New papers on randomness and QM, need insight please

[Adrian Lee]

Hi,new college guy here,previewing next year's work.
Been seeing these articles,written by reputed physicists.
1.
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/5/519
this one claims that quantum randomness is false.does this argument be strong enough to rule out QM's so-called randomness?I understand that physicists try to recover determinism and i respect those works,but is it this easy?
2.
on the contrary we have these done by FQXI
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-70354-7
in which people argue .
pages17-45 authors shows that (Bohmian,t'hooft)models of deterministic hidden variables are ruled out,thus determinism too...
3.
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/6/772/htm#B168-entropy-23-00772
Argues time does not exist at quantum level.
How meaningful are these articles?Especially 1,recent hot threads on PF talks about this topic.What do you think of the argument that quantum randomness is chimeric?

 

[Demystifier]

For all practical purposes quantum phenomena appear random. Whether this randomness is fundamental or emergent from deterministic laws, we don't know. It is possible to reformulate quantum laws such that they are deterministic at the fundamental law, but it's not easy. One possible route to this is Bohmian mechanics, which is not ruled out.

 

[Adrian Lee]

For all practical purposes quantum phenomena appear random. Whether this randomness is fundamental or emergent from deterministic laws, we don't know. It is possible to reformulate quantum laws such that they are deterministic at the fundamental law, but it's not easy. One possible route to this is Bohmian mechanics, which is not ruled out.

Thanks Demystifier!Known you and your work from a forum in my country long ago (paper in2010)!

 

[Adrian Lee]

For all practical purposes quantum phenomena appear random. Whether this randomness is fundamental or emergent from deterministic laws, we don't know. It is possible to reformulate quantum laws such that they are deterministic at the fundamental law, but it's not easy. One possible route to this is Bohmian mechanics, which is not ruled out.

Another thing,the author here claims for no Everett or something ,he seems to indicate that randomness comes from the unknown disturbance from measurements.is this sth new?Did you read the paper?

 

[Adrian Lee]

Another thing,the author here claims for no Everett or something ,he seems to indicate that randomness comes from the unknown disturbance from measurements.is this sth new?Did you read the paper?

Or I guess the author didn't (or in principle cannot) intend to prove that randomness is epistemic,since he pointed out himself:this is not objectifiable.Is this correct?

 

[Demystifier]

Did you read the paper?

I did not.

 

[Adrian Lee]

I did not.

The author’s point is that epistemological randomness pervades our universe so much, that we can never have a system that is purely ontologically random.

Or I guess the author didn't (or in principle cannot) intend to prove that randomness is epistemic,since he pointed out himself:this is not objectifiable.Is this correct?

Nevermind,do you think this is correct?

 

[Demystifier]

Nevermind,do you think this is correct?

I think this is not even wrong.

 

[vanhees71]

Hm, yes. I'm a bit in doubt about the entire publisher, mdpi and about the journal "entropy" in particular. It has been on Beall's list of predatory journals once but was removed again later. I'm not sure whether the latter decision was a good one. For my taste there are too many articles on the edge of being crackpotery.

 

[Adrian Lee]

Hm, yes. I'm a bit in doubt about the entire publisher, mdpi and about the journal "entropy" in particular. It has been on Beall's list of predatory journals once but was removed again later. I'm not sure whether the latter decision was a good one. For my taste there are too many articles on the edge of being crackpotery.

Lots of great physicists admire this one(Frank Wilczek ,Caslav Brukner...)
It's like a mixture of good and bad maybe.

Hm, yes

On my early question,yes?

 

[Adrian Lee]

I think this is not even wrong.

Sorry.

 

[andresB]

Hm, yes. I'm a bit in doubt about the entire publisher, mdpi and about the journal "entropy" in particular. It has been on Beall's list of predatory journals once but was removed again later. I'm not sure whether the latter decision was a good one. For my taste there are too many articles on the edge of being crackpotery.

One of the very few articles citing my work (that are not self-cites) is from mdpi-universe. It's from a reputable author, but reading the publisher is shady makes me sad.

 

[DrChinese]

How meaningful are these articles?Especially 1,recent hot threads on PF talks about this topic.What do you think of the argument that quantum randomness is chimeric?

First, this discussion belongs in the Interpretations subforum: https://www.physicsforums.com/forums/quantum-interpretations-and-foundations.292/

Second, these are not good papers to reference for the correctness of their ideas. It is pretty much in the realm of pure speculation, this from the summary of the first paper.

"[R]andomness extracted from coherent superpositions or linear combinations of the quantum state might be based on the complexity of the environment rather than on the intrinsic, ontologic “oracle” nature of the state."

Third, many folks believe there is an underlying (and necessarily per Bell) nonlocal explanation for the apparent randomness in the quantum world. However, there is not a scintilla of evidence to point to an underlying cause for the observed outcome of a single measurement on a quantum superposition. Simply saying "it could be elsewhere" isn't exactly a convincing argument, and it certainly isn't new or novel. Authors have been questioning/speculating about this for the better part of 100 years.

 

[PeterDonis]

this discussion belongs in the Interpretations subforum

Yes, agreed. Thread has been moved.

 

[Demystifier]

One of the very few articles citing my work

May I ask what is your work about?

 

[andresB]

May I ask what is your work about?

here you have

https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.01617

(though, nowadays I mostly abandoned the Euler-Heisenberg electrodynamics in favor of operational classical mechanics, for example https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03982)

 

[Adrian Lee]

First, this discussion belongs in the Interpretations subforum: https://www.physicsforums.com/forums/quantum-interpretations-and-foundations.292/

Second, these are not good papers to reference for the correctness of their ideas. It is pretty much in the realm of pure speculation, this from the summary of the first paper.

"[R]andomness extracted from coherent superpositions or linear combinations of the quantum state might be based on the complexity of the environment rather than on the intrinsic, ontologic “oracle” nature of the state."

Third, many folks believe there is an underlying (and necessarily per Bell) nonlocal explanation for the apparent randomness in the quantum world. However, there is not a scintilla of evidence to point to an underlying cause for the observed outcome of a single measurement on a quantum superposition. Simply saying "it could be elsewhere" isn't exactly a convincing argument, and it certainly isn't new or novel. Authors have been questioning/speculating about this for the better part of 100 years.

Ok,thanks for answering the dumb question.

 

[Adrian Lee]

Guys,unwatch the thread and leave!None of these means anything to anyone anymore,back to your more meaningful work guys,stop receiving alerts from here.