The discussion revolves around the relationship between mechanics and probability in the context of fair dice and the double slit experiment in quantum mechanics. Participants explore whether there is a deterministic process analogous to the mechanics of dice that could explain the probabilistic outcomes observed in the double slit experiment.
Participants express disagreement regarding the existence of a deterministic process analogous to mechanics in the context of quantum outcomes. There is no consensus on whether probability acts on photons or if other causes are postulated.
Participants note that interpretations of quantum mechanics can yield the same predictive results, but the philosophical implications and the nature of probability in quantum mechanics remain unresolved.
Pjpic said:The number that comes up on a die seems to be determined by mechanics - not probability; eventhough dice are used to explain probability. Is there a analogus process that determines where a photon will fall in the double split experiment - eventhough it is explained by probability?
DrChinese said:No, there is no known analogous explanation.
1. Most quantum physicists do not think such exists, and current theory does not provide for such an explanation.
If it is not intial conditions, is probability itself thought to be acting on the photons, is it just left as an unknown, or is there some other cause postulated?
Pjpic said:DrChinese said:No, there is no known analogous explanation.
1. Most quantum physicists do not think such exists, and current theory does not provide for such an explanation.
If it is not intial conditions, is probability itself thought to be acting on the photons, is it just left as an unknown, or is there some other cause postulated?
No one really knows. If you follow the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, you will see that there are opinions all over the place. But everyone pretty well accepts that Quantum Mechanics, where it does speak, is correct.
So a lot of the interpretations are considered philosophical in some respects as the predictive results are all the same in every interpretation. Again, there are no shortage of viewpoints. That does not mean you are free to invent your own and it would be accepted: any interpretation that yields predictions different than QM wouldn't make sense. So there are significant constraints.