Liquidrage

I assume by this you are referring to a collapse of a probability wave/quantum system.
This is controversial interpretation and one which I don't agree with and am not alone in disagreeing with.

Truthfully, the quotes I posted by Jon Bell are geared more at these interpretations which would yeild "indeterminate states" then that of Quantum Mechanics itself.

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

Shadowy Man

Well, I don't remember the details of the experiments, but I read a good article in Scientific American several years ago (I might even have the article floating around somewhere) in which was described some experiments done with laser light.

The experiments were set up such that if the light had a definite polarization state in some part of the experiment they would get a different result at their detector than if the polarization state was indeterminate. Their experiment was consistent with the indeterminate polarization (I think it was polarization they were using).

The main scientist doing the experiment was quoted as saying:

"Einstein said that if Quantum Mechanics is right then the world is crazy. Einstein is right; the world is crazy."

I will try very hard to dig up the article.

Starboy

Hi PotatoError:

I am glad to see that you have an open mind. I do not know of a difinitive source on the subject but a little book that I find interesting that doesn't assume much prior knowledge yet doesn't hold back on the theory is:


<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0198539770/qid=1040480850/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/104-7464080-6515946?v=glance&s=books" target="_blank">The Physics of Chance, by Charles Ruhla</a>

It starts off with basic statistics and moves through statistical mechanics, turbulence, QM and finialy the EPR paradox. It does assume a mathematics background up to and including advanced differential equations.

IMO if you want to understand the arguments you must understand the mathematics, since QM is more of a mathematical than a descriptive explanation of reality.

Starboy

Theli

This thread has grown...
Is the topic still choice?

Theli

There is ofcourse an inherit difficulty to prove strict determinism, as we would have to find all hidden variables/events in work. But it's reasonable to assume that our concept of random/chance might only be a response to events we cannot determine, and they would only appear random for us.
We cannot really define random to "uncaused" as we cannot rule out the existence of cause, and therefore random is dependent of the observer and thus subjective. A flip of a coin appears random to us as there are too many variables for us to predict it's outcome, but a computer (given the information) could, and therefore it should not be considered random for the computer.

Liquidrage

I don't disagree with Quantum Mechanics. Nor do I disagree with the use of "crazy".

What I do disagree with is interpretations that say it is random or ones that say it breaks causality.

It is common to say radioactive decay is random. Yet, it is used to as a dating method because it is consistent.
If it were truly random we'd expect to find no consistency. What's more, is across different isotopes we find different consistent decay rates.

Clearly, in regards to decay, uncertainty is anything but random. We can't be 100% certain exactly which atoms will decay or when they will
but we can statistics to make guesses.

The same can be said for wave-particle duality.
Although we cannot be certain clear patterns exist.
I vaguely remember the polarized light experiments. I seem to recall them reaffirming the two-slit experiments that show indeterminism. One has to assume the act of measurement was done freely in order to justify the conclusion of superpositions of the polarization.
If you don't assume the act of measurement was done freely, the experiments still fit a deterministic world.

Many experiments are carried out with the presupposition that the observer is not determinate, but the innate matter should be.
When the experiments are carried out and they show that the observer and the innate matter are linked, many people instantly put the innate matter as indeterminate and never even consider the possibility that an deterministic observer also fits the evidence.

Shadowy Man

Liquidrage:

Of course QM isn't random. And it bothers me every time I read someone on this board say it is. Just because something is unpredictable doesn't mean it doesn't follow some very specified set of rules that govern its actions.

Look, the three-body problem (three point masses interacting gravitationally) is unsolvable, yet the bodies don't just fly around randomly.

When something can only be predicted in a statistical sense, as in QM, it doesn't necessarily mean that the source probability distribution is flat! Not everything that can happen will happen with the same probability!! That would be random.

PotatoError

Thanks for the book link starboy. I have met done some differential equations stuff but I will obviously have to recap.

Why is everything so difficult? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Starboy

Shadowy man, your point is the essence of the EPR paradox. Is our inability to predict some outcome the result of a lack of knowledge or ability or is it an intrinsic part of nature? The question has been asked, the theory put forth and the experiments have been done. So far the results say it is an intrinsic part of nature. It is as if we have come to a boundary of science.

Starboy

[Edited to improve clarity and remove repetition]

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Starboy

John, I think you missed the point of the experiments. If there were a way to predict what appears to be random, then the result of the correlation would have been different from that which was measured in the experiment. The results support the claim of QM that events at the Plank scale can only be predicted statistically. What is meant by that is that the outcome of individual events cannot be predicted, only the outcome of a large collection of events taken together. Thus at the level of individual events at the Plank scale the universe appears to be intrinsically random. In other words there are no unknown variables, that if known, could be used to predict the event.

Starboy