Quantum mechanics and determinism

Debates: 89

Posts: 812

09.29.2021 10:32AM

Quantum superposition and the wave function seem to ruin strict causality by introducing randomness in physics. If the position of a particle is unknown untill observation, and the wave function collapse leaves the particle in a random position based on probability, then the universe is indeterministic. The question then arises: where does this force of randomness come from? Does a superposition have randomness similar to that of a dice? If that was the case, randomness in quantum mechanics would simply be a result of chaos theory, not of indeterminism. Let me explain:

Rolling a dice could render it in a "superposition" with each numerical outcome having a 1/6 chance of occuring. When we measure it, the superposition collapses and we have a definitive outcome (comparable with a particles excact position)
The dice is random because the process of throwing a dice, its trajectory and landing, are messy and chaotic. Because the dice follows the laws of physics, we could simulate a dice throw, and if we did, the same outcome would arise every time we use the same initial conditions.
Thus, the result of the dice is not truly random, just hard to predict. It's "superposition" prior to us measuring the outcome only exists from our perspective. The dice always has a definitive outcome, and this outcome is determined by the laws of physics.

Throw this comparison, I have shown that true randomness is not necesarily the explantion for seemingly random behaviour. If we apply this logic to quantum mechanics, it is illogical to claim that true randomness is the explanation for seemingly random behaviour like in the wave function collapse. There is at least a chance that this uncertainty and randomness arises from deterministic physical laws, just as chaos theory suggests.

Topic's author

Debates: 89

Posts: 812

09.29.2021 10:33AM

-->

@Intelligence_06

You understand quantum mechanics, what do you say?

Debates: 37

Posts: 1,014

09.29.2021 11:37AM

-->

@Benjamin

Quantum randomness appears to defeat determinism.

Topic's author

Debates: 89

Posts: 812

09.29.2021 02:09PM

-->

@Sum1hugme

Quantum randomness appears to defeat strict determinism. There still is the fact that the world, by and large, is determined on large scales by determinism, not randomness.

Debates: 37

Posts: 1,014

09.29.2021 02:10PM

-->

@Benjamin

At the most fundamental level however, it is truly random. Therefore the fundamental nature of the universe is randomness, even though we can predict the effects of macrophysical deterministic systems pretty accurately.

Topic's author

Debates: 89

Posts: 812

09.29.2021 06:30PM

-->

@Sum1hugme

How do you know that it is truly random? Do you mean that the outcome does not originate from the wavefunction, whose properties are determined by prior quantum events. Does some supernatural "true randomness" intervene to change the outcome of a collapsed wavefunction? The claim itself is just a hypothesis since we lack any means to detect hidden variables that might explain the chaos and unpredictability. So why would one assume, in lack of evidence for this "true randomness", that its the only valid explanation for quantum unpredictability? It seems counterintuitive to attribute one instance of randomness to "true randomness" when the rest of the physical world and its many occurences of random events originates from deterministic laws. Not to mention the probabalistic nature of the wavefunction; which inherently suggests that the potential outcome is limitied and not truly random. It also proves that prior events shape the posibilities for future quantum outcomes.

Thus, I see no reason to tear down the scientific idea of determinism based on a new, unproven claim that "it is truly random". Plus, even if accepted, said change in paradigm would not undermine the clockwork universe. The addition of "truly" random events on a microscopic level is indistinguishable from the randomness caused by chaos theory. Or to put it in other words; quantum uncertainty does nothing to actually undermine determinism as a usefull description of our reality.

oromagi

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,689

oromagi

09.29.2021 06:30PM

I would not pretend to even rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics but the argument strikes me as an effective rebuttal to determinism.

Topic's author

Debates: 89

Posts: 812

09.29.2021 06:37PM

-->

@oromagi

Would you mind elaborating on why its "effective"?

Ramshutu

Debates: 43

Posts: 2,768

Ramshutu

09.29.2021 10:09PM

-->

@Benjamin

I think what you’re talking about is the “hidden variables” theory. The notion that QT is actually a manifestation of unseen physical laws - the proposed solution to “God doesn’t play dice”.

We can rule out hidden variables to some degree:

If you consider quantum entanglement of two particles, measurement of spin yields perfect anti correlation (IE if one particular is up, the other must be down).

There are multiple axes in which spin can be measured, and if these are determined based on some hidden property of the particle, there must be some hidden value for each of the axes associated with the particle.

The problem comes that quantum theory predicts that there is a specific probability of one axis being in a given state based on what another was measured in. A second order probability if you will.

That gives you something you can measure; if you measure the first axis multiple times, and it gives you 50% up/down, the second axis’s should have a lesser probability. If you measure the second axis first, QT predicts that it will give you up/down equal amounts of times; the first axis then has a lower probability.

This difference in probability is called Bells inequality; and violations of the inequality implies there are no local hidden variables (hidden variables shared that can be communicated regardless of distanced between the two particles are not ruled out)

#10

RationalMadman

Debates: 562

Posts: 19,896

RationalMadman

09.29.2021 10:51PM

-->

@Benjamin

This is strongly part of my own 'physical philosophy' outlook.

I believe that there's a duality at the core of reality.

the original entity that created is random but it randomly created another entity capable of controlling it. That controller chose to leave some things random as reality was too boring to leave totally predictable and controlled, that's why there's randomness the further 'zoomed in' our reality structure is but much more consistent laws of physics, chemistry and biology the more 'zoomed out' our reality is.

96 days later

#11

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,086

01.04.2022 04:22PM

Quantum entanglement — or "spooky action at a distance," as Albert Einstein famously called it — is the idea that the fates of tiny particles are linked to each other even if they're separated by long distances.

This is proof of determinism. And also proof that we live in a simulation.

70 days later

#12

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,242

03.16.2022 09:45AM

-->

@FLRW

the idea that the fates of tiny particles are linked to each other even if they're separated by long distances.
This is proof of determinism. And also proof that we live in a simulation.

Determinism yes, simulation{?} So Universe is simulation?

I looked it like this, A and B are linked/related/inter-related, if as a door key with two ends, and each end is geometrically at 90 degrees to each other ex +

If A is vertical when its wavefunction is collapsed, then B is horizontal to relative to A.

This hidden key of inter-relationship ---hidden variable--- is ultra-micro ----{ 10^-36{?}--- geodesics of Gravity ( ) and Dark Energy )(.

++++++++++++++++ or as ( | )( -- )( | )( -- )( | )( -- ) or as a tetrahedron { 6 chords } that has two diametically opposing chordal vectors, that, are at 90 degrees to each other. +

See in following link of orthogonal cube, how edge/chord B-E is 90 degrees to D-H https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4192650/how-are-two-opposite-edges-of-a-regular-tetrahedron-perpendicular

So now we stretch the four lines of relationship between B-E and D-H to any length/distance we want via some repulsive force phenomena.

However, can we also say, that the two primary vector chords of consideration ---B-E and D-H--- are in spin mode to each so as to create two parallel spinning planes, and that spin could be there spinning in same direction, or opposite directions.

If opposite directions than the four lines-of-relationship are going to spiral as would rope being spirally braided and I would think this would create high tension over time with this spiral of four lines-of-relationship.

However, there is another spin options, and that is the B-E and D-H are spinning in a manner, that is not two creating two parrallel planes, but rather spinning so the ends points of B or E could be pointing the other end points of D or H.

So this appears to me to be at least four differrent options of how B-E and D-H could interact/postion themselves with each other, in a dynamic way.

However, with all of these four or more latter sets of consideration, can we apply them to a set of geodesics of Gravity ( ) and Dark Energy )( )( )( )( )( ).

(<|>)(>>-<<)(<<<|>>>)(>>>>-<<<<)(<<<<<<<<|>>>>>>>)( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<)(<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>)

#13

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,086

03.16.2022 03:40PM

-->

@ebuc

Yes, the simulation hypothesis is a proposal regarding the nature of existence which posits that all of existence is an artificial simulation, such as a computer simulation.

#14

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,086

03.16.2022 03:42PM

Very intelligent people can see patterns in large amounts of data. Stupid people cannot (Worm Man and Intelligent Man).

“The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.” -Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking

#15

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,242

03.16.2022 05:17PM

-->

@FLRW

There can be no articifical simulation without occupied space. Universe is occupied space.

To say Universe is a simulation makes no sense. They only way such can make any sense is if we were in the movie ' The Matrix '.

Were not and any who think so are living fantasy land.

Yes, Jacob Bekensteins black hole math led to holographic scenarios and his comment that,..' we appear to be 2D creatures having an illusion of 3D '.....

Ive address this many times over the years with various explanations. Hawking addressed it a little in his book Brief history of Time, wherein he makes clear why 2D creatures cannot exist. So is the Jacobs math incorrect. Not according to Hawking or anyone else. So we have a seeming paradox, as related to black holes mathematics.

Knock on wood an our wooden skull sends pain signal to the brain { nervous system } via nervous system.

Experience { knock knock consciousness } precedes thought { mind/intelligence/concepts }

#16

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,086

03.16.2022 06:12PM

-->

@ebuc

It is a 3D simulation. Atoms are 3D simulations. They are not real solid objects.

#17

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,242

03.16.2022 06:32PM

-->

@FLRW

It is a 3D simulation. Atoms are 3D simulations. They are not real solid objects.

False. Sit out in hot sun for several hours and let the photons burn your skin sufficiently and you realize that photons, atoms, etc are not simulations, as you suggest.

Just more non-sense from a worm man, or is it a mole, or a squirrel or lizard or a dog, bear, cat, cetaccean, chimp man?

#18

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,086

03.16.2022 06:37PM

-->

@ebuc

In a movie, a person sits in the sun and then his skin turns red. That is how simulations work. We are in a 3D simulation instead of 2D. Remember at some point

your simulation ends.

#19

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,242

03.16.2022 08:14PM

-->

@FLRW

There is noting artificial about Universe. Your still barking at the moon, ---ooooooh sings the wolf-- that is not made of cheese, nor a simulation., tho there are plenty of cartoons{ simulation } and perhaps 3D cheese made to resemble the moon.

oooooohh barks/sings the the simulated were-wolf of old.

#20

ADreamOfLiberty

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,815

ADreamOfLiberty

03.17.2022 06:26AM

-->

@Ramshutu

@Benjamin

I think what you’re talking about is the “hidden variables” theory. The notion that QT is actually a manifestation of unseen physical laws - the proposed solution to “God doesn’t play dice”.

We can rule out hidden variables to some degree:

If you consider quantum entanglement of two particles, measurement of spin yields perfect anti correlation (IE if one particular is up, the other must be down).

There are multiple axes in which spin can be measured, and if these are determined based on some hidden property of the particle, there must be some hidden value for each of the axes associated with the particle.

The problem comes that quantum theory predicts that there is a specific probability of one axis being in a given state based on what another was measured in. A second order probability if you will.

That gives you something you can measure; if you measure the first axis multiple times, and it gives you 50% up/down, the second axis’s should have a lesser probability. If you measure the second axis first, QT predicts that it will give you up/down equal amounts of times; the first axis then has a lower probability.

This difference in probability is called Bells inequality; and violations of the inequality implies there are no local hidden variables (hidden variables shared that can be communicated regardless of distanced between the two particles are not ruled out)

This is an old post, but I believe that's assuming too much about Benjamin's original post.

The spin of entangled particles isn't the only "random" think in quantum mechanics, and Bell's inequality was more specifically focused on the notion that variables could be set at the time of entanglement and only measured later... to escape from spooky action.

However wave collapse in of itself is quite spooky, and has an element of randomness to it. Yes the probability distribution is perfectly predicted by the wave; but where it will actually collapse to isn't and I think that was what Benjamin was referring to.

One can observe this in the case of a single "particle" so entanglement need have nothing to do with it. Is there a hidden variables (of the wave, because let's face it we can only attach properties to waves) that could predict beyond the square of the wave where the collapse will occur (the 'particle' 'hits')?

I don't see any reason why not. It could be like dice, chaotic but not fundamentally so.

However dice exist, and so do other very common chaotic systems. QM never deserved to have this profound effect on philosophy some seem to think it has. The universe has always been unpredictable because it has always had classically chaotic systems in it.

#21

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,217

03.17.2022 08:23AM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

A Zedku for ADreamofLiberty.

Chaos is a state of mind.

And we assume because we are,

That the universe is.

So if the universe is, it could be, either with or without us,

Perhaps.

But therein lies a planetary spec of dust with an atmosphere that sustains an ecosystem.

Crazy but true,

I think.

But if we didn't think we wouldn't,

And who would know if the universe was or wasn't.

Something else perhaps.

Maybe,

Quantum mechanics,

Otherwise currently known as,

Bits of flying around stuff.

Topic's author

#22

Debates: 89

Posts: 812

03.17.2022 08:27AM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

You're right. My point is that randomness and chaos is often a result of hidden complexity. QM mustn't be a "magical" type of randomness.

#23

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,217

03.17.2022 11:32AM

-->

@Benjamin

How random is magic?

I would say that magic is pretty specific.

Topic's author

#24

Debates: 89

Posts: 812

03.17.2022 12:32PM

-->

@zedvictor4

When I say magic I am refering to the fact that quantum randomness could either be the type we already know exists or it could be not that. Mystical, not physical, but magical.

#25

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,242