Jump to content

The Irony of Randomness


Dubbelosix

Recommended Posts

The wave function is often taken as a random process. There are strong reasons to object this conclusion. 

 

1) The wave function evolution is actually entirely deterministic - it is only the collapse of the wave function which is often considered random, especially within the Copenhagen frame of mind. 

 

2) The wave function can fundamentally show, that there could be an intrinsic over-reaching statistical field that could be governing everything. 

 

For claim 2), since claim 1) I don't expect there to be any objections to, can be supported with evidence in the following way:

 

'The strangest thing about the double slit experiment that I have never forgotten and I am still puzzled today, that even when you reduce the experiment to one particle at a time being shot through the slits, the interference pattern on the screen still emerges. The photons are totally unrelated, but somehow the particles know which region of the interference pattern is the most likely to land on. Note, those particles have no knowledge about where the other particles landed or where even future particles will land. Though somehow, each photon reaches the screen ''knowing'' which regions which are the most likely landing and most unlikely landing spots. To me quantum theory has to be incomplete, because our physics does not explain how these particles know where to land.''

 

It is an experimental (fact) that this happens above, but quantum mechanics is insofar incomplete to adjust an explanation of how this can happen, without some obvious explanation, like perhaps things are deterministic at the fundamental level. Even though this seems like a very rational view in the experimental case above, it seems like it is almost never talked about because it contradicts any simplification in the theory as (they) would like us to believe in. There is simply not enough physics to describe the situation above and yet still prescribe to a scaled down version of ''what will happen, simply will.''

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot predict the energy level, or eigenstate a system will choose in the theory of Copenhagen. 

Well... not that I actually believe ''you cannot do it'' only that it seems strange that when a model is unable to do something, many take it seriously... like randomness, as an explanation to otherwise, dynamic processes we are yet to fathom. The universe is not borne from randomness if and only if, classical theory is not emergent. 

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

You cannot predict the energy level, or eigenstate a system will chose in the theory of Copenhagen. 

What is "the theory of Copenhagen"? Do you mean the Copenhagen interpretation? That is just a description of QM, it doesn't make any different predictions than QM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

''The Copenhagen theory makes no predictions''

 

IS  A  very infamous statement. Personally, I find it a cop-out. An interpretation has to be incomplete if the previous I have explained is to be understood properly. The collapse of a wave function, must not be a fundamental process. I cannot stress it enough based on the single interference paradox.

 

Sorry for my terminology. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

2) The wave function can fundamentally show, that there could be an intrinsic over-reaching statistical field that could be governing everything. 

This would appear to be suggesting hidden variables. Bell's inequality shows that isn't possible.

15 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

'The strangest thing about the double slit experiment that I have never forgotten and I am still puzzled today, that even when you reduce the experiment to one particle at a time being shot through the slits, the interference pattern on the screen still emerges. The photons are totally unrelated, but somehow the particles know which region of the interference pattern is the most likely to land on. Note, those particles have no knowledge about where the other particles landed or where even future particles will land. Though somehow, each photon reaches the screen ''knowing'' which regions which are the most likely landing and most unlikely landing spots. To me quantum theory has to be incomplete, because our physics does not explain how these particles know where to land.''

As this result is exactly as predicted by quantum theory (which is why the experiment was done, in the first place) I don't know why you think it means QM is incomplete.

16 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

For claim 2), since claim 1) I don't expect there to be any objections to, can be supported with evidence in the following way:

Your opinion doesn't count as evidence.

17 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

it contradicts any simplification in the theory as (they) would like us to believe in.

Who are "they"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dubbelosix said:

''The Copenhagen theory makes no predictions''

IS  A  very infamous statement.

I doubt it is "infamous". Not yet, anyway.

An interpretation is just an informal description of the theory. No interpretation makes predictions. The theory does. And all interpretations of QM are based on the same theory. So, in as far as you can say any of them make predictions, they all make exactly the same predictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Strange said:

This would appear to be suggesting hidden variables. Bell's inequality shows that isn't possible.

As this result is exactly as predicted by quantum theory (which is why the experiment was done, in the first place) I don't know why you think it means QM is incomplete.

Your opinion doesn't count as evidence.

Who are "they"?

No hidden variables... but hey, nonlocal one's have not been ruled out yet, so let's remain scientific about this. My opinion has nothing to do with this, unless you reason my opinion with logic, in which case, read what I said again and come back. Let's not confuse the audience, the experimental evidence is compelling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

I doubt it is "infamous". Not yet, anyway.

An interpretation is just an informal description of the theory. No interpretation makes predictions. The theory does. And all interpretations of QM are based on the same theory. So, in as far as you can say any of them make predictions, they all make exactly the same predictions.

 Yes it indeed is only an interpretation, but one that has guided the way of many physicists thinking over the years including a superfluous amount of literature that will pertain to random occurrences in nature.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Huh?

Yes, the evolution of a wave function can be deterministic. I have been trying to explain since post 1) this is not the case in the Copenhagen interpretation, please read me carefully since the collapse is often considered random..

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dubbelosix said:

My opinion has nothing to do with this, unless you reason my opinion with logic, in which case, read what I said again and come back. 

You said it was evidence.

Quote

the experimental evidence is compelling. 

In what way? You seem to be saying that it shows QM is wrong or incomplete. And yet the experiment is perfectly consistent with QM. 

But I can see this could turn sour again. So I will leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The experiment is evidence if you can provide a better interpretation, please do. Because I think it would reserve the next Nobel Prize. 

No quantum mechanics is not wrong.

Incomplete, that is what I have been talking about, especially when we consider how a system collapses into an Eigenstate. 

You said quantum mechanics can provide an answer to how otherwise uncorrelated photons know which path to take to ensure an interference pattern emerges... please explain your knowledge. 

Because it has baffled the greatest minds and yet is one of the rarely talked about subjects in physics. 

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

But I can see this could turn sour again. So I will leave it at that.

If you conform to science as I understand it (and I don't leave myself often many degree's of freedom for error) you are very welcome to speak with me. I have attempted to heal what has happened before, so let's just try and keep it that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

The wave function is often taken as a random process.

By whom?

If you can't answer that the whole thread is pointless.

It's like saying "making bread is often taken as a random process".

If nobody actually takes it that way, there's nothing to discuss.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, John Cuthber said:

By whom?

If you can't answer that the whole thread is pointless.

It's like saying "making bread is often taken as a random process".

If nobody actually takes it that way, there's nothing to discuss.

 

Then ask for references. I will look into it. I thought it was an undergraduate knowledge that a system is not given a process to produce an eigenstate... I will look. hold your horses. 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.06438v4.pdf

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-collapse-of-a-wave-function-deterministic-or-random.847032/

http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~stamatescu/Studies/PDF/collapse_wave_fct.pdf

try some of these, there are references to the random collapse. 

A good one

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/130007/is-the-mechanics-of-the-wave-function-in-the-quantum-mechanics-deterministic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Then ask for references.

I did

30 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:
38 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

The wave function is often taken as a random process.

By whom?

and you didn't answer.

This one 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/130007/is-the-mechanics-of-the-wave-function-in-the-quantum-mechanics-deterministic

is particularly good.

It says "Some people say that a measurement is not deterministic, but..." and goes on to show why it isn't random.

and then the second answer says "the Copenhagen interpretation gives no account of what the collapse process is and by what mechanism it occurs, and this has led to dissatisfaction with it in some quarters."


So, essentially, you have shown that oen person wondered if it was random, but they were set straight by two others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

You said quantum mechanics can provide an answer to how otherwise uncorrelated photons know which path to take to ensure an interference pattern emerges... please explain your knowledge. 

I suggest you look into QED. It has been described as the most accurate theory ever created.

18 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

and yet is one of the rarely talked about subjects in physics. 

Huh? It is one of the most written about experiments of all time. (Google provide about 3 million results.) Pretty much every serious or popular discussion of quantum theory introduces it to show how "weird" quantum theory is. That and Schrödinger's Cat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will take a look, I don't know of any deterministic processes that lead to it.

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Huh? It is one of the most written about experiments of all time. (Google provide about 3 million results.) Pretty much every serious or popular discussion of quantum theory introduces it to show how "weird" quantum theory is. That and Schrödinger's Cat.

If that is so, will you provide what you said, that is, that quantum mechanics adequately explains how the interference pattern emerges in quantum mechanics? I've tried to be careful to reply to you, will you answer this because you stated it a few posts back and this explanation would have my complete attention. After all, this is what this thread is about, not what the other poster is really talking about or challenging. 

Again, how do uncorrelated photons, know which path to take in a single particle double slit experiment? Seriously, unless there is a wave function governing the whole experiment, the situation does not make sense as a ''random process''

I just spoke to my friend David, he was a physicist for NASA back in the olden days, and even has had his work  reintroduced into modern physics. Alas, I explained the situation, he understood it quickly and even in his experience, admitted the situation is strange and that we do not know everything. David lives in the same town as me. 

I did, obviously ask him whether he thought deterministic theories where ''off the board'' and he replied. ''not at all, and in fact, we need to consider them.''

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have faced this difficulty before at SF

 

What is your definition of 'random' ?

and was there a typo in this quote, do you mean shown or slow?

(important because anything that can 'be shown' is deterministic by definition but slow is interesting because it is one way of understanding Heisenberg)

2 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

2) The wave function can fundamentally show, that there could be an intrinsic over-reaching statistical field that could be governing everything.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? I don't even know what you both are on about. No offense to anyone, but the last poster was trying to insert words into my sentences when it wouldn't even make sense.

 

Is this normal?

And by the way, don't ever use that ''idea this thread existed somewhere'' as some kind of diversion tactic. You do realize I have asked you more than twice to provide evidence to your claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't ask what nationality you were, I stated (correctly) that the sentence I quoted was not in correct English. I also asked for clarification and gave my reasons, which were perfectly sound scientific ones.

I understand neither your tone nor your response to an a perfectly simple and reasonable request for clarification, especially as it does not progress your stated discussion one iota.

Edit - There, I freely admit to a grammatical cockup and have put it right.

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.