Timeline for True randomness? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 29, 2015 at 16:15 | history | closed | ACuriousMind♦ Kyle Kanos Ryan Unger John Rennie Kyle Oman | Duplicate of Is the universe fundamentally deterministic? | |
| May 28, 2015 at 19:36 | comment | added | CuriousOne | "True randomness" doesn't exist. A finite sequence of numbers does not have that property and an infinite sequence is not physically realizable. Like with every other philosophical/mathematical idea one has to check first if it satisfies trivial existence requirements before wasting any time on it in the context of physics. This one does not. Having said that, so far we have not seen any violations of the laws of quantum mechanics, but that has nothing to do with "true randomness". Quantum mechanics is about uncertainty, not randomness. | |
| May 28, 2015 at 19:10 | comment | added | user46925 | @ james large : according to Bohr, there is no hidden story , nor hidden variable , for pure random. Not only unknown, it can't be known if any | |
| May 28, 2015 at 18:00 | answer | added | qwer123re | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 28, 2015 at 16:42 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 29, 2015 at 16:15 | |||||
| May 28, 2015 at 16:16 | answer | added | yuggib | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 28, 2015 at 16:16 | answer | added | Martin Drech | timeline score: -3 | |
| May 28, 2015 at 16:15 | comment | added | Solomon Slow | "Random" means "practically unpredictable." An individual tritium atom will undergo beta decay if you wait long enough, but we have no theory that can predict when it will happen (i.e., it is "random" as far as we are concerned). That doesn't mean that there is no cause: It only means that if there is a cause, the cause is beyond our present knowledge. | |
| May 28, 2015 at 15:51 | comment | added | user3917631 | But isn't it different? Saying that we can't measure something precisely and saying the state is random? I'll tell you where exactly I began to think about it so you could maybe explain why I am wrong in those spesific things and then in the general sense. One time is when we learned about matter-decay, we were taught the process is random. Second time (I hope my description will be understandable with my vocabulary) is with the process that photon destabilize an electron and ''bounce'' it to other level, then the electron got back to the original level through sevral ways in a random manner. | |
| May 28, 2015 at 15:21 | review | First posts | |||
| May 28, 2015 at 15:23 | |||||
| May 28, 2015 at 15:18 | history | asked | user3917631 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |