The discussion centers on the nature of randomness in quantum mechanics, specifically addressing whether phenomena like wavefunction collapse are purely random. Participants reference Richard Feynman's views and the implications of hidden variable theories, emphasizing that while quantum mechanics appears random, the possibility of underlying deterministic factors remains unproven. The consensus is that current evidence strongly supports the randomness of quantum events, yet the philosophical debate about the nature of this randomness continues.
PREREQUISITESPhysicists, students of quantum mechanics, philosophers of science, and anyone interested in the foundational debates surrounding the nature of reality and randomness in quantum physics.
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.