Is Quantum Statistics Self-Defeating?

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of independent probability and the potential effects of observation on quantum statistics. The speaker poses the question of whether observation can alter the probability of an event occurring and mentions the idea of a "Murphy's Law of event-related statistics." The conversation also touches on the relationship between discrete and continuous cases and the paradox of observation potentially affecting the outcome of an event.
  • #1
vtmemo
7
0
Okay, here's the deal.

We all know the law of independent probability after a broken sequence. For example, if you were to flip a coin 100 times, the first 90 times coming up heads and the last one tails. We all know that each flip is 'independent' of the last flip so long as they are taken as an individual occurence.

However, the odds of flipping a coin Heads 90 times in a row is relatively slim, thus making the odds of a Tails flip on the last one seem bigger. It's like saying "the odds against this streak occurring are high, so there is a higher probability that a flip will occur that breaks the run than one that continues it."

Here comes the big question: is quantum statistics self-defeating? That is, does observation on a quantum level change that which we observe because of sequential laws governing statistics?

For example, let's say there's an almost-infinitely improbable event that we wish to observe. Does the fact that we are observing every passing second of that event "not" occurring increase the probability of it actually occurring? I guess another way to say the idea would be:
"As the probability of something occurring approaches zero on a quantum level, the probability of it *actually* occurring under observation increases, in the sense that it will occur under observation AT ALL"

I dunno. Feels kinda like a Murphy's Law of event-related statistics, or some sort of "you can't observe it without changing it" theory.
I got bored at work :rolleyes:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It dounds like you're talking about moving from discrete -> discrete cases to continuous -> discrete (like the Poisson distribution). It's hard to compare the two!
 
  • #3
It's like saying "the odds against this streak occurring are high, so there is a higher probability that a flip will occur that breaks the run than one that continues it."
This is wrong. The odds against 90 heads in a row aren't high if you've already seen 89...

Or to put it another way, out of 90 flips, getting 89 heads in a row followed by a tail is just as unlikely as getting 90 heads in a row.

We all know that each flip is 'independent' of the last flip so long as they are taken as an individual occurence.
Being independent means you can treat them each individually. If you couldn't do so, then they wouldn't be independent.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
The only sense in which I can relate to vtmemo's question is to think in terms of a hazard function. Every minute passing without a hazard occurring increases the chances that it will be observed in the next minute. There is a well-developed literature.
 
  • #5
A (somewhat) related paradox is "barium (?) atoms will never reach the boiling point if they are being watched" (or "a watched pot never boils"). There was a thread on this somewhere on these forums. I think someone also published an article.
 

What is "offbeat statistics, but fun"?

"Offbeat statistics, but fun" is a term used to describe unusual or unconventional statistical analyses that are not commonly seen in traditional research. These analyses often involve unique or creative approaches to data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

Why is "offbeat statistics, but fun" important?

"Offbeat statistics, but fun" can be important because it allows researchers to think outside the box and explore new ideas or hypotheses. These unconventional approaches can lead to innovative discoveries and contribute to the advancement of science.

What are some examples of "offbeat statistics, but fun"?

Some examples of "offbeat statistics, but fun" include using social media data to predict stock market trends, analyzing patterns in music lyrics to understand cultural shifts, and using machine learning algorithms to predict sports outcomes.

How can "offbeat statistics, but fun" benefit society?

"Offbeat statistics, but fun" can benefit society by providing new insights and perspectives on various topics, such as consumer behavior, public health, and economic trends. These unconventional approaches can also inspire creativity and innovation in other areas of research and industry.

What are some challenges of using "offbeat statistics, but fun"?

Some challenges of using "offbeat statistics, but fun" include the potential for unvalidated or unreliable data sources, the need for specialized skills and knowledge to conduct these analyses, and the potential for bias or misinterpretation of results. It is important for researchers to carefully consider these challenges and address them in their analyses.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
4
Views
995
  • Quantum Physics
5
Replies
143
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
676
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top