genuine question

Discussions on classical and modern physics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc.

genuine question

Postby hyksos on April 15th, 2017, 7:18 pm 

  • Thermal fluctuations in the unitary Schrodinger wave,
  • Quantization of energy during emission.
Taken together, are these two things a sufficient explanation for the randomness seen in measurement of quantum systems?
User avatar
hyksos
Member
 
Posts: 988
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: genuine question

Postby someguy1 on April 15th, 2017, 7:55 pm 

Can you define randomness? I know what mathematical randomness is in terms of algorithmic information theory, but not the definition in physics.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 494
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: genuine question

Postby hyksos on April 15th, 2017, 8:28 pm 

Convince me that our universe does actually contain intrinsic, indeterminable randomness embodied directly in its base underlying fabric. And that this randomness is not merely "apparent" to an observer measuring a system.

Your answer should contain something about the LINEAR EVOLUTION of unitary waves.

I've heard the argument 100 times, but never found it convincing. I believe the randomness in quantum systems results from thermal fluctuations of particles above absolute zero temperatures. Measurements taken successively appear random to an observer because the unitary wave is very convoluted by heat, while only eigenstates of energy are admissible upon measurement. (energy is quantized).

Please --> change my view on this.
User avatar
hyksos
Member
 
Posts: 988
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: genuine question

Postby hyksos on April 15th, 2017, 9:42 pm 

    77777777777777777777777777777777777777
Last edited by hyksos on April 15th, 2017, 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
hyksos
Member
 
Posts: 988
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: genuine question

Postby someguy1 on April 16th, 2017, 2:44 am 

hyksos » April 15th, 2017, 6:28 pm wrote:Convince me that our universe does actually contain intrinsic, indeterminable randomness embodied directly in its base underlying fabric. And that this randomness is not merely "apparent" to an observer measuring a system.


Just for sake of conversation, recall that the ancients looked up in the sky and told stories about the animals and gods they saw up there. They saw patterns in randomness.

What makes you think quantum physics is any different? Of course it's different in degree; but is it different in kind?

Stories we tell to impose order on the randomness.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 494
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: genuine question

Postby hyksos on April 16th, 2017, 1:47 pm 

someguy1 Explain to me how in your own psychology you find it MORE REASONABLE to suppose the existence of an inexplicable magical random baptismal font that spews random values into our universe from a position outside of it --- than it is to suppose that this randomness is due to thermal heat energy, or some other very much real aspect of something inside our own universe.

Explain yourself. How can anyone with a scientific mind resort so easily to magical explanations?

we tell to impose order on the randomness.

... the randomness? Why don't you go ahead and capitalize that word while you are at it.

The Randomness
The Randomness. Inexplicable. Uncaused. It comes from heaven. It can do anything, it's magic!

Very scientific of you.
User avatar
hyksos
Member
 
Posts: 988
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: genuine question

Postby someguy1 on April 16th, 2017, 2:44 pm 

hyksos » April 16th, 2017, 11:47 am wrote:Explain yourself. How can anyone with a scientific mind resort so easily to magical explanations?



It seems to me that the person looking up and seeing Orion the hunter aiming a bow at his prey is the one invoking magical explanations for what is essentially a random phenomenon. There's no hunter in the sky, just a coincidental pattern that can only be seen from a certain distance in a certain direction.

I asked you how you know that modern science isn't the same. I didn't see you engage with the question.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 494
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: genuine question

Postby hyksos on April 16th, 2017, 5:08 pm 

For the benefit of those who are reading this thread from afar, here are some notes about my use of the word "Oracle".

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32742
User avatar
hyksos
Member
 
Posts: 988
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: genuine question

Postby hyksos on April 16th, 2017, 5:22 pm 

someguy1 » April 16th, 2017, 10:44 pm wrote:
hyksos » April 16th, 2017, 11:47 am wrote:Explain yourself. How can anyone with a scientific mind resort so easily to magical explanations?



It seems to me that the person looking up and seeing Orion the hunter aiming a bow at his prey is the one invoking magical explanations for what is essentially a random phenomenon. There's no hunter in the sky, just a coincidental pattern that can only be seen from a certain distance in a certain direction.

I asked you how you know that modern science isn't the same. I didn't see you engage with the question.

"...what is essentially a random phenomenon."

Sure thing. You certainly will have and will measure randomness. I make no denial of that at all. I am not denying the existence of statistical randomness at measurement. In the quantum realm, a litany of possibilities could chaoti-cize ("chaoticize"? "complexify"?) a physical system that is embodied as a wave with many higher modes of vibration. Among these :
  • Thermal fluctuation. I will remind you that the word "heat" is defined as random vibrational fluctutations.
  • Thermal photons of the CMBR knocking around the U wave of a particle.
  • Gravitational state reduction of all other particles in the universe onto the particle in question.
  • etc etc add your own ingredients.

We also know from Information Theory, that a random bit string not only contains a lot of information in it, but in fact , contains the maximum amount of information that could possibly be squeezed into a string of length N.

For the above reasons, a person who as aquiesced to explaining observed randomness by recourse to a metaphysical random angel dancing on the head of a pin... an extra-Cosmic Oracle inserting copious amounts of random information into our universe from without it (the UNCAUSED type of randomness) --- such a person a lot of explaining to do.

Their explanation... their sorely needed explanation will come in the answering of these following questions:

Number 1.)

How is it your mind that you have definitively and conclusively ruled out all the the possible sources of statistical randomness so listed above? Are you hiding a quantum gravity theory in your back pocket? Explain yourself.

Number 2.)
Why would anyone with a scientific mind invoke invisible angels dancing on the head of the pin whose actions defy the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and who can dump endless streams of random data directly into our universe from outside of it? That is magic.

Random Oracle functions physically exist? I would love to hear a person on this forum say no -- because so far you all seem body-and-mind-blood-and-bone committed to their absolute undeniable existence. Their physical existence in fact. Not just as a stage 3 calculation on the chalkboard during the roll-out of a path integral (..or what have you). But physically real. You are absolutely convinced. At this level of conviction, your defense of this crazy claim should come naturally and easily. And no such natural easy defense exists anywhere on this forum. So far.

So what are you waiting for? YOu say magical random fairies exist and blow random bubbles into our universe. Uncaused magical fairies. Random strings contains enormous amounts of information (the maximum amount). That is a lot of information. You must explain its source. The onus of proof lies on squarely on you.
User avatar
hyksos
Member
 
Posts: 988
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: genuine question

Postby someguy1 on April 16th, 2017, 6:01 pm 

hyksos » April 16th, 2017, 3:22 pm wrote:YOu say magical random fairies exist and blow random bubbles into our universe.


I have said no such thing.

I said that I sacrificed a goat to Orion and subsequently had a good harvest, showing that the constellations are meaningful and not random. I've asked you to tell me why modern science is any different. Perhaps I actually know why science is different but I'm curious to find out if you do. This all seems really pointless. You're on a hobby horse and you want to argue with me about something, I don't know what or why. I have no argument with you and no disagreement that I know of, except that I don't think of myself as being privy to the secrets of the universe and you do. I envy you your certainty.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 494
Joined: 08 Nov 2013
dandelionEclogite liked this post


Re: genuine question

Postby hyksos on April 16th, 2017, 7:01 pm 

The Scientific Method rules out more probable, and wholly measurable causes, far prior to supposing a physical event is due to invisible magical fairies, black cats causing bad luck, or demons manipulating the lab data.

someguy1 enough fence sitting. Are you adopting the position that random Oracle functions physically exist?
User avatar
hyksos
Member
 
Posts: 988
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: genuine question

Postby someguy1 on April 16th, 2017, 7:28 pm 

hyksos » April 16th, 2017, 5:01 pm wrote:Are you adopting the position that random Oracle functions physically exist?


I'm adopting the position that I'm not arguing with you over things about which I have no opinion and little interest.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 494
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: genuine question

Postby hyksos on April 16th, 2017, 8:42 pm 

cop-out of the century.
User avatar
hyksos
Member
 
Posts: 988
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: genuine question

Postby hyksos on April 16th, 2017, 8:50 pm 

someguy1 » April 17th, 2017, 2:01 am wrote:
hyksos » April 16th, 2017, 3:22 pm wrote:YOu say magical random fairies exist and blow random bubbles into our universe.


I have said no such thing.

I said that I sacrificed a goat to Orion and subsequently had a good harvest, showing that the constellations are meaningful and not random. I've asked you to tell me why modern science is any different. Perhaps I actually know why science is different but I'm curious to find out if you do. This all seems really pointless. You're on a hobby horse and you want to argue with me about something, I don't know what or why. I have no argument with you and no disagreement that I know of, except that I don't think of myself as being privy to the secrets of the universe and you do. I envy you your certainty.

Oh yes! YOu innocent bystander who just innocently joined this new forum a few days ago and "Doesn't know what's goin on around here" and you "dont understand my hobby horse".

Give it up, someguy1 -- nobody is buying this "innocent-little-me" routine. YOu are immersed and very active on a forum where you know there are like five people (or more) adopting the position that random uncaused events happen in our universe that have no explanation and no correlation with any other existing particle in the entire universe. If you got lost, or you forgot something, I can give you their screen names, and you can look them up. What say you?
User avatar
hyksos
Member
 
Posts: 988
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: genuine question

Postby Braininvat on April 16th, 2017, 8:59 pm 

Enough, already. No need to make everything personal. Everyone has the right to an opinion, even if it's not the one you were fishing for. And yes, Hyksos, you've succeeded in goading SomeGuy to be rude back at you ("I don't think of myself as being privy to the secrets of the universe and you do...."). Not a success to be proud of. Any more of this garbage and the threads will be locked.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5498
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: genuine question

Postby someguy1 on April 16th, 2017, 9:15 pm 

Braininvat » April 16th, 2017, 6:59 pm wrote:Enough, already. No need to make everything personal. Everyone has the right to an opinion, even if it's not the one you were fishing for. And yes, Hyksos, you've succeeded in goading SomeGuy to be rude back at you ("I don't think of myself as being privy to the secrets of the universe and you do...."). Not a success to be proud of. Any more of this garbage and the threads will be locked.


Wow. That's wrong. I have repeatedly stated that I don't think I know the secrets of the universe. That's the same point I tried to make to the OP of that other thread whose mathematical misunderstandings I tried to correct, only to be accused of holding metaphysical opinions I don't hold.

I don't understand people who think they're in possession of the ultimate truth about the universe, and who get emotional if someone holds a different opinion, or in my case no opinion at all. I have not been rude to Hyskos in the least. Your characterization of me is very unfair and inaccurate.

I have no idea why Hyskos has a bug up his ass about me on this topic. He's repeatedly called me out by name to ask my opinion, then gotten upset when I tell him I have none. This straightforward statement of fact seems to enrage him. I'm at a loss.

For the record my join date on this forum is November 8th, 2013, 12:42 pm. I didn't just join a few days ago. Besides Hyskos has been upset with me for weeks, ever since some discussion about Bertrand Russell. So he knows I've been around longer than a few days.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 494
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: genuine question

Postby Braininvat on April 16th, 2017, 11:30 pm 

SG: You may have misread my post - I was directing my comment to Hyksos. He was trolling you, and you were quite patient but for one slightly sarcastic comment, regarding him being privy to the secrets of the universe. I was asking him to back off, and only referencing your one minor bit of rudeness to illustrate that anyone can be goaded into it if you keep at them. My post was directed towards him. Sorry if you thought that was directed at you. His badgering and ad hominems do not fit with this website's basic rules.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5498
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: genuine question

Postby hyksos on April 17th, 2017, 1:18 pm 

No Local Hidden Variable theory could possibly reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics.

I wholeheartedly agree with this claim. It is theoretically valid and experimentally valid. In fact, let me quote myself as discussing such, and linking such on this very forum. November 14, 2015.
Einsteinwaswrong.png

A dire miscommunication has gripped this forum.

No.1 I am not espousing a local hidden variable theory.
No.2 I do not, nor have I ever on this forum ever denied non-locality.
No.3 My variables are not hidden. They are real, and in principle, measureable events.

That's right. I have never adopted the position that an invisible sub-luminal signal travels between entangled quantum systems. Ever. In fact, I am the very person who linked the loophole-free Bell's Inequalities experiments from Colorado and the Netherlands onto this forum. You are talking to that person. It is me. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29703
User avatar
hyksos
Member
 
Posts: 988
Joined: 28 Nov 2014



Return to Physics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests