The discussion revolves around the nature of randomness in quantum mechanics, specifically questioning whether quantum phenomena are purely random and what constitutes proof of such randomness. Participants explore definitions of randomness, implications of measurement, and the potential existence of hidden variables.
Participants express differing views on the nature of randomness in quantum mechanics, with no consensus reached. Some believe there is strong evidence for randomness, while others question the absence of underlying causes and suggest that non-randomness has not been ruled out.
The discussion highlights the complexity of defining randomness and the implications of measurement in quantum mechanics. It also reflects the ongoing debate about the existence of hidden variables and the interpretation of quantum phenomena.
vanhees71 said:Come on! This is really an ageold discussion answered by modern QT clearly being wrong. You have only probability distributions for position and momentum!
DrChinese said:No, it doesn't. It is silent on that point, and I can't imagine what relevance that is to this thread. It is only INTERPRETATIONS of QM that have anything to say about randomness.
atyy said:Here is how Bell's theorem can guarantee randomness https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.3427
DrChinese said:Sorry, that reference has nothing to do with your assertion (beyond a casual reading of the title). I would challenge you to provide a suitable source that says that Bell's Theorem guarantees the world is - or is not - random. Short of that, it is time for you to drop this line, as it represents personal speculation on your part.
atyy said:It is a theorem, not my personal speculation.
DrChinese said:Please: what is that theorem and where is it published in peer reviewed literature?
atyy said:1. Read the reference.
2. And stop distorting what I am saying.
DrChinese said:1. The reference is unsuitable, and saying "read it" is ridiculous when you can quote whatever you think supports your assertion.
Other theorems are other theorems. Really not much to discuss about that. And there are no other theorems, the reference included, that proves whether there is or is not randomness in nature. What we have to tell us about that is observation, which clearly supports randomness in nature. But there are counter-interpretations that are viable.
If you will not support your assertions with suitable references, you can probably predict the next appropriate step. Your line of reasoning has derailed meaningful discussion of this topic.2. You are stating your position clearly, and it is incorrect. Bell is silent about the role of randomness in quantum mechanics. There is nothing in the accepted literature that says otherwise.