Martyred Goat

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Quantum fluctuations can contribute but isn't a major player. One has to get in depth on the distinction between a fluctuation or an excitation. A particle is often described as a localized field excitation under QFT treatments the fluctuations are often associated with virtual particles. Though that is an oversimplification under field treatments

That's the last straw, ima go learn about interior design instead :/

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

You can't reverse time. But all muons are identical. If you put them identical conditions, they will decay at different random times distributed around 2 us. That is the closest you can get to your experiment.

Yeah, i wish i could reverse time. Can't even put them in identical positions... Do you think quantum fluctuations causes the varying decay rate... or is it just weirder than that? 

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Once you leave the realms of science, you can invent any result you want. That has nothing to do with the real world.

I don't think it does. 

Quantum theory is deterministic, in the sense it is not random: we can say what the possible outcomes are from any interaction. But we can only predict the probabilities of any outcomes, not that a specific one will occur.

 

Aye!! Then we may be closer to the mistake i made (assuming i made one) 

So the outcome is pre determined, But our predictability is limited to probability of the outcome... We can't determine the specific outcome, but it is not "random" 

A muons decay... will occur at a specific time, but it is not predictable. So not random, but we are limited to predicting in terms of probability? 

For me, "true random" means that we restart the big bang, and the event occurs differently... Bells theorum disproving the possibility of hidden variables.. seemed to be saying that true random was present. 

Thanks for humouring me on all this. If nothing else, i have a shit tonne of reading material  

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Once you measure something it is determined. The probabilities of superposition for example are predetermined probability states. QM as a theory tries to predict ALL possible outcomes and more specifically the likely hood of a given result. This makes QM a robust science as it can take into account a wide range of possible results. However this isn't unique to QM or QFT, even relativity involves probability in terms of possible particle spacetime paths to a certain degree.

 Needless to say statistical analysis is a vital part of any physics theory. It provides a greater range of predictability

Ok. So just because it is not determined before it is measured... does not make it random... It just means that there is no way to know that it is not? 

26 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Stange is correct in order for any particle decay to occur there must be a particle that the conservation of energy/momentum, charge, isospin color, flavor, parity etc allow. When a particle decays it must decay into another particle that satisfies those conservation laws. This is one reason why certain particles do not decay in the lifetime of our universe. There is no particle that satisfies those conservation laws for that particle to decay into.

Now... I am getting better with some of the technical stuff... but that is beyond me for now.

Layman level... Can i not say then that the muons entry into an environment where it does want to decay is the cause for the event and time of it? 

It still seems that (hypothetically) if i observe it decaying, then reverse time... there is a chance that the time of decay varies. If it does not, then its not true random..... if its not random.... then its deterministic? 

(I may have to leave shortly, If i don't squeeze in another noob question/complaint..... Ty Strange, Mordred and others  )

18 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No there is two detectors in the Bell experiment. when you measure one particle at spin up you know the other particle MUST be spin down. There is no time reversal involved. The muon decay is a different thread see my answer there 

I have no issues with the any of it. **Except** I fail to understand how bells theorem disproves determinism.. And don't think i have seen anything to suggest that anything is not potentially deterministic... I've learned a lot today (thank you all)...

But innocent until proven guilty... Till i know better... I will argue that events require causes! (And yes, i seem to have mashed the two topics a little) But i think i'm after the same knowledge in both. 

Off to the other thread i go. 

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I have a very high confidence that the possibility of a faster than light interaction is not the correct answer. Let me explain a few details not mentioned thus far. First off the entangled particles have already interacted with each other prior to being measured. They did so the instance they became entangled. This entanglement determines the probability of possible outcomes which is a correlation function ( another statistical term.) In the case of spin 1/2 particles such as electrons there is only two possible states spin up or spin down. However there is also a process called conservation of isospin and charge that is involved ( though all conservation laws apply in any particle interaction).

 This determines that the entangled pairs must be of opposite polarity. So when you measure one you automatically know the result of the other. The particles do not need to communicate or have any cause and effect at the time of the measurement. The initial interaction when they initially got entangled is sufficient.

That all sounds fine to me. The bit where my comprehension fails, Is when you measure one of the pair and it is spin up.... (i assume its a 50/50 chance) Then you somehow reverse time, measure again in the exact same way... and its now spin down. 

If this doesn't occur. i.e. you reverse time magically... Measure it as spin down... reverse time measure it as spin down (always getting spin down)... then it there is a factor that determined its state and so its not probabilistic. 

In terms of an example strange gave. 

"Well, the reason is that it is unstable and there are lower mass particles for it to decay into. But that isn't a cause. It is just a description of what is possible.

There is no clockwork mechanism that makes it decay after 2 us. There is nothing that causes it to decay at the exact time it does."

I produce a muon, it decays at a time. I reverse time (with my cool magic) And the muon decays at a slightly different time.... Now if the muon decays at the same time after reversing time (as i believe it would) then there was a mechanism that determined its time of decay. If reversing time does not reset and replay events in the same way... then i have to rethink a lot... as do many... 

Now i know reversing time is really not a good scientific test... but i'm running out of ways to articulate the issues i see. Would love a bit more info on the matter  

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is nothing that causes it to decay at the exact time it does.

But it does decay.... And it decays for a reason.... That is not a baseless assertion. If it decays, that decaying is evidence of a pre-decaying state.... and a transition from not decayed to decay. Doesn't matter what the reason for it changing is... It changes... therefore there is a reason.

I get that you may have seen evidence that says otherwise, I get that maybe you know things i don't. But trying to have someone agree that something occurs without cause.... without accepting that there may be a cause... seems incredulous to me. 

If we ever decide something happens without cause, then there is no point in looking further. If the assertion of no cause is incorrect, and no one looks further, then the mistake would never be noticed.

If i ask "why does the muon decay?" Would "I don't know why the muon decays" not be a better answer? 

If its not a better answer.... then please tell me why the muon decays...  

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Eppur si muove.

Nah, Space would have to be infinitely divisible. Jump jump jump jump jump, Looks like movement. Me thinks :p

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Not based on the assumption I included.

 

 

Urm.... 

It doesn't matter how much you mess with time.... forwards or backwards.... All things within time would remain relative. For it to change anything, be measurable/knowable or for it to contradict any theory.... you would also need something that is not effected by the reversal. 

My personal belief is that each instant is a static state, Like a frame rate. This means that movement does not occur

I am unsure as to what just happened... regardless, i think this needs to be tested!! Any volunteers. Dibs on being the producer of said spit!! 

On 12/26/2018 at 12:57 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Agree.

Now just to try a different tack:

Say I proposed a BB model with time starting abruptly and going forever forward infinitely...followed by a reversal with time going backward to the starting point.

Would this make sense? Would the reversal actually get to happen in this model, assuming it would have to wait for the completion and expiration of the first part?

You can run time forwards and backwards as much as you like, you can rewind and restart as many times as you like.. and its as if you never did. The billionth reverse and restart would be identical to the first, because it is the first. 

Unless you have something (Anti time thing) that the time reversal does not effect... then there is no way of knowing/telling. If you have something like that, then you have another type of time, one which stays forwards for this (anti time thing) even when you reverse normal time.... but you can just propose reversing this "greater time" and the same issue happens... now your anti time thing... which told you if time had been restarted doesn't work....  Damn... i would love one of them anti time doodahs

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Reality behaves in a way that we can't tell that it's not. QM is our best description of that behavior (under the conditions where QM is the best model), and it is probabilistic. There have been tests that confirm such "not probabilistic" behavior is not present. (Bell tests of hidden variables)

IOW, you will be very hard-pressed to support your claim. And a bald assertion is far from satisfactory.

 

I get that, I wish i had a grasp of calculus and a load of neat machines..... or even some polarisation filters!! (See if you can guess what i've been looking up)

I think faster than light interaction is a far more likely explanation than a probabilistic nature.... Gimme 10 years and i'll try and say why :/ 

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

What is the meaning (ie how do you interpret) of the statement:

"Event A has a probability of 1"?

 

I see it as a statement. aka "Event A will occur"

1 hour ago, Strange said:

You are misusing/misunderstanding Newton's third law.

Consider a muon. It is a fundamental particle, with no internal structure or moving parts. Leave it alone, with no interactions with anything else (in other words, nothing that happens that could be a cause) and after a few microseconds it will decay.

I know what you are going to say: "well in that case, it must have some structure that we don't know about". But that is not how science works. It doesn't invent things with no evidence just to satisfy our beliefs. It attempts to do the exact opposite: remove our beliefs and only look at the evidence. Scientifically, the muon is a fundamental particle.

So we know the muon will decay. Therefore there must be a reason for it to decay. I'm not inventing anything. The decaying muon is the evidence that it decayed for a reason. You seem to be saying that it decays for no reason. I am saying that no thing happens for no reason.... Which i thought was a given.

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Because QM is probabilistic.

Ahh, brainwave. And this will likely sound silly... QM is not the thing QM is attempting to describe. It is a label for the language, Not a label for the thing the language is used to talk about..... 

I don't think "IT" is probabilistic.... I almost argued against your statement. But you have said QM is probabilistic..... I think you are probably right lol..... 

I have a lot to learn, Ty for indulging me  

......As for the second bit. Regardless of the experiment. Regardless of the results, there is always the potential for a second configuration (at least) which appears identical to all current means of measurement and observation......

QM may be probabilistic, Reality is not. 

Probability is the math of guessing. There is no chance... 

Sorry, but to me its quite simple. Unless my definition of probability is miles off.... It is clever guesswork, And any use of it in literal theory.... is a patch to fill in gaps. It can help people to understand something. But it always has the potential to be wrong. And therefore never has the potential to define (Short of certainty)

39 minutes ago, studiot said:

Thank you.

So if the set of outcomes is infinite and the set of all events, A (to give them a name) are both infinite do they have the same 'amount' (to use your words) of members?

 

It may be a fixed invariant.

This is the difference between equality and identity in mathematics.

 

A hidden variable may be known but never explicitly calculated eg in the pharmaceutical process of 'alligation' .

There are also many examples in maths at all levels where an intermediate result has to be calculated to obtain a desired end result.

In both cases the 'hidden' variable can be recovered and calculated if desired.

The hidden variables interpretation Strange is discussion is a horse of a different colour entirely.
Read carefully what he said about them and ask questions, rather than make inappropriate about them.

 

So if the set of outcomes is infinite and the set of all events, A (to give them a name) are both infinite do they have the same 'amount' (to use your words) of members?

Not necessarily. And now my words will really hold me back.... urm, they may both have an infinite "amount" after infinite iterations.... but the frequencies of positive outcomes differs.... 

(Well outside my comfort zone)

--------------------------------

An unknown quantity is not necessarily a variable in my book.

Agreed, i was wrong. 

A hidden variable is an unknown quantity. An unknown quantity is 'possibly' a variable, (possibly hidden)

------------------------------------

As for "inappropriate pronouncements", I can only word things in terms of the definitions i have. I can learn alternative definitions, and am trying. Seems my assumption was with the word "Hidden". I shall look into it. But i think "Badly Hidden" will do for now :p 

I think i need a disclaimer at the bottom of me boxes :/ 

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

No offence meant but how are these compatible ?

 

- i am quite sure that any calculation of probability only exists due to variables being included.
- Math is not my strong suit

How are they incompatible? 

-----------------------

19 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Particularly when you misuse particular mathematical terms with very specific meanings (I think without realising it).

For instance.

  1 hour ago, Martyred Goat said:

 

Similarity is such a specific word in mathematics and it does not mean what you have stated there.

I think its clear enough.... 

A line (1d) is like a load of (0d) dots in a row.
A plane (2d) is like a load of (1d) lines in a row.
An Object (3d) is like a load of (2d) planes in a row.
"Time" (4d) Is like a load of (3d) objects in a row.

It is not a definitive equation....

If you fail to understand what i am trying to say. Then ask me to correct wording or elaborate.

--------------------

What is the meaning (ie how do you interpret) the statement

Event A has a probability of 1?

I will warn you it is not as straightforward as it seems.

-

My answer,
Why did you put a question mark after that statement? 

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not according to QM. If you e.g. have three spin-1/2 particles, two of them will have to be in an identical spin state, since you don't have any other options. There are only two spin states available.

If you have an alternative theory, let's see it. What predictions does it make and how do we test it?

 

If you have an alternative theory, let's see it. What predictions does it make and how do we test it?

Double everything, universe A, and universe B. Take half of all A components and seemlessly join them to half of B components. Unplug hardrive B and change program, removing all trace of changes..... Way to test..... Plug hardrive B back in.

I know this may look like a troll answer. But i think by definition... my question is fair (i will word it as a question)

How can 2 things with identical states, Have differing outcomes?

Ahhhh . Particle A has an identical state to particle B.... and there is a different outcome.

I may have been thinking about identical particles, in identical positions with identical states. Identical states does not mean identical "other stuff" 

Have i corrected myself?

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

I have no idea what you mean, but I do know that probability and its mathematics does not work like that.

Unknown quantities, which may be unknown simply because we have not yet bothered to measure them and hidden variables are not the same thing either.

It would be good if we could all work from the same set of definitions of words.

 

We used to have a goat here called Nimrod, who changed his name.

I had thought you were perhaps the new name for this member, but apologies as I seem to be wrong about that.

In a truly infinite series of trials, how many times will a specific event occur, given that the event has a non zero probability, however small ?

Any defined event will occur an infinite amount of times. If its probability is anything above zero then you keep going until it happens again.

A hidden variable is an unknown quantity, An unknown quantity is a variable, but it may not be hidden. I think we are using the same definitions :/ 

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't see the connection. (And no.)

It would be up to you to show how that could happen.

I'm not sure this is directly related to causality. But

 

Urm.... "every action has an equal an opposite reaction" is clearly incorrect if anything can occur without cause. 

-------------------

How that could happen.... Simulation  I'll try and get something more specific after i have read up on bells theorum

-------------------

"There are events that happen without cause, so that's not a problem."

You are saying there is a reaction with no action. So you are arguing against newtons third law.

Now i don't mean to sound argumentative....... But..... THERE ARE NO EVENTS THAT HAPPEN WITHOUT CAUSE!!! ...... Even if a property exists.... and that property allows for the occurrence of events without a cause.... then that property is the cause.... 

Please provide an example of an event without a cause. I will give everything i own to conclusive proof that you can get something from nothing  

1 minute ago, Strange said:

There was a famous paper by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) that said: either there are hidden variables (your suggestion) OR particle attributes (such as position, velocity, energy, polarization, etc.) are not real and defined until they are observed. Bell's theorem shows that the presence of hidden variables would produce different results from the predicted by QM. And this has been confirmed by experiment.

A fairly readable overview in this article: https://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

 

And so "every action has an equal an opposite reaction" is incorrect? 

Is it not possible that an illusive variable both leads to the given outcome and a positive result from the calculations that show there is no illusive variable? 

Seems to me like there is a question - Why did that happen?

And from what you are saying, the answer is - It happened without cause.

I'm quite comfortable with "Not real or defined until observed" But for me..... when they are defined, something determines what it is that they are defined as. Even the presence of "literal random" Is by definition a hidden variable. Instinct is telling me that they looked everywhere and didn't find a hidden variable... I won a game of hide and seek once...... I'm still there :p 

I shall review bells theorem post haste, 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Tossing a coin is a probabilistic event, yet we know whether the result is heads or tails.

And if we know its trajectory, spin and the shape/texture of the surface it lands on. Then we know which way up it will land. It is only probabilistic when we can't calculate the variables involved which will lead to the outcome. In theory there is a chance of it being heads or tails. In actuality. It will only be one of the two. And that outcome is determined by the variables which are measurable. 

Its only a probabilistic event when you assume there are unknown variables. It becomes a determinable event if all variables are measured and the outcome is calculated.  

33 minutes ago, swansont said:

Experiment disagrees with you. You can prepare identical states and observe probabilistic outcomes.

Then the states were not identical. Identical state = Identical outcome. For me, it would just say that they appear identical due to something limiting our perception of the state.

33 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why 3D? What if I have a superposition of spin states?

If you're going to propose something different, you need the math to back it up.

Math is not my strong point... But i will try to express it better. 

A line (1d) is similar to a load of (0d) dots in a row.
A plane (2d) is similar to a load of (1d) lines in a row.
An Object (3d) is similar to a load of (2d) planes in a row.
"Time" (4d) Is similar to a load of (3d) objects in a row..

Our "string of occurrence" has a 3d object which persists in a dimension that is not one of the three, It is not just there and gone. It is there, It is there, It is there, It is there, It is there, It is there. Very similar to "in a row". ......In that sense, time can be seen as a spatial dimension..... (remember, i am no "expert")

"Possibilities" (5d) Is similar to multiple "Strings of occurrence" in a row.

Take what does occur as a central line and place all things that do not occur parallel to it. The lines closest to it are the most similar, They had the highest probability of occurring after the single line that did occur. The further you get from the central line.. The less chance there was of that 4d line being the outcome. So you produce a spectrum/plane.... from all these lines.... a single line in this "5d plane" represents all that does occur. The rest of the flat "5d plane" plane is made up from the same substance (other 4d lines) But they did not occur... not here at least... 

......In that sense, Possibilities can be seen as a 5th spatial dimension...... (Remember, I am certainly no expert....) 

Final note...
observation from a 1d line leaves a dot as observable
observation from a 2d plane leaves a 1d line as observable
observation from a 3d space leaves a 2d plane as observable
observation from a 4d time leaves a 3d space as observable

Observation from 5d? Would let us perceive time?.....

I don't speak the language of my own thoughts..... But i do try

On 1/23/2019 at 8:55 AM, Strange said:

This is a "hidden variables" model. This is ruled out by Bell's Theorem.

Also, the fact that things are probabilistic, doesn't mean they can't be accurately measured. We can measure to whatever precision our technology allows.

Anything probabilistic without 100% certainty involved... is an inaccurate measurement :p 


 

On 1/23/2019 at 12:00 PM, studiot said:

Thank you for the upvote, whoever.

Some additional comment or question would have been nice.

So here is one.

In a truly infinite series of trials, how many times will a specific event occur, given that the event has a non zero probability, however small ?

You're welcome  

I will likely often be blocked by the daily limit... will be tough to balance between number of posts and length of responses... 

Easy question to answer... ish... With perception not limited, there are an infinite number of identical events. With any limit to perception, Then there is no way of knowing that any given event is not you counting the same event twice. 

I will assume limitless perception, And so the event occurs repeatedly and is easily distinguishable from the other identical events (via the portions in between). The amount of other data in between is also easily distinguishable.... So its also simple enough to calculate the frequency of the given event.

Any limit to perception brings the perceived number of events down from infinite. (i think)

On 1/23/2019 at 11:40 AM, Strange said:

That sounds like Wheeler's "Many Worlds" interpretations: all possible outcomes exist in "different universes".

 

If there is anything that cannot be determined in advance. Then there must be a fork with 2 equal outcomes. Where does the outcome reside which doesn't play out here. Not sure i would jump straight to "many worlds" though.

So egg on a roof could fall left or right, It will fall, but which way is not determinable... Therefore both exist as possibility. One of the two possible outcomes occurs... So does the other possibility cease to be a thing? Or was it never a possibility? I think the egg falling the other way is equal to the outcome we ended up with. That is assuming there was ever a chance of it falling that way.

I am however confident that there is no chance. Only a singular outcome. Always the path of least resistance. That said..... if you take a different "starting state" then you could have two identical things which eventually diverge with different paths of least resistance. When we consider multiple things that could happen, we are predicting paths which we believe hold the least resistance.

I think superposition is 5 dimensional.... 3d object stacked through time.... in 3d its singular, in 4d it is there now, it is there now it is there now.... A near infinite stack, like how 2d planes relate to 3d objects....

Something in a superposition.... is like stacked 4d "stuff". Multiple tightly lined up 4d things, like lines to a plane, planes to an object and objects to time. In a 5d environment, multiple 4d things can exist simultaneously. With a 5d perspective.. multiple 4d things can be seen simultaneously..... Sorry... kinda going off on one....

 

On 1/23/2019 at 11:56 AM, studiot said:

 

 

More like the goat is tussling with the mathematical theory of probability.

Many (if not most) processes are not single step, they are multistep or multistage.

Thus we should consider combined probabilities

Note 'probabilities' is a more precise and mathematically tractable term than possibilities.

Something like this needs to be considered.

 

 

Right you are!! I think i use the term possibility more often due to my terrible ability when it comes to probabilistic calculations. But i am quite sure that any calculation of probability only exists due to variables being included.... Variables born from inaccurate measurement.... Maybe there are limits, And certain things will always remain un-predictable. But my gut says no.... I think probabilistic thinking is skippable in favor of seeking more accurate measurements.... Though equally happy to accept that probabilistic thinking will aid in the search for more accurate measurements.....

Sorry if not close enough to topic... 

Photon from supernova goes both ways round the blackhole (both slits). It exists as a wave.... Wave collapses...... It only went round the blackhole one way and so never held the trajectory leading it round the other side of the bh.... Before collapse, there was an occurrence in a place in the past which is provably not there after collapse.... I propose, it either moved to elsewhere upon collapse... Or collapse affected the past.. 

(I will work on forum etiquette, Pointers welcome.... New to this  )

Now i don't think i quite have my head around the topic at hand.... but i am hopefully getting there. My thoughts for now are this. 

The inclusion of any math based on probability highlights the inclusion of things that can't be accurately measured. However, if the outcome of the occurrence is measurable, then there must be a cause for that outcome. I believe that any "dice role" is just cause and effect we can't yet see. 

If you meet an identical copy of me in another place, many would start saying that there must have been a possibility for me to exist in multiple locations. But its also possible that i haven't ended up in multiple locations. The actual probability needed to be calculated is the chance of identical atoms arranging themselves in an identical way. I occurred once "by chance" So i could occur twice. Both me having two positions and the universe producing two versions of me must be included.

If there is nothing but you a pencil and empty space. Is the pencil shrinking? are you growing? or is the distance increasing? If you have no other information.... Is there any difference between the 3? 

I may be miles away from your question, What i'm trying to say is that the situation likely includes factors that we won't grasp for a while, Information we don't yet have. The interpretations are a means to work out what can't work. Specifics are increasingly seeming like a non-concept.

I think the experiment highlights that alternate possibilities aren't just hypothetical. That is to say, things that could happen but don't.... Exist.... 

As far as i can tell, either the observation has a real time effect in a way where it helps to discern which of the multiple positions becomes the "correct" one. Or, far more strangely, the effect of the observation in some way effects the nature of the observed particle, not just after the observation, but also before it. 

Including the observation changes the outcome.

Either the observation is helping select one outcome from multiple that are possible.... or....
The observation is determining the state of the single possibility which must include its state before the point of observation. 

If i'm not wrong, the favourite theory is that the particle has multiple states simultaneously and the observation causes the collapse of the multiple states into a singular state. But i like the idea that the occurrence in the now is in some way entangled with what occurred in the past.

Kind of like saying, "It rained last Tuesday, but all records were changed to say it was sunny. All data was altered to say it was sunny, All memories are changed and everyone is very confident that it was sunny..... Now, it didn't rain last Tuesday"

Does the past determine what state the now is in, Or is the past determined by the information held in the now