B Exact cause of radioactive decay?

[PeroK]

And this is the only sense in which "random" has any meaning because the only other sense of random is, "utterly and completely without cause." which we know, or should realize, is not how our world functions.

It's funny how people like you have an unshakeable faith in classical mechanics, even though it's been superseded by SR, GR and QM and particle physics in the 20th century. You assume, wrongly, that there is something fundametally unimpeachable about Newton's laws. Even though Newton himself did not share this view.

There is no point in complaining that elementary particle physics does not work the way you want it to work. No point whatsoever.

The funny thing is that with a Newtonian subatomic world, there would be no chemistry, life or anything. The physics and chemistry of the universe owes it all to QM, which facilitates a richness of phenomena beyond anything classical mechanics could produce.

You believe wrongly that something is lost with QM randomness; on the contrary, the rich physics and chemistry of universe is entirely dependent on it.

 

[PeterDonis]

If the universe isn't deterministic on the classical mechanic scale then what is it? What governs its day-to-day operation?

You keep asking questions based on the same preconceptions you have. The answers are going to continue to be the same. There is no point in continuing to go around the same merry-go-round. QM, as it currently stands, does not satisfy your preconceptions. That's all there is to it.

 

[Darwin]

It's funny how people like you have an unshakeable faith in classical mechanics, even though it's been superseded by SR, GR and QM and particle physics in the 20th century. You assume, wrongly, that there is something fundametally unimpeachable about Newton's laws. Even though Newton himself did not share this view.

"People like me"? What are "people like me," and just what pigeon-hole do I fit into?

I also find your "you assume wrongly" to be a baseless presumption. In any case. I regard SR and GR to be quite in tune with the classical mechanical world---my mistake if I've mislead you into thinking otherwise in my use of "classical mechanics" and "classical mechanical world." Thing is, I never gave SR and GR a thought.

There is no point in complaining that elementary particle physics does not work the way you want it to work. No point whatsoever.

You mistake questioning and an attempt to understand for complaining. Not good, PeroK.

You believe wrongly that something is lost with QM randomness; on the contrary, the rich physics and chemistry of universe is entirely dependent on it.

And you believe wrongly that I feel "something is lost" with QM randomness. You're jumping to another unjustified conclusion, PeroK.

 

[Darwin]

You keep asking questions based on the same preconceptions you have.

Only because PeroK brought up deterministic, classical systems in post 15. "Leaving aside QM, we have classical chaos theory. Although theoretically deterministic, classical systems of sufficiently complexity (i.e. all but the simplest, stable systems) are so . . . ."

The answers are going to continue to be the same. There is no point in continuing to go around the same merry-go-round. QM, as it currently stands, does not satisfy your preconceptions. That's all there is to it.

Sorry that your unable to see the difference between quantum mechanical operations and those that drive the classical mechanical world, which, to be clear, I see as incorporating both SR and GR.
But I agree, the inability or refusal to confront the nature of a deterministic world is disappointing, and to pursue it further to be pointless.

But thank you for your help in trying to better understand the whys and wherefores of QM. It's appreciated.

 

[PeterDonis]

Only because PeroK brought up deterministic, classical systems in post 15.

He brought up deterministic, classical models. He didn't claim that those models were the same as the actual universe. Only you are confusing the two.

Sorry that your unable to see the difference between quantum mechanical operations and those that drive the classical mechanical world

I recognize the difference in models perfectly. It's you who keep confusing the models with the actual universe. The actual universe does not care what things we choose to paste the labels "quantum" and "classical" on. It just does what it does.

 

[PeterDonis]

to pursue it further to be pointless.

Given that, this thread is closed.