to have confused this with the word Predetermined.

Predetermined
Set in advance

Imagine I have a pack of cards, I shuffle them well enough such that they are in a random order.

Now I turn over the first 10 cards.

As I have already shuffled the pack of cards their order is set before you turn them over Hence the sequence of cards is predetermined.

As the cards are in a random order the sequence of the cards must be random.

As the sequence of the cards is random the sequence of cards cannot be deterministic.

just because something is predetermined doesn't mean it isn't random

Since determinism means being able to predict its evolution or pattern, and random is having NO pattern... how then does your above statement hold true?

I think as I have illustrated the statement still stands.


I think it will clear a few things up if we adda new term to our arsenal, "containing an aspect of randomness"

We shall say a system contains an aspect of randomness if patterns can be removed from it to leave a truly random system.

What I mean by removing a pattern is this, imagine a random sequence that contains truly random numbers between 0 and 1.

now imagine I have a function F(x) that converts a real number between 0 and 1 to another real number the range of this function is unbounded(ie for any number n you can pick there is a number m between 0 anf 1 such that n=F(m)

Now I choose this function such that when the random numbers are put through it they fall in a particular pattern. (my second definition of pattern)

Now if we imagine a system such that its results fall in that pattern. If we take each result and put it through F'(x) (the inverse of our function) we can say that our system an aspect of randomness if we can find a function F'(x) such that when we put our results through it we get a truly random system.


NB I don't think I was very consistent in my use of the word System here, but as long as you know what I mean then it's probably better to let this go.

So when I say we can test for randomness I mean we can test for aspects of randomness.

So we can now say this

we define A(s) as: The sequence s has an aspect of randomness

and B(s) as: The sequecnce s is undeterministic

we get A(s) <=> B(s)

which is a definition we need to continue.

(NB, I will admit I was wrong that EVERYBODY uses my definition, but my dictionary does and other people do)

And what are "properties"???? Things in common? So now you are saying that which is random has "precise and common properties"... What does that tell you??? There is a "pattern"???? So I guess what you thought was random isn't really random at all if they all exhibit the same property.

as I say I havn't studied this in detail, but I believe we can define certain sequences from a set of numbers, the properties of randomness are weather these sequences converge(usually indicates not random) or diverge(usually inticates random)

But honestly Sam... you keep overlooking the "possibility" that we just haven't discovered the pattern yet... why is that? Can you not at least acknowledge we have not reached the level of understanding?

I have already acknowledged the possiblity that at some higher level of abstraction randomness "could" result... yet you cannot acknowledge the opposite... sounds like Maths is your religion and you are just as Mr No 7 as the other people

Damn, you got to this one first.

I was under the impression you were dimissing this aspect of randomness and saying that there must be some underlying pedictability, which would make the universe deterministic.

There is a lot of evidence in my other posts that I do believe that there may be some system to which these quantum objects conform,Although I would argue that such a system must be so complex that we cannot rule out the Idea that it has its own intellegence. However in the same way that the quantum world prevents us from knowing certain things I think this system would certainly prevent us from knowing it and hence the universe is undeterministic.

I hope I havn't missed anything

Oh yes, you probably can say that maths is my religion, and I still maintain that maths doesn't make mistakes, people do. (where have we heard that expression applied to something else )

[dvst8]

Wow..this is really turning into a one-on-one battle of the titans between sam and gen. Very entertaining!

Now i don't want to through the dynamic of this argument off by trying to squeeze in, but I'd like to ask a question:

Though we are not able in QM to say with certainty that a particle will be at a specific position when we measure it, what we can say is that this quantum object has probability X of being at this position when we measure it.

The fact that we have developed formulae which tell us the distribution of these probabilities, and as the number of particles meassured go up, the curve-fit of this probability distribution matches close and closer the predicted results.

Does this prediction, though it is based on probability, not show that we can 'determine' the most likely outcome of any given quantum process. Although not with 100% certainty, the fact that we can express it probabilisticly says a great deal, does it not?

This is sort of where I was going with a post in a another thread about 'probabilitic determinism'... I know that term sounds kind of stupid, but I think you may now understand what I'm getting at.

So basically I'm agreeing with you Gen-X that the fact that these quantum processes seem to obey probability laws make them NON-RANDOM. For a process to be truly random, all outcomes should have an equal probability of occuring, which is clearly not the case here (with finding the position of a quantum object). And if we accept this non-randomness, then you Sam are left without your weapon used to discard determinism.


dvst8


[Edited by dvst8 on 08-17-2000 at 04:16 PM]

[Guv]

Sam
A recent Post of yours indicated to me what you mean by "predetermined" as opposed to "deterministic." When the cards at the Blackjack table are put into the shoe, their sequence is "predetermined." I go along with that, but I do not see it as a definition applicable to the discussion of quantum randomness and its implications for the classical world of our senses.

Working within the constraints of casino Blackjack rules, it is reasonable to use probabilistic methods to play the game. Working within the restraints of the laws of physics, probability is not applicable. Knowledge of the sequence of the deck is readily available. Just take the cards out of the shoe, copy down the sequence, and base your plays on the data you wrote down.

I do not consider your concept of predetermined to be applicable to a discussion relating to quantum randomness and its implications for the future of the classical world.

Me, I go by the evidence at hand. There is lots of evidence that quantum events affect the classical world of our senses. There is lots of evidence that various important quantum processes obey probabilistic laws. Ergo, the evidence indicates that the future is unpredictable. There is no way to restart the universe as of 10 years ago and replay it. However, it seems to me that there is a preponderance of evidence indicating that the last decade of the 20th century would be different the second time around (if it could be done aver again). Id est: Conditions as of 1 January 1990 did not predetermine the events of the last decade.

Before you address the above issue, could you consider the following? It is well known that radioactive decay shows all the characteristics of a probabilistic process. Mainstream quantum theory asserts (I think) that it is a random process.

While I doubt it will happen, I admit that some time in the future, mainstream physics might uncover a Sub-Quantum layer of reality which provides a deterministic set of laws for radioactive decay.

Until that happens, I will believe that radioactive decay is a random process, and base conclusions relating to other concepts on that belief. What is your belief about radioactive decay? If you do not believe that it is a random process, are you willing to base any conclusions on the assertion that "radioactive decay is not a random process."? If you had to make a significant bet on the issue, which way would you bet?

The more posts I read from you (Sam) & Gen-X, the more I suspect that some of your beliefs about the universe are based on something analogous to religious faith. It seems to me that you pick and chose what aspects of mainstream science you believe and which you reject as not proven. I accept anything I understand about mainstream science until there is evidence to the contrary.

[Sam Finch]

Sorry guy's I neglected answering this for a bit, I'm quite lazy.

dsvt8

Imagine you have a gun, with N chambers, you are also full of rage that I have dismissed one of your arguments as claptrap (none of them has been so far BTW) and you set out to shoot me, you load the chamber with m bullets (where 0 < m < N) spin the chamber and point it to my head, Batman is running into the room to save me.

Freeze Time.

First let's make some assumptions, these are purely for the sake of this illustration and do not represent my views on the real world.

• My death would have a definate affect on the rest of history, this effect is totally uncontained and at no point in time after will we be ablee to say that the world is exactly the same as it would have been had I lived/died (remember I can fart and cause/prevent a tornado in 100 years time)
• The gun is truly random, with every squeeze there is an exactly equal chance of any chamber being fired, squeexing the trigger doesn't affect the probability of the next shot firing/not firing (thid probability being (m/N)
• Everything else in the world is totaly deterministic, including everybody's actions, all quantum effects etc.
• this is the only time the gun will ever be fired after this event the gun is destroyed and the universe is totally deterministic.

So basically I'm agreeing with you Gen-X that the fact that these quantum processes seem to obey probability laws make them NON-RANDOM. For a process to be truly random, all outcomes should have an equal probability of occuring, which is clearly not the case here (with finding the position of a quantum object). And if we accept this non-randomness, then you Sam are left without your weapon used to discard determinism

Now, can you say our crazy little world (the one I've just whipped up from my crazy little mind) is Truly Random, no, clearly it isn't not all outcomes of the world have equal probabilities, in fact, as everything totaly depends on the outcome of this event everything has a probability of 1, m/n, 1-(m/N) or 0, a definite pattern.

but can we say the world is deterministic, NO, not until the gun is fired. We still cannot determine what will happen after this event untill we know my fate. (NB, there is a probability of 1 that you will squeeze the trigger at least once)

So this leads me to my important Axiom

If a system has an aspect of randomness which affects its outcome it cannot be deterministic

I think I've illustrated this clearly enough to leave it without proof.

Probabilistic Determinism

In this example I'm assuming you mean that if we can know m and N and hence work out the exact probabilities of everything in the universe. Let's play with the numbers.

One thing I forgot to tell you, you don't know how many chambers the gun has, it could be any number at all, all you know is that it's a whole number and it's more than one.

I'm also working out my chances.

I don't know m or N, all I know is that 0 < m < N

what are my chances of being shot on any particular squeeze of the trigger?

well, they are sum(i=1 to N-1, i/N)/N-1 (m has an equal probability of being any number from 1 to N-1, the probability of being shot is the average of all possible values of m)

sum(i=1 to N-1, i/N)/N-1
=sum(i=1 to N-1, i)/N(N-1)
=(N(N-1))/(2N(N-1))
=0.5

I have a 50-50 chance of being shot.

Start time again

Batman bursts in the door, He's not in time to stop you, he can't get to you in time.

Stop he cries, how many bullets are in that gun.

27 you reply.

Me and Batman both smile, you squeeze the trigger 50 times and nothing happens, you throw the gun down in disgust and follow batman to the police station.

what happened there? you squeezed the trigger 50 times if my cahnces were 50-50 then I had only a (0.5^50) chance of surviving.

Actually I knew I was going to survive, you told me what m was, so wehave more information on the probability.

Now it's just N I don't know, the probability is now the average of 27/N for every possibility of N, which is Sum(i=28 to infinity, 27/i) /infinity which is zero.

you use this argment in your defence, avoid jail and come out knowing not to shoot anyone again And as the rest of the world is deterministic we get a man with a calculator to work out that we will all live happily ever after.

(OK seeing as it was deterministic and that was always going to happen everything in the world was deterministic but ignore that otherwise I wont give you a happy ending)

not only was that a great plot twist, but it illustrated 2 things

the first is how wierd probability laws can be when considering an infinite number of possibilities, like we do in QM, knowing a lower limit on the number of rounds would not alter the probability of my being shot, but knowing any sort of uppper limit instantly reduces them to 0. Thsi works the other way around to the uncertainty principal but it can help understand it.

the second illustrates the idea of probabilistic determinism, in every scenario I could work out the exect probability of being shot, by knowing more information I don't make these probabilities more precise, I just change them, there is no one true probability of the event, just a calculatable probability going on the information available, In this way we can always determine the most likley outcome without taking any more measurements, just using the ones we have, but in a deterministic world (or nearly deterministic like this one) we can make those probabilities closer to 1 or 0 by examining more data (eg by finding out the number of rounds) In the clasical world we don't have to consider the infinite result sets that make the quantum probabilities so strange, and usually taking more data makes the probability closer to 1 or 0 which is what we want, in the Quantum world this is not true.

I hope this answers your question to some extent.




Guv

I don't have an exiting story for you I'm afraid.

Basicly I'm just gonna dodge the question.

I think you pushed my blackjack model a bit too far, I was playing with cards and was working withing the rules of the casino.

I'm sure I made my distinction between deterministic and predetermined clear, I'm not going to write it out again.

the point I was making with it in this thread was the idea that predetermined does not imply not random. AND I was using it to illustrate how methods of determining randomness can still apply to computer genareted random numbers even though they are predetermined.

In other threads I was using it to make a far more phillosophical point, in that we simply cannot make the distinction between our universe being a predetermined or non predetermined system. I was going to use this to try and get to the point I wanted to make in the religion threads about the existance of god being totally and utterly irrelevant.

Basicly the argument was going to go along these lines.

If god exists and is omnipotent and omniscient then to himm the universe must be predetermined with him as the predeterminator.

If god does not exist then the universe is not predetermined.

as there is no difference between a predetermined universe and a non predetermined on there can be no difference between a universe with or without a deity.

I'm not even going to start on where this argument breaks down, it breaks down in just about every place in it, exept for the argument that there s no difference between a predetermined or non predetermined universe, I thought I'd put this Idea out before I worked out the rest of the argument, I've given up on the rest now, as you might give up on a piece of code wit more bugs that working lines)

Basicly on this thread that phillosophical argument is irrelevent, it just pushes the Idea of a predetermined universe aside so we can ignore it and discuss whether or not it is deterministic. It also backs up the idea that we can determine wheather or not a set of data is random by giving the example of the cryptogrophers.

[Gen-X]

Sam

First let me say I am guilty of not reading your entire post... it was quite long and scary (Makes me wonder what some people think of my monsterous posts).


There is ONE problem with your gun scenario... and its a big one.

You said "spin the barrel".

Now I could use next to NO force or I could use LOTS of force... the barrel could be well oiled or NOT well oiled, was the temerature hot or cold? (this effects the spinning speed and friction).

If as I was putting the bullets into the gun I noted the position of which chambers were full and which were empty then by being able to quantify the factors used in spinning the barrel I could with 100% probability predict the outcome of pulling the trigger.

There is nothing random about spinning the barrel...

Perhaps from the point of view of the onlooker who didn't bother to take all these factors into account the spin is random... perhaps to the gun holder who didn't bother thinking about what he was doing its random.... But in reality there is absolutely and totally nothing random about spinning that barrel and which chamber it ends up on


How do you explain this one away?

[Sam Finch]

Gen-X

It was a magic gun.

basicly the gun is truly random because I wanted an aspect of randomness in my story.

If you'd read the whole of it (this isn't an If you'd bothered reading the whole of it you'd know better thing, I've skipped a lot of your monserous posts in the pasts)
anyway, later in the story I introduce the idea that there is no way of knowing how many chambers the gun has, and there is no upper limit (so there is the same chance of having 28 billion chambers as having 6)

I was using the gun as an aspect of randomness to illustrate this axiom

If a system has an aspect of randomness which affects its outcome it cannot be deterministic

my post before that I defined the idea of an aspect of randomness to resolve the difference between how I was defining random and how you were defining it.

[Edited by Sam Finch on 08-20-2000 at 07:39 PM]

[dvst8]

Sam
thanks. that story was very good. i think i am pretty much forced to accept your axiom.

the only thing left, is that i need to read some proof that the world actually has an aspect of randomness in it. you claim that people have proved this, I will have to see such proof before I take this as fact.

dvst8

[Sam Finch]

Well there is no actual proof, but there is very strong evidence that it is random.

Basicly tests have been done on sets of results to show that they must contain an aspect of randomness, or a pattern so complex as to get past the best testing we have.

I reckon even with my relitivley basic maths skills if you give me a set of 100 or so results from a function that is everywhere differentiable (don't use Abs, Tan, Mod or bitwise operations) and 100 or so results from some function that has an aspect of randomness I cold tell you which one's which as long as the non random function is simple enough not to get an expression too complex error if you put it all on one line (and you have to do a lot of typing before you get one of these).

As I've said before, don't ask me to do it, it's a lot of work and I don't want to do it.

But If I can do this, after doing only the first year of a maths degree (in fact you can do it using further maths A level(taken at 18)) then what can a team of people, each with a doctrate in amths, who've devoted his lives to research in this area do?

If they say it's random then it's good enough for me.

It's not however good enough for Gen-X, which is fair enough, we can't dismiss the posibility that it is deterministic, but it seems unlikley to me that in a world where every new discovery is staggaringly simple (although strange) we suddenly come up with something this complex.

[Guv]

dvst8
This has been posted elsewhere: Radioactive decay is the most well known example of a process believed to be random.

Have you ever wondered why physicists specify the half life, rather that the whole life of substances like Radium & Uranium?

The reason is that the half life is the time within which there is a 50-50 chance that an individual atom will decay.

If half life is 10 minutes, then half the atoms are expected to decay in 10 minutes. After 20 minutes, 75% are expected to decay & 25% expected to remain. When there is exactly one atom left, there is a small chance that it will not decay for years. There is a 50-50 chance it will decay in 10 minutes; 75-25 in favor of decay in 20 minutes; One chance in eight of it lasting 30 minutes; Et cetera.

There is no explanation for the statistics of radioactive decay other than its being a random process. If it looks & acts like a duck, it is reasonable to believe that it is a duck, and unreasonable to believe otherwise.

Radioactive decay and other quantum phenomena obey statistical laws. While this might not be proof that they are random processes, it is unreasonable to believe otherwise in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

People who believe otherwise have faith in the universe being deterministic and any random process is contrary to what they believe on faith.

There are those who say: "Mainstream science has been wrong before. Why should I believe that they are right on ....?"

One reason is that for over 300 (some say for over 2000) years mainstream science has had the best explanation for how things work. Note that neither Relativity nor Quantum theory proved that classical physics was in error!!! They only showed that classical physics was not applicable to situations beyond the experimental capabilities of the technology of the 18th & 19th centuries. NASA Still uses Newtonian equations for its calculations. Classical physics still works when applied to the experimental data available of 200 years agos.

AS time goes by, the explanations of mainstream science have been getting closer and closer to explaining how things work.

In view of my basic philosophy, I hate to mention the following.

Reasonable men always obey laws and act on the basis of what they have been taught. All new inventions & progress are due to the activities of unreasonable men.

That being said: I believe that unreasonable men are far far more often wrong than reasonable men.

While the race is not always won by the swift & the battle is not always won by the strongest, that is the way the smart money always bets.

[Gen-X]

Sam

Ah well, if we were talking magial impossibilities then of course you would have to be right... but thats the same as the existance of a certain deity we all hear about all the time

Why does the answer have to be complex? I don't see where simply because we don't have the answer or the ability to determine the answer it must be a complex answer.

Like you said before, our discoveries are staggeringly simple... when we know where we are looking.

Its like trying to "determine" something visual without sight... we think its random simply because a sense is not available to us. Why if this "randomness" is noise from a higher dimension? That it is perfectly calculatable and totally deterministic but we just can't see or measure this higher plane because we are incapable. That would be completely simplistic and easy to see... if we knew where to look and what to look with.

Its just a thought.