syzygy
Master of the Arts
Posts: 103
|
Post by syzygy on Feb 15, 2013 15:49:49 GMT
An interesting study proposing that all probability is related to quantum uncertainty. That is, uncertainty in our knowledge is not enough to explain probability. There's an inference that some forms of multiverse theory are impossible. Reactions are very negative. I can't say I understood it all. Any reactions here?
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Feb 15, 2013 19:50:19 GMT
Quantum uncertainty is the limiting case of a phenomenon well familiar to instrument designers - the act of measurement invariably alters the quantity being measured. The measurement requires a transfer of energy to the instrument which alters the measurement's value, such as adding thermocouples to a surface lowers the surface's temperature. While designers strive to reduce the amount of energy transferred, thus increasing the accuracy of the measurement, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle imposes a limiting value on what is achievable.
When researching random number generators for a cable test setup, I was surprised to learn that there really isn't such a thing as a "random" phenomenon. What we commonly refer to as "random" phenomena actually are "pseudo-random" or chaotic, whereby the phenomenon is reproducible if we can replicate the exact initial conditions, which is impossible because of what I had previously said about measurements. While radiation is commonly regarded as "random," the fact that its intensity can be quantified by a "half-life" indicates that the underlying mechanism is chaotic in nature. To produce truly "random" sequences, such as in a video game, requires human intervention. Thus for video games to be different each time they are played, the game requires the operator to respond to a sequence of questions, with the game timing the response to initiate a "random" number generator.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 15, 2013 21:32:58 GMT
An interesting study proposing that all probability is related to quantum uncertainty. That is, uncertainty in our knowledge is not enough to explain probability. There's an inference that some forms of multiverse theory are impossible. Reactions are very negative. I can't say I understood it all. Any reactions here? Can you provide a link to the article please, or did I miss it? I have discussed choice and randomness with a guy who was an artificial intelligence researcher, an atheist a materialist and a determinist. He questioned whether there was anything that was truly random, or just unpredictable by us. It does seem logically that if we knew the state of every atom and we knew every physical law, and we had enough computing power, we could predict every event from there (unless there is something beyond the physical). Quantum physics seems to be the exception, but he wondered with this was just a case of not yet understanding all the laws and processes. But I think particle physicists believe some quantum processes are truly random. So the ideas you mention seem reasonably 'orthodox' to me. |
|
syzygy
Master of the Arts
Posts: 103
|
Post by syzygy on Feb 18, 2013 1:33:33 GMT
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Feb 18, 2013 3:51:31 GMT
While in high school, two buddies passed the time on the bus flipping a coin to see who would correctly guess the outcome. Because of the regularity of the flip, I found that I could consistently predict the outcome by observing the original placement of the coin. Any uncertainty in outcome resulted from the arbitrary placement of the coin prior to the flip.
|
|
syzygy
Master of the Arts
Posts: 103
|
Post by syzygy on Feb 19, 2013 14:07:08 GMT
Jonkon: Any uncertainty in outcome resulted from the arbitrary placement of the coin prior to the flip.
Was that a really, really, really consistent coin flipper?
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Feb 19, 2013 17:02:26 GMT
Yes. They had been playing the game for several days and had become very consistent in their flips.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 19, 2013 20:53:49 GMT
For other people's benefit, you got the URL slightly wrong - it should be The quantum coin toss. Yes, it was an interesting article, though I find it a little difficult to think tat quantum events, averaged out over the large number of particle involved in any "real world" event, have a significant effect, but I really don't have enough understanding to say. |
|
Mike D
Master of the Arts
Posts: 204
|
Post by Mike D on Feb 20, 2013 8:55:01 GMT
The article doesn't leave me convinced: the basis of their research seems to be a computer model of an idealised fluid - possibly indicative, but also possibly just interesting speculation.
Also, it seems (as is often the case) that the article is 'bigging up' the research:
"...molecular interactions in gases and liquids can amplify tiny quantum fluctuations..."
is not logically equivalent to
"...all unpredictability in the world around us...is a fundamentally quantum rather than classical phenomenon..."
(Emphasis mine)
|
|
