The great hopes for the discovery of a new particle have been disappointed: data published by the European particle accelerator reveal that it is only statistical noise - despite hundreds of scientific articles that have already calculated the properties of the fictional particle
At the end of last year Scientists at the largest particle accelerator in Switzerland reported hints of the existence of a new particle. The probability that the clues stem from statistical noise and not from the existence of a new particle was only 1:100,000 (one in a hundred thousand). Although this chance sounds very small, it is much higher than the threshold set by the scientists for a certain declaration of the discovery of a new particle. After a few months and many more measurements, the researchers decided that there was no particle.
What does it mean that the chance that the particle does not exist is 1:100,000? After all, either a particle exists and you see it, or it doesn't exist and you don't see it. And if the particle does not exist, why have so many articles been published on the subject?
statistical noise
We all know the rustle you hear in the background when we turn up the music on the radio too much. The rustling is not part of the piece, but rather comes from the limitations of our system's amplification capability. When we turn up the volume we also turn up background noise that shouldn't be there. Similarly, a scientific experiment also has background noises, and they will increase as we push our experiment to its limits.
It can be compared to a musician who decided to record the sounds of sweeping the floor, sawing with a chainsaw and similar sounds, with the microphone placed far away from these "musical instruments". From time to time he takes a break in his playing but continues the recording. If we listen to the recordings at maximum volume, there is a good chance that we will get confused from time to time between the background noises and the voices that the artist recorded, and we will not know if he is playing or if we only hear background noises and the artist is not playing at all.
A similar thing happened in the current experiment at the European particle accelerator. If the particle that the scientists hoped to discover did exist, it would have been created in the blink of an eye in collisions between particles in the accelerator and immediately decomposed into two light particles (photons) that we can detect in the accelerator's detectors. The problem is that there are many other processes that produce two light particles identical in their properties to those that would have been created from the creation of that hypothetical particle.
You can compare the light particles created from the particle to music, and those created in the other processes to background noise. The researchers count how many events of photon pair formation are seen in the detector, and compare the number to an estimate of the number of events expected from other processes. A significant number of excess events may indicate the existence of a new particle.
Unfortunately, due to the very nature of noise, its intensity cannot be accurately predicted, only estimated. Therefore, if the number of events of the formation of such photons only slightly exceeds the number of background events that the researchers expect to occur, it is impossible to determine with certainty whether we have indeed found a new particle or whether the background noise is slightly different than expected.
Not all in vain
In the current experiment, the scientists identified a large number of excess events and estimated, as mentioned, that the chance that the excess events in this specific experiment are due to noise is only 1:100,000. This probability sounds very small, but not small enough to declare the existence of a new particle. 2015 ended with the announcement that there was an unusual signal in the data collected in the experiment, with the knowledge that there was a reasonable chance that it was just noise. The data published in the last few days are based on many measurements made during 2016, and they confirm the fear that the promising discovery from the previous year is nothing more than abnormal noise.
If the significance is not so impressive, why were the scientists so excited and wrote hundreds of theoretical papers trying to explain the existence of a particle that did not exist and was not created? The answer probably lies in the fact that scientists are also often motivated by hopes and expectations, and are excited by events that seem unusual at first glance, even if they know that there is a reasonable chance that the findings are merely statistical noise.
Despite everything, the scientists' efforts were not entirely in vain. Excitement brings with it creativity and the articles published on the possibility of discovering a new particle contributed to a better understanding of the background noise, brought up ideas for new experiments and opened the door to ideas that had not been considered and tested until now.
This particular particle, which raised the hopes of scientists, does not exist. But despite the disappointment, one can hope that the next experiments in the large European particle accelerator will reveal the existence of other particles that are not yet known to science, and will shed light on unknown physical phenomena.
Daniel Aloni, PhD student at the Weizmann Institute of Science and writer on the Davidson Institute website
Suspicion of the existence of a new particle 6 times heavier than the Higgs
260 תגובות
oscilloscope, oscilloscope.
Miniscope?
Oh, a telescope.
Thanks.
Not a stethoscope - a microscope.
Oh ok. You mean that part that is outside the universe. It's "useless information" sure.
Anyway, not sure what you're talking about then, I won't continue to waste my time. In the morning with the stethoscope.
we
My head says: if a balloon inflates - then it inflates to the space it was before. will also exist.
You can say that only what is inside the balloon is your universe, but that is a subjective point of view.
Miracles
The scope shows me the wave from the same source - the transmitter - on all channels. It also shows the arrival time of each signal - pulse - with an accuracy of less than a nanometer, compared to the central channel.
I'm going to FM CITY shortly - the area where most of the radio transmitters of the stations in the city are. There you can receive high intensity waves even at a distance of several kilometers from the transmitter.
The problem as always is receiving a unique signal with nano precision. This way I can make comparisons between the arrival times of the signal to different antennas moving relative to each other. If you have an idea, share.
Israel, what do you mean, where will it stand out?
The other end will be close to the border. And the more the universe expands, the more the boundary will move away from that other end of the rod. And the rod will never reach it even if you keep adding more and more pieces to the first end to raise the rod. Even if you are Israel 'superscientist' Shapira who knows how to carry out the task at the speed of light.
Israel
The scope is not a clock - it starts displaying a signal when the voltage level of the signal exceeds the threshold you set. From this moment the beam moves to the right at the rate you set. There are scopes that also contain an internal time base and they will generate even when there is no trigger signal. This is good for example for DC signals.
Most scopes have a connection to an external trigger. You need a very accurate signal generator if you want to check performance differences.
You talked about multiple channels. If you don't have a smooth monochromatic signal you won't be able to see performance differences.
Miracles
The scope itself is a kind of watch. It shows the received signal as a function of yt. This is how you can see the carrier wave that is transmitted from the transmitter.
I think I understand maybe what the problem is. A wave has volume, it is three-dimensional. That's why we have to move away from the transmitter a distance of several thousand wavelengths so that we can clearly see the phase differences between the different channels.
But what you say about the watch is interesting. Do you have a link that can show me what type of watch it is and how to connect it to the scope?
we
If the universe has a finite size of x meters and it is said that it even spreads at the speed of light - then what will happen with a rod of length x + one hundred light years whose one end is in Israel? Where will the other end stick out?
"Infinite universe and infinite time are the most logical thing" This is a phrase that makes no sense at all.
If the universe is finite then how can it make the most sense for it to be infinite?
Israel
Scope starts displaying the signal when the signal strength exceeds the threshold you set. Therefore, apart from a decrease in intensity, you will not see a significant change in the shape of the signal if you move the source further away.
To show displacement you need a clock connected to the scope and use it as the trigger. You must have a very high correlation between the clock and the signal, otherwise you will only see a mess on the screen.
The logic was and remains the same logic. What has changed is the people.
And just like suckers don't die, apparently logic also skips some people...
An infinite universe and infinite time make the most sense. Until less than a century ago this was the prevailing belief.
In my opinion, what is naturally derived is infinite speed.
Israel
It was once thought that the world could be explained by classical logic.
Generations of physicists say they were once wrong.
waiting
If the universe is not infinite - then where is its limit? And what is after it?
You can, in your imagination, liken the universe to a bubble and the boundaries of the universe to the boundaries of the bubble. As long as the universe expands (the bubble inflates) so do the boundaries. The limit exists but the fact that you will not be able to reach it, unless you exceed the speed of light, does not require that the limit does not exist.
And what is this supposed to mean: "an infinite universe"?
from where do you know? Are you absolutely sure of that?
Where does this assurance come from in your words? Doesn't sound serious.
Israel, hand over to the beauties that perhaps age has already taken its toll.
Maybe he doesn't know but the singular point behind the big bang is not just a point to decorate the axis system.
By and large you will see uniformity. If you go up a few tens of kilometers, you will be able to see it easily.
Waves are also non-uniform. Ridges, ravines, peaks..
Speaking of serious question: If I attach an antenna to the scope and turn on a nearby radio transmitter, I can clearly see the carrier wave in the scope including its frequency. Even if I connect several antennas to different channels in the scope.
My logic says that if I move one of the antennas away from the scope, the observed wave will also move away accordingly: a nano second for every 30 centimeters, which is the distance that light travels.
But in practice I get different observations than expected.
Does anyone here understand oscilloscopes and spectrum analyzers?
Israel
Do you think Shifim thinks there are other universes?
I look out the window - and I don't see uniformity on the left side of a tall building, on the right side trees, behind the sea. Not exactly symmetrical…
Israel
And what about the second principle? is he wrong
Miracles What he says "The question still remains - why is the universe not perfectly symmetrical?"
And you blunted his teeth and said to him: From what aspect and what universe?
Israel
The question still remains - why is the universe not perfectly symmetrical?
Yafim says: The universe is infinite. Why is there anything at the end of the universe if it is not infinite, Kir? So what's behind the wall?
And by the same weight: always was and always will be. Time continues from minus to plus infinity.
Hawking answers: What is this job for you? Don't you see that the universe is expanding? Can't you calculate and see that 13.7 billion years ago all matter was in one singular point?
Yafim replies: So what? An atomic explosion also spreads, for those inside the mushroom it seems that their entire universe - the mushroom - is spreading, its borders are finite, and its starting time is defined and finite.
Hawking insists: before the bang there was nothing and the big bang created time and the expanding and finite universe.
Boris blunts Hawking's teeth: those outside the mushroom see the explosion as a definite and local event. This is not the whole universe but only one. Haven't you heard of Rabbi Yakum?
And now the Honorable Rabbi will get up and go to work.
I would also appreciate it if you could elaborate more on this concept: common sense..
According to my common sense, either the logic exists or it is missing.
All other types of "logic" are babble that exists in the crooked mind of the babbler.
Israel, there is no doubt that you are right! Could you please detail what steps you took in the way of your honest logic, in order to reach this conclusion?
Israel
I agree with you that this is what common sense says.
Tell that to Scotland Yard, dear Watson.
Israel, I have not read Hawking. When I was little I read Sherlock Holmes. And I can tell you with a fairly high degree of certainty that not only was there a primary factor, but all the evidence and circumstances lead to it. It's elementary, Shapiro.
And who guarantees that there was a primary factor? Maybe it always was and always will be as common sense shows? Why what was before the bang, darkness over an abyss?
And I read Hawking just like you.
By the way, you can solve the problem easily, if you assume that the initial cause is so and so and from this point everything is nonsense...
Israel
It should also be remembered in this case that no matter how far back in time you go, whether the system is chaotic or random, there is still uncertainty about the initial cause. That's the whole point.
Israel
There is information that is not momentum - such as spin and charge. In any case, the particle itself constitutes a frame of reference. And the universe itself...
The question still remains - how were the starting conditions determined? That's all you need to know to understand the universe. Perhaps the answer is the "multiple worlds" idea. Another option is that there is only one option for the initial conditions.
Miracles
by default the numerical value of the momentum of each body is 0, which is also the amount of information it carries.
After all, a body that is not accelerating is actually at rest, so what momentum or information does it have?
All the information is about the relationship between the body and the axis system, isn't it?
I think an opponent might be right that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a chaotic system and a random one. But if we start from the assumption that radioactive decay is indeed completely random, then you are more correct when you say that the system - the timer - must be outside the particle, since a finite system like a neutron contains a finite amount of information and therefore cannot be completely random but chaotic.
In short - we are the most right. The boss…
Israel
The numerical value of momentum depends on the reference system. This does not contradict my basic claim.
I think the general idea of a rival is interesting. Maybe there is a chaotic system that determines when a particle will decay. I say, that the mechanism should be external to the particle. And furthermore, it is still possible for the initial conditions to be random.
we
Scourai, p. 232:
This does not mean that A and B are communicating... There is obviously no useful information contained in it.
Nor will we forget that a certain set of axes is sometimes also a mathematical expression of a real physical phenomenon.
And it is important to remember this when you want to throw yourself out of the imaginary world of virtual thought experiments into the real world devoid of human pretensions.
And go argue with a computer.. What does it understand in total? logic? And that's it?
After all, if something exists - then the thing is the information.
And the definition of the information represents the actual thing.
It can be said that x is defined as an unknown thing, and so will be the interpretation of the thing x. x is an unknown. Isn't that how the good old computer would have understood it?
Whether it is usable or not is up to the decision maker. But it's still information. Even if you don't know anything about it. Not so, our friends? Or are there hidden things here?
"Not useful information" 🙂
Miracles
Unknown information has meanwhile been upgraded to useless information (reviewer, please ignore).
And this - without the knowledge of the information.
Momentum is information only relative to a certain set of axes.
But you can contain the information of a whole symphony using the momentum of a particle.
Remember the song "Tana Tana"?
rival
OK. Read a bit about what I'm talking about. You will learn what information is in physics, what is the principle of saving information and so on.
By the way - we do agree on many things, that is... you convinced me 🙂
Miracles,
I'm sorry but I think I'll take a few days break from the discussions here, I have to finish some things.
I'm still waiting for you to explain to me where the bits you talked about earlier are...
You know what... you want to call tana "information" fine, call it information, it's just a matter of terminology, it's not that important to this discussion.
rival
2. If you don't accept that motion is information, without bits and without shemits, then there is not much point in continuing to discuss.
3. No, I mean what I said. You have the right to disagree.
Miracles,
"You said a number of bits on the computer, that's not what I'm talking about"
I know you're not talking about bits in the computer, for about 10 messages I've been trying to understand from you which bits you are talking about and where they are hiding, and I still haven't been able to get a clear answer from you to this question.
1. "A particle has momentum"
I know…
2. "Momentum is information (in physics)"
Momentum is momentum (power and direction of a body) You can translate the power and direction of a particle into numbers with a million bits on a computer and then the momentum will become information, on the computer.
3. "There is a limit to how much information can be put into a certain volume"
You mean that there is a limit to the number of particles that can be compressed into a certain volume, then if you feel like it, you can translate their momentum into information, on a computer.
rival
You said "number of bits in a computer" - that's not what I'm talking about 🙂
1. A particle has momentum.
2. Momentum is information (in physics).
3. There is a limit to how much information can be inserted into a certain volume.
What point do you disagree with?
anonymous,
What is written in the Zohar book is interesting to my grandmother (the truth is that she is not interested either) ask a physicist how "soap bubbles" are formed in the real world, I am not the addressee.
rival
You can write code whose function is to display a random number.
and determine that each number represented a different property of a neutron.
In the real world, this is equivalent to the one who sits in the Holy One, blessed be He, and determines when and which particle will be created and make up our world. If you figured it out, congratulations.
Miracles,
"Who talked about beats?"
Really miracles, stop making fun of me. You can't say something and a second later claim you didn't say it -
"This source cannot be internal because it contains a lot of information, ***a lot of bits are needed to specify the time of our timer***"
"These 100 particles have position and momentum, ***you need so-and-so bits for each number***"
Well, did you say bits or didn't you say bits?
Listen opponent, you can blow as many soap bubbles as you want, you will still remain him blowing soap bubbles..
The question is who really blows the real soap bubbles in the real world. And are the bubbles chosen at random or is there an order behind each and every bubble and as it is said in the Book of Zohar that the bubble will not blow up in our face so lucky
rival
Who talked about beats? Momentum and position are information.
anonymous,
I didn't say it determines anything. In the meantime I'm just toying with the idea and trying to see if it can be disproved.
You're really caught up in the "initial conditions" section, let's say I'm now making soap bubbles with this toy that you blow into, and let's say each soap bubble represents a neutron. Inside each bubble are trapped air molecules that represent the particles I talked about. Do you agree with me that in each soap bubble the particles move in a completely different way than in the other bubbles? Do you agree that each bubble was created with different starting conditions that are unique only to it?
Rival, you might be able to write software that creates virtual particles that determine the initial conditions.
But that doesn't prove anything about the real world.
Miracles,
Again, the particle has momentum and position and obviously you can translate that into a number with lots of bits in a computer, but those bits are a representation of you as a person they are not inside the particle.
rival
So you are wrong. In physics, information is what allows you to differentiate between things. Momentum and position, for example, are information. "Unknown information" (an expression Israel likes) is called entropy.
Representation is a human concept, and not related to the matter.
That is, you can translate the state of the particle into a number in the computer with lots and lots of bits... but it will be displayed inside the computer, these bits do not sit inside the particle or in the space around it, it is only your translation as a bystander.
I mean that if you follow the state of particles using appropriate instrumentation then you can translate their state into information (for example, the direction of the particle's movement and its speed).
Miracles,
"The state of a particle is information. You don't agree to that."
I agree that the state of the particle ***can represent*** information, it does.
Miracles,
I've read a bit about Hoft and Susskind's idea and it seems to me that it's currently just a hypothesis (the universe as a hologram) and not empirically based information, correct me if I'm wrong.
As far as I remember from physics classes when a particle moves in a certain direction at a certain speed it is due to the force of persistence, inertia, there is not some mysterious RAM memory somewhere that saves its movement data as a representation of bits, it is not a computer program.
And again, the sentence you said earlier about the small volume and how many particles can be in it is meaningless if you don't define what a "small volume" is and what the size of the particles is. I remember from Lawrence Krauss's lectures that there are lots and lots of virtual particles (that appear and disappear) inside a neutron, so apparently there is plenty of space there...
rival
The state of a particle is information. You don't agree with that??
rival
This is also an approach...
"Your right not to accept the principle I mentioned"
I'll read when I get a chance, but my guess is that you didn't fully understand what they were talking about there, when a particle moves in a certain direction I really don't think there are "lots of bits of information" somewhere that keep the direction of its movement.
My feeling is that this is some lack of understanding on your part.
Miracles,
"What's important is that you can't put a lot of particles into a small volume..."
If you don't define what a "small volume" is and what the size of the particles is, then the sentence you just said has no meaning. I remember from Lawrence Krauss's lectures that there are lots and lots of virtual particles (that appear and disappear) inside a neutron, so apparently there is plenty of space there.
And I would appreciate it if you could explain to me where practically all the bits you talked about before are kept, I didn't understand where you claim they are kept.
rival
It doesn't matter what I answer you. You have the right not to accept the principle I mentioned. I personally would read about it first... I don't pretend to understand it, but I know that they claim (Hoft and Susskind for example) that the limitation exists.
Miracles,
Practically speaking, a grain of dust moves at a speed of one millimeter per second towards the north, where inside this grain of dust are stored all the bits you talked about? In what form are they stored and how many bits are there?
rival
In physics, position and momentum is information. A particle is in a certain volume, so the information is in this volume. The holographic principle states that the amount of information in a volume is blocked by the area that bounds the volume. What is important is that it is impossible to put many particles into a small volume...
Sorry I can't understand what you are talking about.
Miracles,
"These 100 particles have position and momentum (assume no angular momentum). It's already 600 numbers. You need so and so bits for each number. This is information in the world of physics. And that's where the restriction I mentioned applies.'
Sorry I can't understand what you are saying, what bits? Are we talking about computer software? When a grain of dust moves through the air, its angle of motion and speed are conserved in bits? where?
I still remember..goto.. integer… real
Israel
Pascal is pretty dead…… and so is the language….
rival
These 100 particles have position and momentum (assume no angular momentum). It's already 600 numbers. You need so and so bits for each number. This is information in the world of physics. And the limitation I mentioned applies to this.
Tell me, do you still use Pascal?
Please wait, this was the dominant language in 1984.
Together with Assembly.
Miracles,
First of all, I fixed the issue of hallucinations in the simulation and it looks much better (there are a lot of booms and a lot of collisions) but the stogram looks a bit strange to me, I think this is a bug in the code so when I have more time I will continue to check, it will probably only be next week.
Regarding the points you mentioned, let me think about it a bit and check, I will refer to only one point -
"In the initial conditions there is a lot of information and I don't think it can fit into the volume of a neutron"
I don't understand why you think "a lot of information" should be stored, somewhere? Let's imagine that inside the neutron 100 tiny particles are having fun in all directions, each of them moving in some direction, they are already there, they are moving, what information do you need to keep for them? If you don't keep information then the poor people won't know where to move? Do they need a traffic cop to direct them?
rival
Anonymous is right about the starting conditions, but that's a separate discussion.
The problem with periodicity is that you will get a finite number of decay times. And in particular, you will get an upper limit for the disintegration time.
You keep talking about normal fission, but radioactive decay is really not "normal" - it is Poisson.
And I say again - in the initial conditions there is a lot of information and I don't think it can fit into the volume of a neutron.
Miracles,
I wrote a small simulation of the balls, visually it looks really nice and even says "BOOM!" in big letters as soon as they collide, the problem is that it's not accurate enough (for the convenience of the calculation I made them move only at 45 degree angles) and many times they just start chasing each other in a never ending circle.
At the moment I don't have time to continue this, I need to give more precise angles with sine and cosine.
anonymous,
Tell me, when a bomb explodes and its fragments fly everywhere, who determined which direction each fragment will fly? are you? God? How do they know which angle to fly?
rival!
"Their route is chaotic"... Well, nice!
And who sets the starting conditions? are you? What are you, God?
I know what I don't want to complicate you, it's also possible for the room to be square, easier for illusion calculations. I once wrote such a simulation in BASIC 🙂
Miracles,
"If there is a periodicity in radioactive decay, then in my opinion it rules out your idea, because we wouldn't get what we see"
Absolutely not, just the opposite, we need this periodicity so that statistically once in a while the two balls in the example will collide and the neutron will disintegrate!
As I showed you, there is no need for "lots of information" and the mechanism will work perfectly even with only two balls! Sometimes they will collide after 2 minutes (and the neutron will decay), once they will collide after 52 minute and 12 seconds and once after two minutes and XNUMX seconds, depending on the size of the room.
But eventually after a million trials you'll get a normal bell-shaped collision time distribution, just like you would in a random draw!
Know what I challenge you! You write such software in less than two days, right?
1. Write a program that generates a random number (tossing a die, tossing a coin...) that causes a neutron to decay with some probability as it happens in reality, and display the distribution stogram of the 500 decay times you received.
2. Write a simulation of a round room containing two balls (it's also possible 10, it's not critical) that start moving each time from a different position, at a different angle, collide with the wall and then come back.... Squeaky until they collide! Build a time histogram of 500 trials here as well, and tell me if it looks different from the histogram you got in the first section.
If their shape is the same, it means that the two mechanisms are equivalent and will cause the neutron to decay with the same probability, what do you think?
rival
A lot of balls is a lot of information 🙂 There is a physical principle that says that the amount of information that can be associated with a certain volume is limited, and it does not even increase linearly with volume. Each ball has a position and a momentum, which is information.
Let's take a look at a random number generator called LCG. This generator has a total of 3 parameters (and sometimes even only 2), and another number for the current state. But - the generator repeats itself after a certain time, and this time depends on the size of its parameters. If there is a cycle in radioactive decay, then this, in my opinion, rules out the idea Yours, because we wouldn't accept what we see. It's not proof of course, but it's not as simple as Acha represents it.
But again, if we leave the corner of where the mechanism is located - the idea is certainly interesting!
anonymous,
Their route is chaotic, what is difficult to understand here? Take a handful of small marbles in your hand and throw them forward in a closed room, is their trajectory planned? No, because you didn't plan it, is it random? also not! That is, he is chaotic-deterministic!
rival
These tiny particles that move everywhere in neutrons - is the path they travel in a random path, or a pre-planned one?
Regarding the example I gave, maybe a round room would be even better, and also more similar to Neutron.
Miracles,
Because of you I don't keep my word -
1. "This source cannot be internal to the particles"
True, I did not claim that the source is internal, I told you that the initial conditions derive (probably) from the chaotic-deterministic structure of the universe (the universe is not an internal source, right?) That is, they are derived from the place and time when the particle was created. Each neutron is created at a different location/time in the universe and is therefore also initialized from within under different initial conditions.
2. "The source contains a lot of information, it takes a lot of bits to indicate the time of our timer"
Nissim, you are wrong, you keep forgetting that this is not a computer timer that should contain a time value.
The mechanism I proposed is simply a lot of tiny particles that move everywhere inside the neutron, and if by chance, for example, a certain percentage of them, for example 55%, are concentrated on the right side of the neutron, then the balance inside it is broken and the neutron disintegrates, that's our entire timer! Simple and continuous statistics because they move all the time!
To understand better, imagine that you have a room and inside it two balls that move continuously in straight lines, every time they hit the wall they return from it at the same angle. Now, there is some probability that occasionally the two balls will collide with each other, right? It depends on their size and also depends on the size of the room, if for example the room is small then they will collide more frequently, and every time they collide the timer expires and the room "disintegrates"!
Do you agree with me that if you repeat this experiment a million times and each time you place the balls in a different location and at a different angle in the room according to the lottery you did with notes you pulled out of a bag, and you prepare the stogram of the time it took for the balls in each such experiment to collide with each other, you will get a normal bell-shaped stogram? Isn't this equivalent in your opinion to a timer that expires with a certain probability once in a while?
So there you have it, a simple simple timer that doesn't need "lots of bits". You are welcome to prepare a computer simulation for this as well 🙂
That's my halachic, poof.
rival
In principle - I think you are right. I will explain what I mean. Assuming we have a source of quasi-random numbers (as you suggested - a chaotic system, such as LCG) we will get a world equivalent to a world that contains randomness.
This source cannot be internal to the particles, because it contains a lot of information (a lot of bits are needed to indicate the time of our timer).
This of course doesn't prove anything, but it's certainly interesting 🙂
rival
I'm still thinking about what you said. Meanwhile, I could not contradict it….
rest in peace
If you're that good at programming, let me know when you plan to program Yoda's model. I want to see how the Feynman friction problem is solved as he claims (hint: it is not solved).
Israel,
Continue the discussion with Anu, I see that you understand quantum theory a little more than I do, I think I will take a break for a few days (if I succeed with God's help).
anonymous,
You're absolutely right, the discussions here are simply too interesting and it's hard for me to resist (I need to work on self-discipline a bit).
Let's say that the only thing you can ask after reducing the equations will be: Is the Higgs field a field that emits energy randomly..
The answer is yes. And to the question of whether God does not play dice, the answer is: no. Weird, yes?
rival
Relative to a busy person, you respond a lot here.
Anyway, your original question was about nature, whether it is random or deterministic.
Beyond everything said here, it is worth remembering that we are in a universe where, for all we know, matter and energy do not disappear anywhere. They just change form into other matter/energy.
All the neutrons in your experiment are affected by each other and this has consequences for the environment. Even if you program one neutron for a certain moment so that all the neutrons after it start from the same point, you still have no way of knowing if someone programmed you to program the programmed neutron, nor will you know if it happened by chance or if it was planned
"How does this prove randomness and not chaos at all universally?"
It is not. Has anyone claimed otherwise?
You can certainly continue to design a mechanism/timer as if each neutron is an independent entity, as long as both of you, you and the neutron, enjoy it and are mature and agree.
Shapiro,
You talked about one cosmic electron, I have no idea if that's true or not, in any case, how does it relate to our case? How does this prove randomness and not chaos at all universally?
And electrons, even those that are not intertwined? Are they related to each other? Because if not, how can we talk about one cosmic electron?
Shapiro,
I meant that they are not intertwined with each other, I did not say that they are not affected by their environment or that if one particle encounters a particle next to it then it does not get angry with it.
So you believe that each neutron is on its own, and therefore it is possible to design a mechanism - a timer - that will cause the neutron to decay regardless of the environment?
And even if all the particles in the universe are connected to each other and influence each other, I don't understand how from this you jump to the conclusion that it is randomness and not deterministic chaos.
Shapiro,
This idea sounds to me roughly like the idea of "70 faces per Torah", except that here it is 70 billion billion billion billion (....?) faces per electron.
Yes, I accept the issue of the entangled particles, but in the case we talked about here, we are not talking about entangled particles, but separate particles, each on its own.
rival
No problem, just an idea.
Question: Did you understand that entangled particles affect each other regardless of the distance between them and that this has a mathematical and experimental proof?
Shapiro,
I looked at your link yesterday for a few moments (sorry I already said I was busy) and I understood that there is such an idea, but I don't know how accepted it is among the physics community and whether it is empirically proven.
In any case, my intuition says that even if this is true it is not relevant to our interest just as the claim that God moves every particle and every electron in the universe is not relevant to our observations.
'And practically how should this affect or change our simulation? I look at individual neutrons, not at the whole universe.'
Rival, the whole idea is that there are no individual neutrons just as there are no individual electrons. Did you not read the link I provided?
rival
Yes, now it's clear. Interesting idea. Let me think about it 🙂
Ego = we
Shapiro,
"I didn't prove that the system isn't chaotic - but when you and Nisim run the simulation with the timers, keep in mind that it can contain the entire universe."
And practically how should this affect or change our simulation? I personally look at single neutrons, not at the whole universe.
Miracles,
I'm saying that theoretically (and certainly possibly also practically) it could be that every time you create a new neutrino it receives some initial conditions that result from the chaotic-deterministic structure of the universe. A neutron you create in Jerusalem will have different starting conditions than a neutron you create in Netanya even if they were created at the exact same moment. Each neutron is created at a different location/time in the universe and is therefore internally initialized under different initial conditions.
Is it clear now?
rival
I didn't prove that the system is not chaotic - but when you and Nisim run the simulation with the timers, keep in mind that it can contain the entire universe.
rival
I didn't understand - I thought you were saying that inside every neutron there is a chaotic system. Are you now saying that there is one chaotic system that is used to initialize each neutron?
Because - if the system is inside each neutron, and it is the same system in each neutron, then the only way to cause each neutron to decay at a different time is by different starting conditions. The reason is - a chaotic system is deterministic!
Shapiro,
"The point is that radioactive decay can be random even without opening the box - it is open and hacked to its very essence. You do not agree?"
It could theoretically be random, but I didn't understand how you proved it wasn't deterministically chaotic...? Your argument sounds to me roughly like: "God by his very essence is omnipotent, therefore he cannot be anything else."
Miracles,
Addendum to Section 4:
"What is important to understand is that it doesn't matter how powerful the neutron is - one second or a year, from the moment we start looking at it, there is a 50% probability that it will disintegrate within ten minutes"
As your simulation will show you the exact same thing is also true in the case of deterministic chaotic decay, not only in the case of randomness.
1. How many particles are there in your system?
Lots and lots and lots of particles! But this is still a system whose principle is really simple, regardless of the amount of particles in it...
2. You weren't wrong, I know very well what a chaotic system is, maybe I just didn't explain it correctly, the meaning is that if you have a chaotic system that changes every moment and you sample it, let's say every second, and use it to initiate a new neutron, then its opening conditions will be different from the neutron that was created a minute before , that's what it means.
3. I corrected myself read my previous post.
4. I understood Maya very well, she wrote exactly that, she said that if you pick 2 neutrons out of 4 they will never ever ever decay both within 10 minutes! And always one of them will survive! Maya, is that what you said?
Miracles,
Correction to section 3... sorry, it's probably the fatigue!
3. "We have returned to what I claim from the beginning. Deterministic mechanism - all neutrons will decay after a fixed time'
My mistake, right, you're right! Each neutron will decay after a fixed time! But as the simulation you will write on the computer will prove to you, it is exactly equivalent to a neutron with a random disintegration mechanism that you know exactly when it will disintegrate because you talked to God (who knows the future as you do) and he revealed it to you.
rival
1. How many particles are there in your system?
2. Does a chaotic system create initial conditions? Houston, we have a problem… I thought you said you understood what a chaotic system is. was i wrong
3. Rival, again - if our chaotic system starts with the same initial conditions, then the lifetime of the neutron will be constant. Please, open a book….
4. I don't think Maya meant it. If we have a number of neutrons, then approximately half of them will decay after about 10 minutes. What is important to understand is that it doesn't matter how powerful the neutron is - one second or a year, from the moment we started looking at it, there is a 50% probability that it will decay within ten minutes.
rival
The point is that radioactive decay can be random even without opening the box - it is open and hacked to its very core.
You do not agree?
Miracles,
1. The system I proposed is a super simple system and well fulfills the condition of continuous probability over time, you are welcome to write a simulation for this as well and you will see that I am right.
2. No mechanism that defines initial conditions is needed, has anyone defined an initial conditions mechanism for the Milky Way galaxy? Or to other galaxies in the universe? The chaos simply creates different initial conditions for each neutron as it creates different initial conditions for each galaxy, there is no problem here.
3. "We have returned to what I claim from the beginning. Deterministic mechanism - all neutrons will decay after a fixed time'
Why, I didn't understand how and on what basis you came to this conclusion, see section 2 again.
4. Just out of curiosity, Maya claims with great confidence that if you choose 2 neutrons from a group of 4 you created, they will never both decay within 10 minutes, always but always according to her at least one of them will survive. Have you ever heard of such a quantum law?
rival
Is this a simple system? You need a system that fulfills a very defined condition of probability of decay as a function of time. The condition should hold with precision a continuous exponential function, such that it will give a definite half-life.
And you still haven't answered what the mechanism is that defines the starting conditions. It must be a random mechanism or a deterministic mechanism, or god... a random mechanism - we're back to what I was arguing from the beginning. Deterministic mechanism - all neutrons will decay after a fixed time. God – this means I have to stop eating shrimp…. not going to happen
Miracles,
I have not studied adjacent oscillators and I do not know what the statistical distribution of their states is, but let's talk about a very simple and uncomplicated system of particles that move everywhere inside the neutron, and if by chance a slight asymmetry occurs and 55% of them are on the right side of the neutron, then it collapses.
What is wrong with this simple system, what condition does it not fulfill?
rival
Let's assume that our timer is realized by adjacent pendulums: the neutron will decay when the pendulum reaches a certain state. This time depends solely on the starting conditions.
So - what mechanism will ensure that we get a result of a fixed half-life? Not only do you need a random mechanism, you need a very complicated mechanism, because there is a very complex relationship between initial conditions and the development of the system.
Shapiro,
"Chaotic is finite by its very essence. not necessarily universal"
And if the universe is finite, then can there be a huge chaotic system?
Chaotic is finite by its very nature. Universal not necessarily.
Shapiro,
How from the claim that everything is related to everything and everything is affected by everything do you come to the conclusion that the mechanism must be random? What's wrong with a huge chaotic system?
It's okay, your love is not his love, p.a.
The whole discussion started from your wondering how we know that a carbon atom can produce a random series if we didn't "open the box".
So here it is. The box is only part of a much larger mechanism, if we accept that it is random, we can know that the series is random even without opening it.
Shapiro,
1. "And why, only with you, does he go out to fight?"
I hope you don't really think we are fighting here 🙂
2. "If it (chaoticness) is a universal rule, it can be infinite and therefore random, as opposed to chaotic"
The claim is not clear, and in general who said that the universe is infinite?
"And we will say that the chaos inside the neutron is indeed part of a chaotic system"
If it is a universal rule, it can be infinite and therefore random, as opposed to chaotic.
rival
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
(And why, only with you, does he get into a fight?
Because he is one such, that a fly will not offend).
Shapiro,
"Then what good is a mechanism inside the atom if it is affected by external factors?"
And let's say that the chaos inside the neutron is indeed part of a huge universal chaotic system where everything is affected by everything, why is this problematic? In what respect exactly?
Shapiro,
"All electrons are actually one cosmic electron"
Are you serious? Did you come to this conclusion? And Albancho confirmed it? Anyway, I missed that part of the discussion...sorry.
"An adversary should understand that for identical starting conditions, a chaotic mechanism will always give the same result"
exactly! And what is the problem with that?
Miracles,
1. "The idea is an opponent's"
I think I understood what she meant, the idea of timers set by the decay time of real neutrons is really my idea, but she was specifically referring to the matter of selecting the subgroup which was your idea.
2. "But, then an even bigger problem remains: a random mechanism is now needed to start the timer at the moment of neutron formation. An adversary must understand that for identical starting conditions, a chaotic mechanism will always give the same result.
I didn't fully understand you, when the neutron is created it is initiated by some chaotic mechanism that will cause it to decay at a different time than the neighboring neutron that is next to it, what is the problem here?
Please allow me to intervene in the discussion.
With all the respect I have (and I have!) for the idea of the mechanism and the programming skills of Nisim and Rival, it seems to me that you may be missing some point.
After all, we are dealing with quantum objects, and didn't we learn in the previous discussions that all these objects are connected with each other? Are all electrons actually one universal electron?
So what good is a mechanism inside the atom if it is affected by external factors?
You should not open the box - get out of it (we, your boss).
Maya
The idea is that of an opponent, and it is intended to contradict what I claim.
If we pull out 200 "random" neutrons each time and wait 10 minutes, then we will get that on average 100 will decay, if a standard deviation of 10 (I think).
If we repeatedly extract 200 "deterministic" neutrons we will get, maybe a different result. We will check that.
By the way - I am not convinced that my opponent is wrong (in the context of the experiment).
But, then an even bigger problem remains: a random mechanism is now needed to start the timer at the moment of neutron formation. An adversary needs to understand that for identical starting conditions, a chaotic mechanism will always give the same result.
By the way, your claim that all the neutrons in the group I chose will never decay, do you think it will also be reflected in a computer simulation? Or is it something that only happens in a lab with real neutrons?
Maya,
"I agree with what you just wrote, I just don't understand how that means I'm wrong"
Your words imply that in the group I chose, all the neutrons will never decay, but here I show you that if there is only one neutron in my group, which is half of the total amount, then there is definitely a chance that it will decay, and this contradicts your claim.
Maya,
If there are 2 neutrons in front of me and I am constantly sampling both of them at the same time, but quietly quietly I choose one of them in my heart (without revealing to him!) . According to what you say, the one I chose will not fall apart, my answer is he reads minds.
rival
I agree with what you just wrote, I just don't understand how that means I'm wrong.
Maya,
As far as I know you are wrong, if you have 2 neutrons and you choose one of them arbitrarily then there is a 50% chance that it will decay within the first 10 minutes and a 50% chance that it will survive the first 10 minutes.
I think you are wrong.
rival
I just read your next comments (I responded first). Regarding your second comment, it doesn't matter if I offer or not. I choose a random subset. Atoms 1-8 can certainly be chosen at random. Regarding your third comment. I am not closed on anything, but to the best of my limited understanding this is what the relevant radioactive Torah says and my understanding has been tried many times.
rival
Sorry, didn't mean to steal credit. I followed the thread but I really don't remember who said what.
I see I was not clear. I will try again, more simply. Again we have atoms with a half-life of 10 minutes. This time we will take 4 atoms. We'll check when each breaks down. One atom decayed after 5 minutes, we will mark it with 1. A second atom decayed after 10, we will mark it with 2. Atom 3 is the one that decayed after 20 minutes and atom 4 is the last. Beauty. These were our original atoms that we tested.
Now we will create a new group of 4 atoms but in each of them we will build a timer as you suggested. In atom number 1 the timer will set to 5 minutes, in atom 2 to 10 etc. So we have a set of programmed atoms, with a mechanism, if you will. Now, let's take from this group that we created atoms number 1 and 2. What will happen after 10 minutes? They both broke up because the timer for both of them had already beeped. What is special about our original atoms is that with them, if we removed 1 and 2 from the group, still after 10 minutes only one of them would disintegrate and not both unlike our programmed group. To me it's a crazy weird part and I have no idea if it means randomness or not, but I think that's what Nissim was trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong, Nissim)
Maya,
"This will never happen with some subset of 8 atoms out of the original 16"
I have a question for you, let's say and instead of 16 neutrons I started with only 2, according to what you say it doesn't matter which of these two I choose it will never decay in the first 10 minutes but always the other one that I didn't choose will decay.
Are you really closed on this? Or are you guessing?
Maya, correction to section 2, please re-read what I wrote earlier about miracles, you are trying to deceive -
"Yes, this is also true for the timers for each selected subgroup but on the condition that you do not cheat and do not peek at the timers. That is, after you set the timers, you put each of them into a closed black box and mix them very well. After the mixing you have no possibility to peek and check what time each timer is set to, you can only see its flash of light as soon as its time has expired.'
Maya,
1. "Here's what Nissim is trying to say: take 16 atoms..."
Wait, why do you give the credit for miracles? Did you follow the thread a bit? It was my original idea... not pretty.
2. From this new group you will select a subset of atoms 1-8. If you wait 10 minutes, all those atoms will decay, instead of only half of them decaying."
What's up Maya, how did you come to this?
Anonymous, yes please! Thanks!
rival
What about basic? I can send it to you with a pigeon with a floppy disk stuck in it. .. source. Are you interested?
Miracles and rival, I came to help 🙂
Rival, leave you out of simulations (not that I have anything against it) Here's what Nissim is trying to say: take 16 atoms. Let's say their half-life is 10 minutes. After 10 minutes you will have 8 left, after 20 you will have 4 left, etc. We will mark the first eight that broke up with 1-8. Write the time when each of the 16 disintegrated. Now create 16 new atoms with each one having a timer that tells when it should decay according to the numbers you wrote down earlier. From this new group you will select a subset of atoms 1-8. If you wait 10 minutes, all those atoms will decay, instead of only half of them decaying. This will never happen with some subset of 8 atoms out of the original 16. There, no matter which subgroup of 8 you choose, after 10 minutes you will be left with 4. This is how you differentiate between the ones with the timer and the original guys. Is the simulation still necessary?
rival
great. These are the two languages I work with today.
Miracles,
In the language you are most comfortable with, I would write in C++ or C#, if you write in Matlab, then I won't be able to run and check the code...
rival
What language do you want me to write it in?
In general, you need to write a loop that will run many times, where each loop represents, say, one second, and in each such loop you need to create another loop that goes through all the neutrons in the list and generates for each of them a random number between 0 and N (you can choose the value of N through trial and error) If the neuron's lottery results in the value N, then the neutron decays and you record in the auxiliary array the number of the loop in which it happened, this will be the time you set later on its timer in the second part of the experiment.
If, for example, neutron number 25,724 decayed after 7305 loops, then in part B of the experiment, when you run inside the main loop and reach loop 7305, you will record that neutron number 25,724 decayed (this is the timer that expired), that is, you will change its value from true to false to indicate that it decayed.
Excellent, and may it be without bugs.
rival
I will write
Miracles,
1. "As for the timers, I think it's not like that: we will have subgroups of timers whose time is very short, and those whose time is very long."
I don't know what makes you think that, but I'm telling you with a million percent certainty that you're wrong.
2. "By the way, it's not a problem to write a computer program to simulate the two experiments"
Believe me, I was just thinking about this yesterday too, the problem is that right now I'm really busy, so I haven't had time to finish the simulation of Yehuda's pushing particles that I started writing. So maybe you will really sit down and write such a simulation of neutrons as you suggest? And after you're done, tell me what the results were and also upload the code here?
What do you think ?
rival
Regarding the neutrons, it doesn't matter which subgroup is chosen, we will always get that very close to half will decay.
Regarding the timers, I think it's not like that: we will have subgroups of timers whose time is very short, and those whose time is very long.
By the way, it is not a problem to write a computer program to simulate the two experiments.
Miracles,
I didn't mean to sound impolite, but I want us to move a little faster with this -
1. Just a few messages ago you told me: "I agree with you that there is no way to know from just observation whether a process is random or not."
So I don't understand, you're still not sure about it? Because it seems that now you are trying to prove to me that it is indeed possible even though you told me before that it was impossible...
2. "Suppose we have a million recorded times"
According to the rest of your message, it seems to me that you got confused and meant to say a trillion recorded times.
3. "The Newtons in the first experiment have an important property: if we take a subset of a million neutrons then approximately half of them will decay after 10 minutes. This is true for any selected subgroup. Do you think this is also true for the timers? For any chosen subgroup?'
Yes, this is also true for the timers for each selected subgroup but provided you do not cheat and do not peek at the timers. That is, after you set the timers, you put each of them into a closed black box and mix them very well. After mixing you have no way to peek and check what time each timer is set to, you can only see its flash of light once its time is up.
(By the way, instead of a flash of light, you can simply decide that it breaks up the box, similar to a real neutron that breaks up)
rival
Try to be a little more polite, okay?
First experiment: Let's try your method: we'll take a large group of neutrons and record the decay time of each one, and we'll do it for a blocked time (can't wait until the last one decays, right?). Let's say we have a million times recorded. We will assume that the half-life is about 10 minutes.
Second experiment: Now - we will take a group of a trillion timers and tune each one according to one of the times we recorded. Each timer activates a light flash at the end.
According to your claim, the behavior of the timers will be the same as the behavior of the neutrons in the first experiment, right?
The Newtons in the first experiment have an important property: if we take a subset of a million neutrons then approximately half of them will decay after 10 minutes. This is true for any selected subgroup.
Do you think this is also true for the timers? For each selected subgroup?
Miracles,
Let's start moving a little faster please get to the point already.
Anu, thank you for the message and send him your regards 🙂
"Speaking of which - the accepted way to create a 'random series' is by a chaotic formula"
It is true that you are looking for an available and fast approximation, but when you want a series that is truly considered random, you use (for example) radioactive decay.
rival
If you do know that the series was created by a random process - then the process is 'random'.
If you do not know whether the series was created by a random process - then you cannot call the process 'random' because then you will come out as a liar.
I simply know this because God told me to tell you this before He sent me here nearly 14 years ago. Don't ask, it took me going through an atom to an atom to get here. poof
Miracles,
"My proposal has meaning later in the discussion"
OK so let's start moving a little faster please…
rival
My proposal has meaning in the further discussion
rival
No - it is not random. There are definitions for a random series, for certain purposes, for example - according to entropy. But then the series 1111111111 is not random, and the series 0100111101 is random, even though the probability of each, assuming a uniform distribution, is 0.1%.
I received a series of 1000 bits that seems random to me, but maybe it is now - will it start repeating itself?
Speaking of which - the accepted way to create a "random series" is by a chaotic formula 🙂
"You propose the same experiment I propose"
This is not accurate, you suggested putting timers that are equivalent to the time it will take for neutrons to decay when they contain a chaotic decay mechanism, I suggest in this experiment to set the timers according to a real decay time measured in the laboratory of a real random process (according to you) of neurons.
2. "I even claim that there is no such thing as a random series, but only random processes"
Is a series of values (0 and 1 for that matter) created by a random process not random in your opinion?
Miracles,
"In this experiment - we will not be able to distinguish between the results. You agree, don't you?'
Of course I agree, this is the purpose of the experiment, and do you agree with me that it contradicts what you said earlier in the conversation?
"River, the mechanism you describe is equivalent to the following mechanism: each nucleus has a clock (timer) set to a certain time. Notice where the problem is: every time we take a group of atoms - the clocks have to be reset, so that the median decay time will be 5730 years from the moment the group is taken."
rival
You are proposing the same experiment I am proposing. Let's set up experiment A - we take two groups of neutrons, one group with a random mechanism and a second group with preset timers.
In this experiment - we will not be able to distinguish between the results. You agree, right?
rival
To contradict me, you gave an example that contains a contradiction (also in your opinion) - so how exactly did you contradict me?
I already agreed with you that there is no way to know if a series is from a random source or not. I even claim that there is no such thing as a random series, but only random processes.
And until you answer, here is a proposal for a different thought experiment that does not require time travel and does not create any contradiction -
Create a pile of neutrons with a half-life of ten minutes and sample them frequently for a whole week, at the end of the week you know exactly when each one has decayed.
Now create a stack of dummy neutrons each with a decay timer whose time corresponds to one of the neutrons you sampled in the first experiment. Do you agree with me that the dummy neutron pile you just created with timers in it is equivalent to the neutron pile that randomly decayed during the previous week?
Is there an experiment that you could perform with the random neutrons at the beginning of the week and you cannot perform with the dummy neutrons inside the timers?
Correction - which causes neutrons to decay.
Miracles,
The thought experiment I offered you is a legitimate thought experiment and it does create a contradiction, it contradicts your claim and therefore it is difficult for you to accept it.
1. "I agree with you that there is no way to know just from observation whether a process is random or not"
So are you finally admitting that the claim you made earlier is wrong and your experiment with the pile of radioactive atoms will work both in the case of randomness and in the case of chaotic decay? Because that is exactly what is implied by what you just said...
2. I don't understand why you claim that it makes the system insanely complicated... If there is a chaotic system inside the neutrons that causes the atom to disintegrate after 10 minutes with a 50% chance then you will get exactly the same result. I don't understand what is complicated or difficult to understand here.
3. Regarding the semi-transparent mirror, let's elaborate a little, what practical experiment you propose to do that will prove that it is real randomness and not chaos, but nothing at all theoretical things, something that can be practically tested in the laboratory.
rival
I said that going back in time is not valid in a thought experiment. You can't assume something that creates a contradiction.
I agree with you that there is no way to tell from just observation if a process is random or not. But in my opinion, it makes the models insanely complicated. For example: suppose we create a group of neutrons in the laboratory (not complicated), and suppose there is another group of neutrons that were free neutrons for tens of hours. Let's look at the two teams: from each team, half of them will break up after 10 minutes. It is very easy to understand if the disintegration is random. But, if the decay time is not random, a very complicated mechanism is needed to create the same observation.
Why would you want to assume something so complex?
And I asked you before - how do you explain a semi-transparent mirror without randomness?
Miracles,
Nice questions but we are getting too scattered, I want us to first exhaust the previous discussion we started. you told me:
"I have already explained twice that if the disintegration of particles was not random, then the experiment I described would not have been successful. Perhaps you will address this claim, or at least think about it?'
So I want you to explain to me why the experiment with the pile of atoms will not succeed when the decay is chaotic? You said it wouldn't work because my chaotic mechanism could be replaced with a timer... But then I did a thought experiment with you (if Einstein is allowed then we are allowed too, right?) and I showed you that if you could look into the future and know when every atom in your pile would disintegrate with a random mechanism, then also You can put timers in your random atoms, just as you suggested to me.
I haven't heard from you in the meantime any successful counterargument to the thought experiment I proposed to you, and I'm still waiting.
rival
Observing a system I can't tell anything. If we toss a coin many times and always get a flip - it is still possible that it is a fair coin. On the other hand, if we get a series from a system that seems random to us - it is still possible that the system is deterministic (chaotic or not, we can't know that either.
That's why Albenzo emphasized that there is no such thing as a "random series" of values - there are only random processes.
What there is is training in hypothesis. The reasons for increasing training are many, and include the ability to explain observations and fit theoretical models.
In particular, in our case, a random model gives an explanation that is reliable.
Let's look at it in a completely different way. Let's think about our universe. I think we agree that the universe is chaotic. That is, its development is sensitive to the initial conditions. Now - are the initial conditions random, or deterministic? If you don't believe in randomness, then everything that happened, is happening and will happen is predetermined, including the disintegration of every particle.
If you believe in randomness - then there is no reason to believe that radioactive decay is also random.
What do you think?
Miracles,
I am calm and I know very well what a chaotic system is. Your explanation was unnecessary. You claimed that you would get a different result in the experiment with the stack of atoms in the event that the disintegration mechanism is random compared to a situation that is chaotic. Meanwhile you failed to prove your claim and moreover I showed you through a descriptive experiment with timers that you are wrong.
Or in other words, if you have two piles of atoms, one decays randomly and the other decays by a chaotic mechanism, you will not be able to tell through your experiment which pile decays chaotically and which decays randomly.
That is, your claim is wrong.
rival
calm down Take a book, and learn what is meant by a chaotic system. Because you are stressed, I will try to help you: a chaotic system is a system whose future behavior cannot be predicted due to sensitivity to initial conditions. It is also possible to know its development in the short term, unlike a random system.
We have no problem calculating what the weather will be like in an hour. We have no way of calculating the decay time of a particular neutron.
Radioactive decay is random, and it is not chaotic. So, the mechanism that is "responsible" for this behavior is random, not chaotic.
Let's take another example - the passage of light through a semi-transparent mirror. The probability of a photon passing through the mirror is 50%. If this probability were due to chaos, then we could improve our ability to predict whether a photon will pass or not, by increasing the accuracy of the measurement.
Regarding an internal timer in a particle - you need a random mechanism to get a random time. Chaos in general means that you do not know exactly the starting conditions. If our world is discrete (digital) - then there is no real chaotic system.
If our world is continuous, then it cannot be calculated at all, and no computer simulation can describe reality. Personally, I don't think our world is continuous (Zenon's paradoxes for example).
But if intertwined atoms disintegrate together, and if cats or atomic bombs on different planets are attached to them, then will they also disintegrate together with them?
My logic says: either there is no deterministic mechanism that causes disintegration and this includes a chaotic mechanism, or the disintegration of one does not cause the disintegration of the other, or perhaps they cannot be intertwined at all.
Otherwise - boom!
And I know what a chaotic system is...
Miracles,
"The idea of going back in time to show that there is no randomness is delusional. If my grandmother had eggs she would have been a grandfather…..''
And your idea of putting timers inside the nuclei of atoms is not delusional, eh? I didn't say go back in time to show that there is no randomness! There is randomness! I'm just showing you that contrary to your claim in your experiment with a stack of carbon 14 atoms you will get the same result whether the decay of the atoms is random or chaotic.
In short, if you didn't understand your claim is incorrect, just as you can replace the chaotic mechanism I proposed with a timer, so it is possible (theoretically miracles, theoretically...) to also put timers in your atoms whose disintegration is random, so in both situations you will get the same result.
rival
Do you understand what a chaotic system is? A simple example is a compound pendulum. Due to sensitivity to the initial conditions, the trajectory cannot be calculated for a long distance ahead. But, as I said, at any given moment, the next situation can be calculated.
The idea of going back in time to show there is no randomness is delusional. If my grandma had eggs she would be a grandpa…..
Miracles,
Your answers are not serious -
2 - "A chaotic mechanism is not random." Give me the current state of a chaotic system, and I'll give you its next state.'
You know I can give you an answer here along the lines of the answer you gave me in section 3, you have no practical possibility to do what you say because you don't have a powerful enough computer to calculate it and you also have no practical possibility to examine the state of each atom at a certain moment, and it is also impossible Really put timers inside an atom…
Hello miracles? We are talking about principles if it wasn't clear... I didn't think it was necessary to explain.
3 - "You can't go back in time."
Well, that's really a nice answer, of course it's not possible! But I demonstrate to you that your argument about the timers is incorrect! Because just as you can put timers in my atomic nuclei (according to your own suggestion...) so also in your atomic nuclei descriptively, if you could foresee the future you could put similar timers that would break up the atom at the right moment...
And if it's not clear yet, you won't see any difference in your experiment even if the mechanism that breaks up the atoms is random and if it's chaotic, in both cases you'll get the same results!
https://books.google.com/books?id=v0btBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=devil+series+leibniz+1-1&source=bl&ots=aCnVYtUPbH&sig=qJpml5KsC3oHlMwUYGYesDlLpiE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiq7YCcrc_OAhVDxWMKHag6BWQQ6AEILzAD#v=onepage&q=devil%20series%20leibniz%201-1&f=false
Israel
Do you remember what the definition of the limit of a series is? This series does not converge to the border.
I think so
rival
1 – My mistake. This is what I meant to write.
2 - A chaotic mechanism is not random. Give me the current state of a chaotic system, and I'll give you its next state.
3 - You can't go back in time.
Yehuda
It could be that a 5 kg block fell on you and you start spewing nonsense serially.
Miracles
The Satan series has two limits: 1 and 2.
But Leibniz will say 1.5
What would happen if we connected our interlaced atoms to cats? Will they both fall apart together?
Miracles,
1. "I wrote a subgroup."
No, you didn't write anything like that, I read your message several times.
2. "How do you set these clocks?" You need a random process to do that.'
Absolutely not, because as mentioned we have a chaotic mechanical mechanism (which I described earlier) you can examine its initial state and run a super fast simulation of it on a supercomputer to see when it is supposed to cause the nucleus to disintegrate, that's the time we set the timer 🙂
3. Think we took a handful of carbon-14 atoms and sampled them continuously for a billion years, now you know exactly when each of those atoms decayed. Now let's go back a billion years in a time machine, and now that you know when each atom will disintegrate in the future you set a timer for it to disintegrate at the appropriate moment.
Now explain to me what is the difference between your timers and my timers which were set as mentioned above based on a non-random mechanical mechanism? Will there be a difference in your experiment between atoms with my timers, and between a similar experiment with atoms with your timers?
Israel
And regarding intertwined atoms - I think so.
Israel
The series does not strive for a limit.
rival
I wrote a subgroup - that is, part of the group we had.
The problem I see is this - how do you set these clocks? You need a random process to do that.
So again we are back to the point of needing a random process.
Well, if you insist that there is a completely non-random mechanism in atoms that decays them deterministically, then here are questions about decay and series:
1. What happens with intertwined atoms - will when one breaks down the other will also break down.
2. What limit does the series aim for...1+1-1+1-1+1...
Miracles,
I didn't quite understand your phrasing, what do you mean when you say: "Every time we take a group of atoms - their clocks have to be reset"?
Where will we take them from, from the pile we already have? That is, we will take them out of the pile after a certain time? Or are you talking about new atoms that have just been created?
In any case, I think you're wrong and there's no need to calibrate their timers every time, it's enough to set each nucleus's timer only once when it's created, but let's explain first and then we'll move on.
rival
The mechanism you describe is equivalent to the following mechanism: each nucleus has a clock (timer) set to a certain time.
Notice where the problem is: every time we take a group of atoms - the clocks have to be reset, so that the median decay time will be 5730 years from the moment the group is taken.
That is, I do not agree with your paragraph 1.
Miracles,
The subject of the coin was of course only a metaphor in order to demonstrate the idea, let's talk instead of a coin about the mechanism I proposed earlier in my answer to Judah -
It is said that inside the nucleus of the atom there are particles that move all the time and change their position without stopping in relation to each other, and every now and then with some probability (5730 years in the case of carbon-14) they line up in such a way that creates a "weak point" in the nucleus (a breaking point) that causes the nucleus to disintegrate.
in that case -
1. We still have a non-random mechanical mechanism that causes an atom to decay with some probability, no matter what time resolution you sample it at.
2. Although, as mentioned, it is a non-random mechanism, in your experiment you will still get the same result you would have if there was a random decay mechanism inside.
If you disagree with one of the sections, explain why.
rival
1. Yes.
2. Think of the series 010101010101 and so on. The probability of getting a "1" is 50%. But you will agree that this is not a random series, right?
In the case of carbon-14, we would have to flip a coin every 5730 years to get the measured half-life. In this case the series 010101010 can provide. But, if we have a large number of atoms, some of them will disintegrate in a very short time, even within a microsecond. Let's think that we check every microsecond - now we need a mechanism that produces a very long series of zeros until there is a 1.
That is, the structure of the series should depend on the shape of our sample. It doesn't make sense to me.
OK.
rival
Question: "Why do they reduce their weight because less pushing particles hit them?
Answer: True, if a million particles arriving from anywhere for a second create gravitation with the force of a newton then 900,000 identical particles will produce only 0.9 newtons. Really simple.
Yehuda
Sorry, Pushing.
Why do they reduce their weight because less pudding particles hit them?
rival
Why wait five billion years?, after less than an hour they will already last less.
Yehuda
Yehuda,
If we place two large weights facing each other in space at a distance of one meter from each other, they will "push" towards each other with a certain force, right? And if you repeat the exact same experiment after 5 billion years when the weights have reduced their weight, will they pull (sorry, push) towards each other with a different intensity than in the first experiment?
rival
question 1 : ". Are you sure electronic scales will show weight reduction? Don't forget that according to your theory the weight of the earth also decreases over time (I know this is not an exact physical formulation) and therefore it will also attract the weights to it with less force... so maybe the scales will still show the same reading?" End quote.
Answer: I'm sure electronic scales will do the job. The number of gravitational pushing particles that determine the attraction will decrease per unit volume according to the third power of the expansion of the universe and this will happen both to our precious ball and to the mass being weighed. Therefore in SA the attraction will decrease according to the sixth power because it is Newton's formula for the product of masses.
Question 2.: "I think you were already told that there were problems in the article you were talking about because if the standard KG reduced its weight then its copies were also supposed to reduce their weight and if I remember correctly this did not really happen." End quote.
Answer: I won't sit down to debate what the people who are facing the unknown phenomenon of weight loss understood and I don't have a record of how they measured it. What's more, the weight loss is consistent with the theory and apparently that's what happened. Of course, we can only be sure if we make an accurate measurement over the years (on electronic scales!) and measure and be sure.
If you have the possibility, do the experiment and the measurement. Usually the ones conducting the experiment are the ones who receive the Nobel Prize (). If you win, throw me a bone!
So all good
Yehuda
Israel Shapira
You asked: "How is the problem of friction solved in the case of Apollo circling the moon circling the earth circling the sun circling the black hole in the center of the galaxy circling..." end quote.
Answer: First of all, according to the simple universe, the black hole does not exist in the center of the galaxy, and even if it existed with the power of four million suns, it would not have a gravitational effect on our precious sun. In fact, gravity is negligible according to the simple universe already at a distance of several tens of light years. But the moon had a gravitational effect on Apollo revolving around it. But, it is enough if Apollo moves in an inner orbit towards the moon by a few meters for it to be enough for him to create an additional force to overcome the friction. In the calculation I did for example, the moon must move in a more inner orbit towards the earth by only about 75 meters so that the force of the rotation overcomes the friction. (article number 60 on my blog)
Yekumpashut.net16.net
Shabbat Shalom to all
Yehuda
Yehuda,
1. Are you sure electronic scales will show weight reduction? Don't forget that according to your theory the weight of the Earth also decreases over time (I know this is not an exact physical formulation) and therefore it will also attract the weights to it with less force... so maybe the scales will still show the same reading?
2. I think you were already told that there were problems in the article you were talking about because if the standard KG reduced its weight then its copies were also supposed to reduce their weight and if I remember correctly this did not really happen.
rival
You asked: "How can you practically prove that the weight of bodies decreases over time?". End quote.
Answer: Indeed, it will be mandatory to measure it only with electronic scales, because, as you say, it is impossible to measure it with counterweights because their weight will also decrease.
I must point out again: the weight loss is 0.43 million grams per kilogram per year, which is a very tiny amount! And it will be difficult to measure it
In an article written in the New York Times several years ago, the problem was raised that the standard kilogram found in Paris is losing its weight. I wrote an article about it here on the science website. The measured weight loss is in accordance with my simple universe calculations. All details on my blog. Enter and I will be happy to respond.
All the best
Yehuda
Yoda
How is the friction problem solved in the case of Apollo orbiting the moon orbiting the earth orbiting the sun orbiting the black hole in the center of the galaxy orbiting...
Yehuda,
Thanks, and a question - how can you practically prove that the weight of bodies decreases over time? After all, if the weight of a certain dumbbell decreases over time, then the weight of all the other weights in the world decreases to the same extent, and the weight of the earth that attracts the weights decreases to the same extent.
So what experiment can show that your claim is true?
rival
To your question: "Did you come up with original ideas in connection with this theory (pushing gravity) that people who dealt with it before you did not think of?" End quote.
Well, there are ideas, at least some of which are my own. All my ideas on the subject appear within the framework of my "simple universe" definition which is a continuation of Pushing Gravity. For example, I proved the slightly different gravitation formula for large distances, I proved that due to the gravitational pushing structure and the expansion of the universe, the weight of bodies decreases according to the expansion of the volumetric universe. In addition, I proved that friction is not a problem in principle for negating gravity pushing, and more.
Go to my blog for articles 55-73 dealing with gravitation. There are all the things I contributed to the Pushing Gravity theme - a simple universe.
My blog:
Yekumpashut.net16.net
You can respond there too, but gently
Thanks
Yehuda
Miracles,
"Do you understand why the drama now?"
The truth is not entirely -
1. Do you agree that a mechanical mechanism (let alone a dwarf) that creates a series of values of type 0 and 1 based on a coin toss does not create a true random series but only a chaotic series?
2. If there exists within the nucleus of the atom of carbon 14 such a mechanical mechanism of the "toss of a coin" type that, as mentioned, is not random but determines how likely the nucleus will break up, will the result of your experiment change? If so please explain to me why, because I think you will still get the same result.
Miracles,
"Do you understand why the drama now?"
The truth is not entirely -
1. Do you agree that a mechanical mechanism (let alone a dwarf) that creates a series of values of type 0 and 1 based on a coin toss does not create a true random series but only a chaotic series?
2. If there exists within the nucleus of the atom of carbon 14 such a mechanical mechanism of the "toss of a coin" type that, as mentioned, is not random but determines how likely the nucleus will break up, will the result of your experiment change? If so please explain to me why, because I think you will still get the same result.
rival
You said "a dwarf who flips a coin".
If the casting is random - then it is no different from what I said.
If the toss is not random - then it is possible to know when the particle will disintegrate, and the experiment I described will not succeed.
Do you understand why the drama now? 🙂
Miracles,
First of all please calm down and stop the dramas, this is just a discussion about science.
According to what I understood from previous conversations with you and your physicist friend, you claim that such a mechanistic mechanism cannot create true randomness because theoretically it is possible to check what the state of the mechanism is at a certain moment and accordingly predict what the next value will be, or when the particle will disintegrate, meaning that according to you it is a chaotic and non-random mechanism.
am I wrong ?
rival
are you serious I say that the particle has a random mechanism that causes it to disintegrate and you say that the particle has a random mechanism that causes it to disintegrate - and you say that we are saying different things????
Yehuda,
Just for general knowledge, from what I understand the pushing particle theory is quite ancient, what is your original contribution to this theory? Did you come up with original ideas about this theory that people who worked on it before you didn't think of?
rival
You said: "It sounds like a great idea to me on the condition that you first answer the list of redacteds on the website I linked to at the time and show that your pudding particle theory can exist in reality." End quote.
Answer: I entered the link with the eighteen reasons that invalidate the Pushing Gravity you gave me and to be honest it is difficult for me to refer to it. For example, two clauses:
2. The particle flux filling all space must be perfectly isotropic and of very high density. No known form of radiation of particle flux has these characteristics to the degree required by the theory
3. The neutrino. Modern proponents of PG often posit the neutrino as the mediating particle of the theory. This has been conclusively disproved by Richard Feynman in 1995 [1].
Regarding the first section, he states that the particles must be isotropic in a very precise way (I don't agree and this will actually help in the radioactive decay we talked about) and in addition their density must be high (I agree with this). So here it was defined, but then he says that he does not know such a thing and expects Mini to not know such a thing either. So I disagree and I think it's well defined. For example, imagine someone saying about the neutrino that it doesn't exist because we don't know such small particles. Ridiculous and not a reason not to believe them.
Of course, I also disagree with what is said in the next section that the natrino is the fundamental particle of pushing gravity because it is apparently much smaller. In the calculation I made, it is apparently about 6.3 times ten to the power of minus 37 grams, much smaller than the estimate for the Natrino.
And regarding the idea you said: "I was actually thinking about particles that move (or are created) all the time inside the nucleus of the atom and from time to time they arrange themselves towards each other in such a way that creates a "breaking point" and causes the nucleus to disintegrate." End quote.
Answer: Maybe this is the explanation, but it is not acceptable to me because I have enough of my gravity pushing particles.
Please respond gently
Yehuda
Miracles,
"I have already explained twice that if the disintegration of particles was not random, then the experiment I described would not have been successful. Perhaps you will address this claim, or at least think about it?'
But I already referred to your experiment before... have you forgotten?
"If there is a small dwarf inside the nucleus of the atom who tosses a coin once every 5730 years and according to the result (say if it comes up a tree) takes a hammer and smashes the atom into pieces, you would still get the same result in the experiment."
That is, even if there is some mechanistic mechanism in the atomic nucleus that causes it to disintegrate with some probability, you would still get the same result in your experiment.
rival
A process is random if the probability of obtaining a certain state is fixed. that's it.
There is no way to create a series with this feature, unless the origin of the series is a random process.
I have already explained twice that if the disintegration of particles was not random, then the experiment I described would not have been successful. Maybe you will address this claim, or at least think about it?
Yehuda mentioned chaotic processes. But deterministic processes, which cannot accurately predict the next situation - because there is no way to know with absolute precision the starting conditions. Is it possible that such a mechanism exists inside a particle?
Excellent question….
anonymous,
"But the definitions of the terms 'random' and 'deterministic' are clear and there is no debate about it"
So it turns out that there is a debate about it. I will ask you a question, if you have a black box that produces sequences of 0's and 1's, after it outputs (or displays on a digital screen) a series of a trillion such values, can you determine whether this series is random or not without opening the box and seeing what the mechanism that created the values is those?
Yehuda,
It sounds like a great idea to me on the condition that you first answer the list of redacteds on the site I linked to at the time and see that your pudding particle theory can exist in reality.
I was actually thinking about particles that move (or are created) all the time inside the nucleus of the atom and from time to time they arrange themselves towards each other in such a way that creates a "breaking point" and causes the nucleus to disintegrate.
Yehuda
There is a simpler universe than this: God plays dice. And came to Zion a redeemer. That's it, you can go to sleep. The last one turned off the air conditioner...
There is only this minor matter of: providing proof for the things they say...
In the meantime, God put them all in the little pocket..
rival
You are missing the point...
…and I didn't expect you to know either… in fact, no one does.
The reality, as of today, is such that no one knows whether nature is random or deterministic.
But the definitions of the terms 'random' and 'deterministic' are clear and there is no debate about it.
What do you think about a mechanism that works with the well-remembered gravitational pushing particles, which hit every poor atom and shake its particles with a slightly different intensity from time to time, and if by chance an unusual amount of pushing particles suddenly arrive from one direction, then they will shake the atom and break it apart. So it is not an internal magneton (dwarf inside the atom)
Hence, gravity pushing will produce not only gravitation but also radioactive decay!
Please respond gently
And sorry if I offended the dwarves
good weekend
Yehuda
A mechanism related to string theory.
anonymous,
How do I know how this mechanism works? Maybe it works similar to the mechanism that causes a volcano to erupt every few years? Or like the mechanism that causes the Earth's poles to reverse every few thousand years? And maybe it's a mechanism related to theory and strings and someday a great physicist named Albencho will discover how it works? how would I know?
rival
And how does that 'internal mechanical mechanism of coin toss' work? Does it randomly choose the values 1 and 0? Does it have a mechanism that randomly selects these values? If so - then how does the mechanism of the mechanism work!? God forbid that we get into a tilt...
rival
And how does that 'internal mechanical mechanism of coin toss' work? Does it randomly choose the values 1 and 0? Does it have a mechanism that randomly selects these values? If so - then how does the mechanism of the mechanism work!? God forbid that we get into a tilt...
rival
Says nothing. I can live even without being put on the stake.
we
Someone who knows geometry is a dwarf.
Remainder 87.
Shapiro,
Tell that to Nissim and Alvancho, they claim that if you have a closed black box that produces a series of 0's and 1's based on an internal mechanical mechanism of flipping a coin then the resulting series is not random.
(Again, because it is theoretically possible to open the box to check the condition of the coin and the mechanical mechanism and predict based on this in advance what the next value will be)
Israel
So we agree on that.
Because if we were dealing with overly complicated mechanisms that do not allow us to calculate in advance what the next value will be - then this would be equivalent to the fact that the moves had already been determined in advance... by the same evil dwarf (and why evil? Because - a dwarf. "Hidan" chapter XNUMX verse of the end of the road).
rival
For all practical purposes, a coin toss is random.
Let that randomness aspire to infinity or even reach it, and you've got quantum randomness.
Do you not accept that a quantum state of a particle is determined only with the measurement and before that there is no particular state but only a superposition of all the states? Do you not accept that there is both mathematical and experimental proof that the quantum state cannot be predetermined and the measurement only discovered what it is?
Kapal'd, iPod, knees..
Shapiro,
I think we all agree here that a mechanical mechanism that tosses a coin or a lottery machine that shoots balls are not really mechanisms that create random series, they are simply too complicated mechanisms that do not allow us to calculate in advance what the next value will be.
Therefore, if such a mechanistic mechanism exists within the nucleus of the atom, then it cannot be said that there is real randomness here, but only apparent randomness.
we
You see? This begins..
It seems to me that if the mechanism is a dwarf inside the atom flipping a coin, we will still get a random series.
And who said that inside the coin does not sit a smaller and more evil dwarf?
In my understanding, quantum randomness is already a gift of receiving a random series. That's why she's random.
Miracles,
No, we didn't stay with randomness, that's exactly what our argument was about a few months ago. If there is some mechanical mechanism of the "toss a coin" type inside the nucleus of the atom, this means that if you know what the state of the mechanism is at a certain moment, you can predict quite precisely in advance when it will cause the atom to disintegrate.
You and Alvancho claimed that in such a case it is impossible to say that the series created is random because you know how the internal mechanism that creates the values works and therefore you know how to calculate/predict in advance what the next result will be...
rival
No one says that there is no "internal mechanism" in particles. Such a dwarf is not a hidden variable - but a random mechanism inside the particle. We're left with randomness, aren't we?
Maybe the dwarf has a long line of bits, almost all one. The dwarf checks the next bit every second, and dismantles the atom if the bit value is "0". The evil demon gave each dwarf his line of bits in advance. But - this is equivalent to the mechanism I described, in which there is an evil elf outside the system who decides which atom to break up each time.
That is - either there is an internal mechanism inside each particle, or there is an external agent that decides. I don't think there is any other option
Israel
Why world wars? It's all God sitting there and determining when the Higgs will jump on him and give some chafacha to the neutron...
Please respond gently, Yehuda Sabdarmish in the house
Miracles,
But if there was a small dwarf inside each carbon 14 atom that flips a coin once every 5730 years and based on the result (let's say if it came up with a tree) takes a hammer and smashes the atom into pieces, you would still get the same result.
So how does this experiment prove that there is no internal mechanism (a sort of internal "toss of a coin" inside the atom) that causes the atom to disintegrate with some probability?
Yehuda
Imprecision does not mean non-deterministic. Nor ignorance.
rival
I have already explained why there cannot be a deterministic internal mechanism...
Take a large number of carbon-14 atoms, no matter what the source. Wait 5730 years - half of them will disintegrate.
Now - after X years, take a subset of the atoms that have not yet decayed and wait another 5730 years. Again - half of them will fall apart.
If there was an "internal clock" for atoms then their age would change the result of the experiment I mentioned. Note – X can be 5 minutes or 5 billion years, the result I said is still valid.
Therefore - either the process is truly random, or Descartes' evil leprechaun breaks these atoms apart in a way that will give us the illusion of randomness.
Sorry to interfere, but it seems to me that determinism cannot exist even in non-quantum systems, because due to uncertainty in measurements in general, we will never be able to define an absolutely defined initial state, and hence a deterministic state of the system will not be defined. Each time we introduce a starting point we will reach a different result later on.
Yehuda
"Is it random because we don't know how to predict when a radioactive particle will decay?"
Positive.
"And again I ask, how do you know that there isn't a hidden mechanism that causes the particle to disintegrate at a certain moment and not at another? What experiment led to this insight?'
And again I answer: "Please don't entangle Israel in world wars."
Shapiro,
Is it random because we don't know how to predict when a radioactive particle will decay? Or for another reason?
And again I ask, how do you know that there isn't a hidden mechanism that causes the particle to disintegrate at a certain moment and not at another? What experiment led to this insight?
Rival, please don't embroil Israel in world wars, okay?
But as you see I believe, if the decay of radioactive particles was not random, it would be the end of quantum mechanics.
Shapiro,
Can you prove that such a mechanism does not exist?
Then we will get determinism, Yoke quantum mechanics and Einstein in a grave exploding with laughter.
Shapiro,
Nowadays it is impossible to know exactly when a particle will disintegrate, but who can guarantee you that in say 30 years they won't understand the mechanism that causes it to disintegrate (perhaps something related to string theory for example?) and then they will be able to predict the moment when it will disintegrate?
rival
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99%D7%95%D7%90%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%99%D7%91%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA
"Radioactive decay is essentially a quantum phenomenon and therefore probabilistic. That is: it is impossible to know exactly when a certain particle will disintegrate, but it is possible to know what its probability is to disintegrate at any given time.'
If the mechanism causing the disintegration was not random then that means it is deterministic, right?
The uncertainty principle forbids determinism in quantum-sized systems.
Correction, I will not be able to know its location.
Shapiro,
According to the uncertainty principle, if I measured a certain property of a particle, I cannot know what the value of the property adjacent to it is (for example, if I measured the speed of an electron accurately, I would not be able to know what its speed was, and vice versa) explain to me how this relates to the subject of a random series?
I ask to understand your line of thinking.
rival
If a series of values created based on the decay of radioactive material is not random - then what about the uncertainty principle, the fundamental principle of quantum mechanics?
A. Benner,
"The concept of randomness refers to a single event whose value cannot be predicted"
But this is exactly what was being discussed, elbentzo firmly claimed that even if you have a black box that produced a series of billions of 0's and 1's and you found no correlation between them and no way to predict what the next value will be, you still cannot say that the series is random because according to him if you "open the box" and understand What is the mechanism that created the values so maybe you will be able to predict what the next value will be.
elbentzo claims that the only way to determine if a series of values is random is to check the mechanism that created the series.
This statement somewhat contradicts his second statement according to which a series of values created based on the decay of radioactive material is indeed random. how do you know? Perhaps there is a mechanism that is still unknown to us (perhaps something related to string theory?) that caused the atomic nucleus to disintegrate at a certain moment and not at another? from where do you know?
to rival and elbentzo,
It seems to me that you attribute the concept of randomness to the wrong meaning.
You say "random" but you actually mean "statistical distribution".
The concept of "randomness" refers to a single event whose value cannot be predicted. For example a lottery.
The case discussed in the article is of a statistical nature.
The results of many events are needed to draw a clear conclusion.
A small number of events may lead to inaccurate results and conclusions.
It is similar for example to the experiment of entanglement through two slits, only a large number of photons
Will give a picture of struggle.
I see I won't get an answer soon, too bad.
Miracles,
Of course, I have no idea to decide what is reasonable or not, but I was very enthusiastic about the experiment and, in general, about the thought that it is worth doing such an experiment. Time will tell if there is anything in this experiment or not.
Regarding Shawn Carroll's book, unfortunately I have little time to read and I use it to read the Bible
What's more, you are invited to see him at Google talking about the book. Fun as usual
https://youtu.be/x26a-ztpQs8
Shmulik
It says there that because the muon is much heavier than the electron, then the average radius of its orbit is much smaller. I don't think it's that likely.
Regardless - did you happen to read "The Big Picture" by Sean Carroll?
I can testify that in all the lectures and articles I have seen and read on the subject, there was always extreme care to tell that the measured effect does not exceed 5 sigma or even 4 sigma. That is, they were very careful to explain to laymen that they should be very skeptical at this stage. I don't understand what my father's criticism is.
From the second past, here is an insanely cool measurement that can actually indicate new physics:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160811-new-measurement-deepens-proton-radius-puzzle/
elbentzo,
If you're already here I have a question, we recently had a small argument about how to determine if a series of values is random, you said that to determine if the series is random you have to "open the box" (or "look behind the scenes") and check what the mechanism was that created it, you said It is not enough to check and analyze the values that came out.
On the other hand, you also claimed (if I remember correctly) that the decay of radioactive particles is indeed random. So my question is how can you determine that radioactive decay is random, if you haven't looked behind the scenes and you don't know what the mechanism is that causes it?
Avi Cohen,
Instead of asking what happened to the peer review, accusing people of irresponsibility and concocting conspiracy theories about science and politics, maybe you should try to read the article a little more carefully... the particle they thought they found but in the end came to the conclusion that no, it is not a Higgs boson. The Higgs boson was found. point. The particle in question is something completely different that they thought they discovered by chance (that is, they did not look for it based on a predication of one or another theory at a certain mass, but found an anomaly during a general search in high energy fields). The measurements were carried out almost a year ago, the publications on the subject came out only a few months ago, and as it is written in the article - immediately upon publication, those responsible gave all the details and caveats, clarified what needs to be done to verify the discovery, etc. From the beginning everyone knew it was a discovery of moderate credibility, but the very idea that it might be real caused a lot of excitement in the scientific community.
Indeed, even at the time the results were suspect. The mass of the new particle was 100 times greater! The mass of the proton, and 6 times the estimated Higgs mass...
As SAFKAN and I raised doubts about it then, the results looked suspicious:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/existance-of-higgs-170912
I also think that all this influx of publications is a result of our culture of ratings and materialism, when many researchers try to get on the bandwagon of success and publication quickly. Of course, the researchers who were more careful should be commended.
The irresponsibility in such publications causes suspicion on the part of the public, and can also cause the cessation of support for the large budgets that such large projects require.
The question that should be asked here is where was the peer review, and are published articles really worthy of publication, and maybe even if there are unpublished articles that are more worthy of publication?
More than once you can see how politics intervenes in the selection of publications, for example in cases where they call for the boycott of Israeli institutions and personalities in academia.
Why is it not possible to repeat the experiment in which the particle was discovered and check if the same results are obtained?
Antony Garrett Lizzi, working through the Li (8)E bunch predicts the existence of additional particles.
Some of the readers here will immediately confirm that he doesn't even work at the academy. I understood that among the multitude of theories the aforementioned particles are also being tested at the CERN LHC. Lizzie does not belong to the mainstream - that of string theory, but neither does Lee Smolin who calls for a plurality of opinions beyond string theory, due to the fact that the theory cannot be proven, but rather that it unifies all forces including gravity and is therefore widespread. Lee Smolin is not a fringe scientist.
It is also possible that the theories will reach equivalence in the future: E(8) symmetry and string theory. Several books in English have recently been published that call for a plurality of opinions, in addition to and beyond string theory. String theory gives theoretical tools to move forward. In the current period it will be difficult to check its validity, and there is a flood of theories: BRANES, MEMBRANES, quantum donuts.