Sensei Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Dubbelosix said: 3) I do not believe the universe needs to be described by the current model. No problem. You can check current model by yourself using Cloud Chamber, then Bubble Chamber, then Spark Chamber and so on, so on.. You SHOULD... Don't believe in just word... Unstable isotopes in the above video are decaying in the random direction, and alpha or electron particles are flying, leaving traces.. Edited November 30, 2017 by Sensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said: Of course the world showing order is present. If it did not, the egg would not fall off a table, the ball would not roll down a hill, nor should ice always melt. No offence, but this stuff is simple. You either know what indeterminism actually means, or you crucially don't understand reality at large. which is it? Well, I wish you would have given me a third choice but since you didn't, I'm going to present it. For one, you're oversimplifying: The egg falls off the table --> Universe is not random. It's more or less like saying we don't know what was "before" the big bang therefore God did it all. I'm also not afraid to admit that I don't fully understand reality at large and I'm pretty sure you don't understand it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted November 30, 2017 Author Share Posted November 30, 2017 If the universe was fundamentally random. you need to explain not only why the egg falls off the table, but why it always falls off the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Dubbelosix said: If the universe was fundamentally random. you need to explain not only why the egg falls off the table, but why it always falls off the table. No, it does not have to always falls off the table, you can use x-ray machine, which will ionize egg (eject electron from egg shell), and use external electric field to hold in place levitating if you would like to.. as long as you want to.. Like in oil drop experiment.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 Just now, Dubbelosix said: If the universe was fundamentally random. you need to explain not only why the egg falls off the table, but why it always falls off the table. I think you're abusing the word "random" or at least this word means something different to you and me in the context of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted November 30, 2017 Author Share Posted November 30, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, koti said: I think you're abusing the word "random" or at least this word means something different to you and me in the context of reality. No I am not, abusing anything. Random means, without any fundamental or underlying processes. What is your definition of random? 4 minutes ago, Sensei said: No, it does not have to always falls off the table, you can use x-ray machine, which will ionize egg (eject electron from egg shell), and use external electric field to hold in place levitating if you would like to.. as long as you want to.. Like in oil drop experiment.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment I don't think you understand this. 13 minutes ago, Sensei said: No problem. You can check current model by yourself using Cloud Chamber, then Bubble Chamber, then Spark Chamber and so on, so on.. You SHOULD... Don't believe in just word... Unstable isotopes in the above video are decaying in the random direction, and alpha or electron particles are flying, leaving traces.. Oh decay, one of those processes which we don't fully understand. Yet a decay process can be completely deterministic under the zeno effect which underlies some kind of deterministic physical rearranging process of the electron orbits. Edited November 30, 2017 by Dubbelosix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said: Oh decay, one of those processes which we don't fully understand. Random (in the case of decaying particles) = without one preferred direction. Other word for it is uniform in the all directions. Decay billions point particles, and have 1 bln / 4*PI*1m^2 in sphere with radius 1m around it, and it's uniform distribution... (ignoring gravity etc.) 15 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said: Yet a decay process can be completely deterministic under the zeno effect ??? 15 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said: which underlies some kind of deterministic physical rearranging process of the electron orbits. CERN or other high energy physics particle accelerator, and particle collider, does not play with just atoms and electron's orbits.. Check decay of f.e kaon, pion, muon, and so on.... Edited November 30, 2017 by Sensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said: No I am not, abusing anything. Random means, without any fundamental or underlying processes. What is your definition of random? This might be just a semantics issue that were having here. I obviously agree that the universe works according to rules but that fact does not imply to me that the universe is „not random” The universe is rich with entropy and that is where I hinge my view of reality being random. I don’t think that „ball rolls down the hill therefore universe is not random” is an exhaustive approach. Edit: Are we having a full on religious discussion already because if we do, I'm outta here. Edited November 30, 2017 by koti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted November 30, 2017 Author Share Posted November 30, 2017 Exhaustive, but logical. You still haven't demonstrated how the ball always falls down the hill if there is not an underlying causal process each time, which has to be related to the systems it is made of ie. particles. If the particles it is made of is not following deterministic paths, then why does the ball always fall down the hill? Surely in some circumstances, if not most, the ball should not even form, or maybe roll up the hill, or transform into a goblin. I mean, what are the chances random systems always cope with the same circumstances? To me, it is more likely that particles follow deterministic paths which are determined by the forces which guide them. A ball falls down a hill because of the forces we use to describe them in a classical sense. Fundamentally, there still exists constraints on the system in the way of forces acting on them. Particles do not act randomly in my opinion, something is always guiding its path through space, if not often to create an ensemble of particles in some deterministic way for a classical system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Dubbelosix said: You still haven't demonstrated how the ball always falls down the hill if there is not an underlying causal process each time, which has to be related to the systems it is made of ie. particles. I'm not denying this. Ball rolling down the hill, causality processes taking place - all good here. I'm just saying that these processes do not make the reality look to me like its not random. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted November 30, 2017 Author Share Posted November 30, 2017 (edited) If indeterminism was truly part of the wave nature of quantum mechanics, then a curious problem exists in the double slit experiment. The interference pattern still emerges when you are shooting only one electron through the apparatus - keep in mind, the particles are not entangled and they are not supposed to know where the previous particles have landed on the detector, yet somehow, they do, and the interference pattern will always emerge regardless. My feeling of this, for this reason, has a deep motive. If the particles have no knowledge of where the previous particles have landed, yet the interference pattern always will emerge, then reality could be argued as being somehow deterministic. Though people will recite the ''spontaneous decay'' as a reason to think indeterministic events goes on at the fundamental level and this is not what I have taken from physics. Almost everything can be described deterministically. In one case I have given, the wave function is entirely deterministic. Edited November 30, 2017 by Dubbelosix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 15 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said: Particles do not act randomly in my opinion, something is always guiding its path through space, if not often to create an ensemble of particles in some deterministic way for a classical system. What do you think it might be that is guiding the particles through space? Do you think that evolution in nature is guided too? Stars collapsing, galaxies merging, cells multiplying - do you think these processes are guided too ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted November 30, 2017 Author Share Posted November 30, 2017 (edited) I think there could be a number of things that contribute to it. First of all, things do not happen for no reason. Then things happen in a non-local way. This non-local nature to the universe, is the most challenging concept to understand in a deterministic model since classical signals are subject to the speed of light as well. So in a way, I believe there are things even happening we don't fully understand. In fact, the key to forbidding time travel may have to do with causally-related systems. For instance, If two events are timelike separated, then an object can travel from the former event to the latter event with a velocity v<c. In a space-like interval, an object can be present at both events only if it travels at a velocity v>c. That is, a spacelike separated object could only travel from the former to latter point by exceeding the speed of light. Since this speed is non-physical with ordinary matter, the two events will not allow itself to be causally-connected. Only those timelike systems, are causally-connected; perhaps Chronological Protection (as named by Hawking) is based on such principles, perhaps only causally-connected spheres are allowed to time travel, those which are spacelike, do not and could not, effect the causal structure of the universe. Edited November 30, 2017 by Dubbelosix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted November 30, 2017 Author Share Posted November 30, 2017 Consider for instance, two particles separated by billions of light years, but are quantum entangled. How does each particle know the state of the other when you come to measure one of them? Classical signalling won't answer for it because the signal would have to travel faster than light. Einstein speculated that maybe there where hidden variables associated with the system. Though local hidden variables have been ruled out, non-local ones are yet to follow the same path. Still, you get the sense there may be more going on than meets the eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Dubbelosix said: In fact, the key to forbidding time travel may have to do with causally-related systems. I don't believe Time Travel is forbidden. In fact I'm rather positive it is a prediction of GR..at least forward time travel. Time Travel into the past is a different kettle of fish. https://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed Quote In brief: The laws of physics allow members of an exceedingly advanced civilisation to travel forward in time as fast as they might wish. Backward time travel is another matter; we do not know whether it is allowed by the laws of physics, and the answer is likely controlled by a set of physical laws that we do not yet understand at all well: the laws of quantum gravity. In order for humans to travel forward in time very rapidly, or backward (if allowed at all), we would need technology far far beyond anything we are capable of today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted November 30, 2017 Author Share Posted November 30, 2017 These are matters of opinion. Personally, I do not believe causality is broken in the universe. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 I believe what Dubbelosix is really asking, is how does a system go from being completely reversible, where you can't tell forward progression in time from backward progression, to one that is irreversible. Whereas the constituent atoms of the egg can just as likely fly apart as move together, the egg itself , having fallen off the table and breaking up, will never spontaneously put itself back together again. ( not even with the help of all the king's horses and all the king's men ) The thing about 'random' is that you can never prove if a process or sequence is random, only if it isn't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted November 30, 2017 Author Share Posted November 30, 2017 Yes that is a fair description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 10 hours ago, Dubbelosix said: What does a true random generator consist of? Would you agree that , taken by itself, 1 is a random number? 10 hours ago, Dubbelosix said: This one studiot? Well, show me what you mean. What random intervals have one-to-one correspondence? Does this not seem like an oxymoron? Something like this came up elsehwere. Although you could compare random intervals, this really has nothing to do with the first point. That is why I underlined your first assertion and labelled it (1) and placed your second assertion, about subspaces, in italics and labelled it (2). My humble apologies if that failed to identify that I was makeing two quite separate points. I appreciate the pace this thread has gathered makes for hasty replies. 10 hours ago, studiot said: 11 hours ago, Dubbelosix said: The universe as we see it is causal. I base this as a matter of a set theory argument. A causal system cannot be borne from non-causal events (1). No more than any subsystem can contain enough information to encode the whole.(2) The universe we see on a day-to-day basis appears to be constructed from causally set patterns in nature. I am fond of observing that reality has more weird quirks than we can dream up. For instance so far as we know the electron is indivisible, but we cannot prove it. I only know of one truly indivisible object - you cannot have half a hole. Or here is another one. Take a simple light switch and light. Start and switch the switch and repeat switching one and off or off and on an infinite number of times. What is the final state of the light (ignoring longevity) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 24 minutes ago, studiot said: Would you agree that , taken by itself, 1 is a random number? Something like this came up elsehwere. Although you could compare random intervals, this really has nothing to do with the first point. That is why I underlined your first assertion and labelled it (1) and placed your second assertion, about subspaces, in italics and labelled it (2). My humble apologies if that failed to identify that I was makeing two quite separate points. I appreciate the pace this thread has gathered makes for hasty replies. I am fond of observing that reality has more weird quirks than we can dream up. For instance so far as we know the electron is indivisible, but we cannot prove it. I only know of one truly indivisible object - you cannot have half a hole. Or here is another one. Take a simple light switch and light. Start and switch the switch and repeat switching one and off or off and on an infinite number of times. What is the final state of the light (ignoring longevity) ? The same as the final number in infinty: undetermined Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted November 30, 2017 Author Share Posted November 30, 2017 Of course, none of this is easy. Everyone has opinions about these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 If ignorance can barge in ,didn't Bell's inequality proof ** have something to say about there not being a determinism "guiding" apparent randomness? Do we not just have to accept the possibility that a "final" understanding of the relationship between determined and undetermined effects may simply not be there to uncover? "Shut up and calculate"? ** which I have not understood or obviously assimilated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 ! Moderator Note At the moment I'm failing to see how this is a speculations discussion, since no alternative hypotheses are being presented. And no discussion on the failings of accepted physics is present, so it's not mainstream physics being discussed. Posting "I do not believe the universe is random inherently at the quantum level or otherwise." without any evidence is a non-starter. We're here to discuss science, not opinion. You have to want to talk about how to test that, or something about physics. Further, posting several disparate opinions is a non-starter. You want to discuss the big bang, then open up a thread on the big bang. You want to talk about fine-tuning, open a thread on fine-tuning. One topic per thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts