Dubbelosix

The collapse of a wave function, is ... widely considered as a random process, though technically-speaking, the evolution of a wave function is entirely deterministic. It is true, the wave behaviour disappears during observation of the system - consider the atom which is shot at with a photon, it's position can be known but with uncertainty in the momentum. Is the linking of the UP with the wave function collapse a surprise? Well no, the process of inducing uncertainty in the system, requires a definition of observing the system in some way. Obviously then, a collapse is on the table. They are two sides of a phenomenon from the same source of physics.

Because I feel like you have taken the time to explain why, I believe I understand it now. I read a bit further, found some analogues of the use of infinity, one particle one is that a probability tends zero as something approaches infinity - even though I know people have taken the time to explain it being undefined, if it had been explained clear cut like this, I may have been more willing to soak in what was being said. ''This is an extension of the principle that a finite string of random text has a lower and lower probability of being a particular string the longer it is (though all specific strings are equally unlikely). This probability approaches 0 as the string approaches infinity. Thus, the probability of the monkey typing an endlessly long string, such as of the digits of pi in order, on a 90-key keyboard is (1/90)∞ which equals (1/∞) which is essentially 0. At the same time, the probability that the sequence contains a particular subsequence (such as the word MONKEY, or the 12th through 999th digits of pi, or a version of the King James Bible) increases as the total string increases. This probability approaches 1 as the total string approaches infinity, and thus the original theorem is correct.'' Can someone explain the last part to me, maybe in a clear concise way? I don't know why he keeps telling me to pick from the top or bottom of the pack when there is no end points to an infinity? Really weird to me. People wonder why I struggle understanding people sometimes. sorry approaches infinity^ fixed

I just don't understand this, where have I divided 1 by infinity. Infinity I admit, is not a number, but it can be a set of infinite numbers. Getting a number out of it, is akin to choosing that card and has nothing to do with dividing 1 by infinity.

Oh I see.

So what is being said, you can get 1 in a trillion, but you cannot actually have 1 in infinity? Is this what is being said? Thought experiments don't need to be practical. So you seem to be missing the agenda here.

The point of me asking for solutions, was to get suggestions. I am clearly uncertain how a mixed deck may change the statistics, if it even would. The question can be looked at with some history about infinite thought problems of similar context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem By the way, I don't mind suggestions about changing the thought experiment in any way. In the link above, its considered the set up is a metaphor for different things. But sense can be extrapolated from it. Go into the section about probabilities in the link, quite interesting.

The Monty Hall Problem did not demonstrate to me that my thought experiment didn't make sense. What I took back from the problem was very specific, which involved a second person knowing what was behind the doors to create these probabilities. I don't see anything formally wrong with making a simple thought experiment where you have a probability of choosing something from an infinite amount of possible states. The reason why I do not think it is impossible, because physicists deal with something similar during the first instants of the universe. According to quantum cosmology, the universe had an infinite amount of start up conditions it could have chosen from (due to its wave function of probabilities), out of which this reality was the one particular existence to come out of it - this really is no doubt a 1 in a infinite chance of happening. Notice, is my set up any different? Then consider my extended question, consider a mixed deck, does it change the statistics.

Then what are the chances you pick the right card from an infinite deck? Are you saying this too is undefined? I am not giving you a situation where [math]\infty - 1 = \infty[/math]. That isn't the question, you understand that right? So... I am thinking, what could it be that you mean? I'm giving the Monty Hall Problem a read just now strange. Right, I have given it a look through, though this problem is similar, mine is quite different. The set up is quite different as well. I will take a look and see if there is any mention in literature for this Monty Hall case for an infinite number of doors. So neh, didn't see any infinite representations of it, but I have now seen demonstrations in Monty's Hall problem where the definition of his likely statistics becomes obscured with larger and larger numbers of rooms. The set up is different radically, requires a game show host who knows what is behind the doors ect.

True.

Funny, I thought it just requires a sense of probability? Even if you were not picking something personally what are the chances the right card falls out the deck? You can change it however you want, its a thought experiment. Maybe. I just haven't been given reason to think otherwise. A good question is ''if you pick a card from an infinite deck, is the chance 1 in an infinity.'' If that statement if true, then there is no reason why my question does not have a valid answer. I could argue it could be the scope of my audience that is incapable of answering it. unless of course, the statement above is untrue, in which case, I would require suggestions why.

Are you going to continually neg rep me everytime I speak to you? I don't want a reputation like yours, I will ignore you totally.

No one asked to pick from the top or bottom of anything. You are making up stuff as you go along.

That's because you and him haven't understood the problem. You keep talking about undefined processes and dividing infinity by infinity, none of that has anything to do with my question. It does have a mathematical explanation because I can't understand a situation where it couldn't have a solution, not that I actually have one. If the statement that picking the correct card from an infinite deck, is 1 in infinity, (does anyone disagree with that), then it [should] be possible to explain my extended question, of whether an infinite mixed deck changes the statistics.

There is no arithmetic being performed! It's a thought experiment, the experiment has already been set up. The situation is clear, you are picking a number from infinity, then I am asking if the statistics change in a mixed infinite deck, I haven't asked you to do any operations, we have been over this already.

It is completely legal to mix two infinities of the same magnitude as far as I am aware. I may not be a mathematician, but common... the other poster.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not dividing an infinity by any infinity, go read the OP again.

Ok, so explain why there is no way of calculating the odds of my proposal? Yes, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

Also, does it matter if you can mix them any way you like?

Explain what you mean by undefined? You understand the situation, I have given you two infinities, from which you can pick any card. It's an unphysical situation, then yes, but its a thought-experiment which does have a mathematical explanation somewhere outside of whether it is plausible. I don't know what you mean, you might be a mathematician, and if you have picked up on something I haven't, then explain with clarity please. In physics, a physicist uses the words, 'probability' and 'chance of occurring'' as equally the same thing. I thought initially you meant chance may have a difference meaning with probability, in which case it can in physics again. Chance is something we associate to random systems and probabilities, like a wave function, doesn't need to be random at all. But you didn't mean this so it doesn't matter. Consider then, the cards are an ''infinite mix'' a good question would be, does the probability become 50-50?

Did I write antimatter, or do you mean dark matter problem? If the latter, then it was reported recently that early galaxies older than 10 billion years appeared to have no dark matter phenomenon giving rise to galaxy rotation curves. This puzzled me. So I went and sought an explanation and found one - it may depend on black hole size. Which means this theory is testable. The idea is that black holes where not massive enough to create the necessary torsional effects in the galaxy, giving rise to rotation curves. The later evidence I found supporting galactic bulge to black hole ratio and galaxy curves where interesting. It just adds to the model being valid. Remember, if the rotation curve is a black hole phenomenon, then dark matter becomes immediately invalid. Dark matter was created for this very purpose, to explain why stars in the outermost rim of a galaxy accelerated round the galaxy at the same speed as stars closer to the core. The black hole explains a binding energy dynamic to the entire galaxy.

Agreed, I hate the pop media, it tries to do good, but makes it harder for the rest of us - laymen included.

Go take a look at my statistics thread Mordred, in maths, I think you might be able to help? hell, why not? lol

Oh no, it's not an operation I am doing in the OP, and I am certainly beyond the sillyness of statements like 0/0. You can arrange them in a particular way, that it depends on how the infinities are stacked on each other. You could assume they are equally divided... this is a good question and requires someone with good mathematical knowledge to answer it. If they are equally divided, does this effect the statistics so that the chance becomes something other than 1 in infinity?

Maybe ... but I think laymen tend to get more confused thinking outside the traditional realms they tend to read on pop science articles. If it is shut down, that's a shame. Questions like this are popular with the laymen and they don't quite understand it for good reasons.

Strange, I find all these discussions moot. I am not dragging these factors into the discussion though, you are. The questions he is positing are exact and I am giving him exact answers in a very limited theory. I'm giving you a situation, where a finite universe, to be infinite by definition, has to expand for infinity, if you want to go into semantics and say it was infinite all along, then fine... but let's be clear, that we need to make sense of why the universe is expanding. I am not sure the expansion dynamics works in an infinite universe - certainly the static universe theories suffered this problem? Hoyle's infinite steady state universe suffered this problem.