B Understanding randomness in universe

AI Thread Summary
In a one-particle universe, the concept of randomness is limited as the evolution of the particle is governed by its Hamiltonian without any meaningful measurement. Introducing additional particles complicates the scenario, as their interactions lead to more complex dynamics. However, without a macroscopic measuring device, the notion of measurement remains ambiguous, suggesting that randomness may not truly exist. This discussion highlights a variation of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. Understanding these principles is essential for exploring the nature of randomness in the universe.
shivakumar
Messages
12
Reaction score
6
TL;DR Summary
finding randomness in single particle universe and understand randomness in nature
how will randomness of particle be in one particle universe? how will it evolve with two, three or four particle based universe?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
shivakumar said:
TL;DR Summary: finding randomness in single particle universe and understand randomness in nature

how will randomness of particle be in one particle universe? how will it evolve with two, three or four particle based universe?
As far as QM is concerned, a universe with a small number of particles will evolve under the Hamiltonian associated with their mutual interaction. Without a macroscopic measuring device, the question of a measurement of the particles is meaningless. In that sense there is no randomness.

That is one variation of the so-called measurement problem.
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Proper Understanding of Dynamical Systems and State Space
Replies
5
Views
912
Understanding Random Particle Motion in a Monoatomic Gas
Replies
9
Views
2K
I Is there a way in Lagrangian mechanics to incorporate the inertial response from initial momentum when using initial conditions instead of BCs?
Replies
9
Views
985
I Understanding Randomness in Brownian Matter
Replies
4
Views
1K
B Conservation of Momentum for system of particles
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
I Newton's Third Law: Action & Reaction Along the Line Connecting Two Objects
Replies
5
Views
1K
B How did the universe start and evolve into what it is today?
Replies
24
Views
3K
B Does the Schrödinger Equation Imply a Deterministic Universe?
Replies
4
Views
2K
B Dark Energy: Are We All Missing The Obvious?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Equation for Brownian Motion Trajectory
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top