Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Thought I had on the nature of randomness.

  1. Apr 1, 2009 #1
    I have been thinking about the nature of chaos recently and thought of a different way of looking at it. What if "chaos" is really an example of information loss? My rational goes something like this:

    *classical physics as well as "common sense" suggests that the universe is run by a set of constant rules. From this we can guess that a total knowledge of all the various rules/factors involved in an event would allow us to make predictions about it that are 100% accurate. Basically if you compile a list of all the data to be found in an event(spin,temp,momentum,charge etc) you could then create a perfect model but...

    *quantum mechanics counter-intuitively suggests that it is impossible to create a 100% perfect model because there will always be a certain amount of randomness involved in any given process.

    This got me thinking that maybe "chaos" is really just information loss. Perhaps a key piece of data is lost for whatever reason thus leading to an imperfect model. We however look at this missing data and shout chaos!. So all we need to do is find a way to retrieve this lost data. Of course maybe the data is irretrievable making my distinction largely academic.

    Any thoughts on this?
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 1, 2009 #2
    1 Not all QM interpretations include randomness
    2 In QM information is not lost
  4. Apr 1, 2009 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Also, chaos is -by definition- not random.
    At least not if you by "chaos" mean the mathematical concept.
    Chaotic systems are sensitive to perturbations, but the equations describing them are -at least in principle- completely deterministic.
  5. Apr 1, 2009 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Some thoughts on this.
    In chaotic process some information lose significance and some information gain significance. If we consider that there is always some lower limit of significance that we can detect (and probably upper level too) then information that cross this border is either lost or is appearing from nowhere (even if process is deterministic).
    Good model will address this issue adequately and will maintain it's usability.
    And it seems to me that any model describing natural process taken strictly is imperfect in this sense but it does not mean that it is possible to make perfect model.
  6. Apr 3, 2009 #5
    I had the same thought as you and phrased it "When the universe does not have an answer, but is asked to give one nevertheless, then it can only give a random answer because any other answer would be wrong"
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2009
  7. Apr 3, 2009 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    And, why, then, would a random answer not be wrong?
  8. Apr 3, 2009 #7
    You can't LOSE information in quantum mecanics, but maybe your logic could have some validness if instead of being lost it, the information would naturally move, being transported place to place (maybe by fotons).
    By that logic, if you could find out how does the information escape and where it goes you could achieve a much higher percentage of exatness, however you would have to look at an atom and everything around it at the same time and track the info.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook