- #36
PeterDonis
Mentor
- 45,810
- 22,741
Zafa Pi said:I need a specific reference to your method.
Bell's original papers. See, for example, equation (2) here:
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf
Zafa Pi said:I need a specific reference to your method.
Zafa Pi said:For some time I've been wondering how to eloquently distinguish classical and quantum physics. What I mean by eloquent is both simple and short. By simple I mean understandable to any college freshman, and with that caveat, as short as possible.
Zafa Pi said:... but I'm not sure a freshman who has never taken physics would understand it.
Zafa Pi said:can I get some help from the wisemen?
Vanadium 50 said:Since only 37% of high school students have taken a physics class, "any college freshman" is a standard that will probably be harder to meet than you intend.
Zafa Pi said:I can for example distinguish Newtonian Theory from GR by saying, "A clock on a mountain top runs faster than one at sea level according to tests and GR, but NT says they run the same.". I consider this both simple and short, while also providing a concrete, simple example of different predictions. I would like something similar for CT v QT.
vanhees71 said:One also shouldn't say that QT doesn't make accurate predictions about the behavior of nature since there are no known contradictions between observations and the predictions of QT...
Wow! The most I had heard about till now was 10 digits. Would you mind providing links?vanhees71 said:(in some cases 16 or more significant digits of accuracy in the comparison between theory and experiment).
Hold on a minute. Are you saying CM forbids atomic decay? Decay was certainly known before QM.A. Neumaier said:A radioactive atom decays according to QM but not according to classical mechanics.
Indeed, everyone seems to think so. In post #1 I even said as much, "quantum has inherent randomness classical doesn't", but I rejected it.vanhees71 said:Well, QT tells us that that the probabilities are inherent in nature and not just our ignorance about the future.
At first I went along with Neumaier"s statement; "A radioactive atom decays according to QM but not according to classical mechanics.", but now I have problems.secur said:Decay was indeed known towards the end of the 19th century, before QM. (In fact the phenomenon was noticed long before that.) But CM had, and has, no way to explain it - although they tried. To say it "forbids" it wouldn't be exactly correct, CM just has no theory to deal with it. Of course once you postulate the basic fact you can analyze it statistically, for large samples, without understanding the mechanism; you might call that a "classical" analysis.
Zafa Pi said:Indeed, everyone seems to think so. In post #1 I even said as much, "quantum has inherent randomness classical doesn't", but I rejected it.
It's funny, I look through various QT axiom schema and I can't find inherent anywhere. I do find axioms that say that measurements are random variables, and I am unable to find any cause for the random nature of of measurements of entangled photons, but so what. Hence it would be really nice to see a proof (that convinces one who believes in super-determinism).
Here is the short version of your two sentences: "We can't prove it, but we know it's true."secur said:There can never be a proof, either theoretical or experimental, that QM randomness or uncertainty is truly "inherent". As far as we know right now, it is.
Are you sure about that?secur said:Uncertainty of the truth value of physical theories is inherent.
secur said:However it is sensible to look for a proof of this nature: given some other facts of physics (symmetry, conservation laws, etc) show that inherent randomness logically follows from them. For instance uncertainty principle is easily proved given the (current) fundamental math of QM (due to Dirac), which represents complementary observables such as position and momentum as Fourier transforms. That's a "conditional proof" that uncertainty is inherent.
You won't find one within the framework of QM, because it's already an axiom there.Zafa Pi said:Here is the short version of your two sentences: "We can't prove it, but we know it's true."
vanhees71 is a little more sure about things than you, I'm still hoping for a proof.
Nugatory said:The randomness is already an axiom of the fundamental math of QM
As I see it, MWI just moves the randomness around. No matter which interpretation I choose the mathematical formalism will not allow me predict the outcome of my measurement even with complete knowledge of the initial conditions. Yes, with MWI I don't have the wave function collapsing to a random value with probabilities given by the Born rule, but instead I'm left wondering why I'm looking at this measurement result instead of one of the others that also happened.PeterDonis said:The existence of no collapse interpretations like the MWI would seem to indicate that this can't be right. In the MWI, there is no randomness; the quantum state evolves by unitary evolution, which is perfectly reversible and deterministic. And there is no randomness in measurement results, because all measurement results happen. In fact, the challenge of the MWI is to explain how the Born rule for "probabilities" arises since there are no probabilities in the fundamental math.
PeterDonis said:The existence of no collapse interpretations like the MWI would seem to indicate that this can't be right. In the MWI, there is no randomness; the quantum state evolves by unitary evolution, which is perfectly reversible and deterministic. And there is no randomness in measurement results, because all measurement results happen. In fact, the challenge of the MWI is to explain how the Born rule for "probabilities" arises since there are no probabilities in the fundamental math.
Nugatory said:No matter which interpretation I choose the mathematical formalism will not allow me predict the outcome of my measurement even with complete knowledge of the initial conditions.
Nugatory said:instead I'm left wondering why I'm looking at this measurement result instead of one of the others that also happened.
secur said:MWI says that from the observer's point of view fundamental math of QM is correct.
secur said:MWI adds an extra superstructure: many worlds in a Block Universe.
Or when a godist says, "There is a god."Nugatory said:The current state of affairs is "QM is inherently random.
John Lennon said:I don't believe in magic
I don't believe in I-ching
I don't believe in Bible
I don't believe in Tarot
I don't believe in Hitler
I don't believe in Jesus
I don't believe in Kennedy
I don't believe in Buddha
I don't believe in Mantra
I don't believe in Gita
I don't believe in Yoga
I don't believe in Kings
I don't believe in Elvis
I don't believe in Zimmerman
I don't believe in Beatles
I just believe in me, Yoko and me, and that's reality
As an apatheist, it isn't that I don't believe in, say inherent randomness or god, it's that I'm apathetic, I just don't care.secur said:@Zafa Pi, you remind me of ...
I'm even more apatheistic than John Lennon: I don't believe in Yoko either :-)
but is cannot be modeled using classical mechanics. Spectrosdcopy was also known before QM, but classical mechanics has no explanation or even place for it.Zafa Pi said:Are you saying CM forbids atomic decay? Decay was certainly known before QM.
One can predict with QM the rate of decay. If this is a tautology then all theoretical physics is, since one can notice everything it predicts correctly!Zafa Pi said:1st off a radioactive atom is one where we notice decay, so the first half of his statement is a tautology.
QM predicts spectra, CM doesn't.Zafa Pi said:how to eloquently distinguish classical and quantum physics. What I mean by eloquent is both simple and short. By simple I mean understandable to any college freshman, and with that caveat, as short as possible.
Not too simple for me. I don't get it.houlahound said:Is this too simple;
The experimental outcomes of QT depend on the integer parameter "n", CM the outcomes do not vary.
I agree that saying, "One can predict with QM the rate of decay." is not a tautology. But your earlier statement, "A radioactive atom decays according to QM" is what I was referring to.A. Neumaier said:One can predict with QM the rate of decay. If this is a tautology then all theoretical physics is, since one can notice everything it predicts correctly!
Wow, I always thought that lifetime till decay was governed by an exponential distribution and was well documented by experiment. I'm not familiar with your explanation, but what is the law in that case?vanhees71 said:Note that this is an approximation, which is strictly speaking contradicting basic principles of quantum field theory, namely the unitarity of the S-matrix, according to which there cannot be any strictly exponential decay law (see the textbook of Sakurai, 2nd edition). In the energy domain that's the statement that the spectral function of the unstable state cannot be a strict Lorentzian.
True enough, and nicely short. But what I was after in my OP was something a college freshman would understand.houlahound said:Tunnelling in general is pure QM.