Is True Randomness a Fundamental Aspect of the Universe?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dilsfunspot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Randomness
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the existence of true randomness in the universe, particularly at subatomic levels, and whether this randomness is a fundamental aspect of nature. Participants explore various interpretations of randomness, including its implications in quantum mechanics and deterministic processes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that true randomness exists at subatomic levels, particularly in quantum mechanics, where wavefunction collapse leads to unpredictable outcomes upon measurement.
  • Others argue that what is perceived as randomness may stem from hidden deterministic processes that are not yet understood, referencing local hidden variable interpretations and Bell's inequality.
  • A participant suggests that the definition of "true randomness" is unclear, emphasizing that randomness may depend on our knowledge of the underlying processes generating sequences.
  • Some participants mention that while quantum randomness is widely accepted, proving it remains a challenge, and they express skepticism about ever being able to definitively prove something as truly random.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of pseudo-random number generators and their ability to pass tests for randomness, leading to questions about the reliability of current methods for detecting true randomness.
  • Participants highlight that certain physical processes, like radioactive decay, are often cited as examples of randomness, although the interpretation of this randomness is debated.
  • One participant notes that if quantum mechanics is not truly random, it would imply the existence of hidden variables, which have been challenged by experimental results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the existence of true randomness. Multiple competing views are presented, with some asserting that quantum mechanics implies true randomness, while others maintain that deterministic explanations could still apply.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the ambiguity surrounding the definition of "true randomness," the dependence on current understanding of quantum mechanics, and the unresolved nature of hidden variable theories.

  • #31
lasix said:
If your question is regarding nature - Yes randomness exists. Why was that the last potato chip? Why did a tree grow there? Why are you the way you are and your genes mix the way they did upon conception...

If your question is regarding random number/number generators/roulette wheel - No. There is always some bias weather it is due to the amount of ink on the bingo ball making it somewhat heavier. an ever so slightly different shape to the lotto ball that makes it catch the air differently. A so slightly manufactured roulette wheel with 0.030 inch tolerances for size variation... or a number matrix used to calculate the next "random" number - which could of course be utilized to calculate the next number if the formula and matrix were known.

Why do you think that similar small biases and correlations don't exist in the things that you list in your first paragraph?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Interesting thread.

Even if there is a hidden mechanism explaining the apparent randomness on a quantum level, quantum physics explicitly prevents us from accessing that information.

Thus QM, for all intents and purposes is random.

That's the general gist I get from QM people I talk to anyway.

Claude.
 
  • #33
random my butt

Notwithstanding Daudo's, "...discard out of hand any non-local explanation.", I propose that, "Perfect randomness is impossible."! If this is true, (please don't, "discard this out of hand"), then which of the three laws of thermodynamics is wrong?
 
  • #34
atoms555 said:
Notwithstanding Daudo's, "...discard out of hand any non-local explanation.", I propose that, "Perfect randomness is impossible."! If this is true, (please don't, "discard this out of hand"), then which of the three laws of thermodynamics is wrong?

Why would any of them have to be wrong? Can you elaborate the point of the question?
 
  • #35
Classical mechanics carried the general knowledge that everything was predictable. There is now a fair amount of experimental evidence within quantum mechanics saying that many things in our universe are random.
 
  • #36
Great question, dilsfunspot. I propose that perfect randomness not only doesn't exist--it is impossible! If this is true, what is the ramification of this in physics?
 
  • #37
I don't think that randomness exist. Technically you can study every particle and it's place in space and you can pretty much know what's going to happen next. Everything happens for a reason
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Steven Heath

Similar threads

Undergrad Parallel universes and randomness
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Can Deterministic Chaos Mimic True Randomness?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Undergrad Some questions about Coleman's Baby Universe model
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate Is non-locality a necessary consequence of the Bell theorem?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Graduate How does Bohmian Mechanics actually replicate QM?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Graduate So, does God play dice with the Universe or not?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
Graduate Can the following explain randomness in quantum events?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
Graduate Can Randomness be Predictable in Quantum Physics?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Absolute compression = true randomness?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Graduate Decoherence and the randomness of collapse
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
8K