B Are there unverifiable assertions about probabilities

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter jk22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probabilities
jk22
Messages
732
Reaction score
25
Suppose we obtain a probability of ##1/\sqrt{2}## from QM for example.
This will be never verifiable since experiments can only give rational numbers even more : finite digits.

Does this mean that such a theory cannot be real in some sense since it would need an everlasting expetiment ?

Are there any attempts or approaches to get only rational numbers from the theory ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jk22 said:
Suppose we obtain a probability of ##1/\sqrt{2}## from QM for example.
This will be never verifiable since experiments can only give rational numbers even more : finite digits.

Does this mean that such a theory cannot be real in some sense since it would need an everlasting expetiment ?

Are there any attempts or approaches to get only rational numbers from the theory ?
Consider ##\pi ## instead:


Now we have eliminated any "reality" of the "theory", because all we have used is a circle. From this point on you can eternally talk about realism, Plato and other philosophies. The mathematical resp. physical essence is, that we cannot actually create a circle, we can only come as close as we want to, depending on the effort we put in. Under the electron microscope, however, ...

Our models are all idealizations. The real world is discrete!
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
fresh_42 said:
The real world is discrete!
No. It is fuzzy!
jk22 said:
Suppose we obtain a probability of ##1/\sqrt{2}## from QM for example.
This will be never verifiable since experiments can only give rational numbers even more : finite digits.

Does this mean that such a theory cannot be real in some sense since it would need an everlasting experiment ?
No. One never expects predictions to be accurate to infinite precision - except in pure mathematics!
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Klystron
jk22 said:
Does this mean that such a theory cannot be real in some sense since it would need an everlasting expetiment ?

What theory doesn't?

I have a theory that reindeer can't fly. I gather a hundred reindeer, and push them off my roof to their deaths. All I have shown is that these hundred reindeer can't (or at least didn't) fly. What about #101? Or #1001? Or #100000000000001?
 
Vanadium 50 said:
What theory doesn't?

I have a theory that reindeer can't fly. I gather a hundred reindeer, and push them off my roof to their deaths. All I have shown is that these hundred reindeer can't (or at least didn't) fly. What about #101? Or #1001? Or #100000000000001?
Was this conditioned on the presence of a red nose?
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top