Notices

View Poll Results: At the quantum scale, physics is?

Voters
8. You may not vote on this poll
  • Stochastic

    5 62.50%
  • Deterministic

    3 37.50%
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Poll, Stochastic Vs. Deterministic.

  1. #1 Poll, Stochastic Vs. Deterministic. 
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,279
    At the quantum scale, physics is?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Poll, Stochastic Vs. Deterministic. 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    At the quantum scale, physics is?
    There is no point in a poll. Quantum mechanics only predicts probabilities.

    What you have in quantum mechannics a deterministic evolution of a set of probability measures. In order to make a measurement you invoke the probability measures, so the theory is stochastic.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,279
    so the theory is stochastic.
    You know that, I know that. But there are people out there, wandering around with Stephen Hawking book's under their arm's, saying different. What do I tell them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    421
    Who are these people? If only I really did see people wandering around carrying physics books under their arms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    I thik he means this post:http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...hlight=#247001
    Quote Originally Posted by saul
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Fuck determinism.
    On the quantum scale physics is stochastic and not wholly deterministic.
    anyone who has read hawkings book "a brief history of time" should be able to understand that determinism is accurate even on the quantum scale if you have the initial conditions. our issues with determinism arise from the fact that we don't have initial conditions. your interpretation is inaccurate, and you don't offer any evidence to support your claims. i point to a book written by an expert on the topic, do experts agree that dark matter or some other exotic thing is involved in human biology?

    I'm confused too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,279
    Quote Originally Posted by salsaonline
    Who are these people? If only I really did see people wandering around carrying physics books under their arms.
    I've carried a physics book around before. Even read it. Have you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Quote Originally Posted by salsaonline
    Who are these people? If only I really did see people wandering around carrying physics books under their arms.
    I've carried a physics book around before. Even read it. Have you?
    Have I what? Read a physics book?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Quote Originally Posted by salsaonline
    Who are these people? If only I really did see people wandering around carrying physics books under their arms.
    I've carried a physics book around before. Even read it. Have you?
    Be careful who you pick on. Salsaonline has most definitely read a physics book or three, and quite a few more mathematics books. You are fighting WAY outside your weight cloass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    so the theory is stochastic.
    You know that, I know that. But there are people out there, wandering around with Stephen Hawking book's under their arm's, saying different. What do I tell them?
    if you observe exactly what dr rocket said. it is a deterministic prediction of propabilities. the propabilities only come in from the measurements we take. as he said here:

    What you have in quantum mechannics a deterministic evolution of a set of probability measures. In order to make a measurement you invoke the probability measures, so the theory is stochastic.
    in my post on another topic that you saw fit to refute not in front of me but off on another topic, i had merely stated this fact. if you have a measurement that is 100% accurate then the system is deterministic. and i also stated that we have no such measurement through my reference to the uncertainty principle.

    in the future if you see it fit to argue what i say without fully understanding it, at least do so in front of me. a private message asking me to explain what i said would have cleared this whole deal up.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by saul
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    so the theory is stochastic.
    You know that, I know that. But there are people out there, wandering around with Stephen Hawking book's under their arm's, saying different. What do I tell them?
    if you observe exactly what dr rocket said. it is a deterministic prediction of propabilities. the propabilities only come in from the measurements we take. as he said here:

    What you have in quantum mechannics a deterministic evolution of a set of probability measures. In order to make a measurement you invoke the probability measures, so the theory is stochastic.
    in my post on another topic that you saw fit to refute not in front of me but off on another topic, i had merely stated this fact. if you have a measurement that is 100% accurate then the system is deterministic. and i also stated that we have no such measurement through my reference to the uncertainty principle.

    in the future if you see it fit to argue what i say without fully understanding it, at least do so in front of me. a private message asking me to explain what i said would have cleared this whole deal up.
    You misunderstood what I said.

    Quantum mechanics is inherently stochastic.

    The probability measure evolves deterministically, but all observables are random variables.

    One does not get the same outcome for repeated experiments under the same conditions. One only gets outcomes that are consistent with the probability calculated for those outcomes. Take a tunnel diode, a device that utilizes an inherently quantum mechanical phenomena. One cannot predict which electrons will pass through the potential barrier and which will not. One can only predict the likelihood that tunneling will occur.

    The critical difference between quantum mechanics and classical physical theories, including general relativity, is that quantum mechanics only predicts probabilities. It is an inherently stochastic theory.

    It does not matter how accurate your measurement might be in principle. If you could measure postion precisely, then what the uncertainty principle would tell you is that you no idea whatever what the momentum might be. A precise measurement does not change the stochastic nature of quantum mechanics, it only makes uncertainty in the complimentary variable unbounded.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,279
    Quote Originally Posted by salsaonline
    Who are these people? If only I really did see people wandering around carrying physics books under their arms.
    I was in a combative mood when I read your above statement, and there projected my own hostilities. Sorry. I see that actually, it is a wistful statement of a better world. And I concur.

    P.S. I have not yet voted in this poll. Check the result's.
    Edit; Sun, May 23, 12:12 PM; Okay, now I've voted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    so the theory is stochastic.
    You know that, I know that. But there are people out there, wandering around with Stephen Hawking book's under their arm's, saying different. What do I tell them?
    I like to tell them that Einstein said "God does not play dice.", then got into debate after debate with Neils Bohr and the other Quantum physicists until one day Bohr finally cornered him and he had to admit he was wrong.

    That's kind of generalized, because I think Einstein kept holding on to his determinism as best he could, but he was never able to gain ground in his debates over it after that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    so the theory is stochastic.
    You know that, I know that. But there are people out there, wandering around with Stephen Hawking book's under their arm's, saying different. What do I tell them?
    I like to tell them that Einstein said "God does not play dice.", then got into debate after debate with Neils Bohr and the other Quantum physicists until one day Bohr finally cornered him and he had to admit he was wrong.

    That's kind of generalized, because I think Einstein kept holding on to his determinism as best he could, but he was never able to gain ground in his debates over it after that.
    Bohr told Einstein to refrain from telling God what to do.

    I don't think that Einstein ever really gave up his philosophy that physics should be deterministic. He did not live to see the results of the EPR experiments.

    Even today there are serious physicists pursuing deterministic models. I don't think many people, even some of these researchers, hold out much hope. Nature, at the quantum level really does appear to be stochastic. Recent experiments do nothing to dispel the "weirdness", only reinforce it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •