About QM Interpretations

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, Martyred Goat said:

In a truly infinite series of trials, how many times will a specific event occur, given that the event has a non zero probability, however small ?

Any defined event will occur an infinite amount of times. If its probability is anything above zero then you keep going until it happens again.

A hidden variable is an unknown quantity, An unknown quantity is a variable, but it may not be hidden. I think we are using the same definitions :/ 

Thank you.

So if the set of outcomes is infinite and the set of all events, A (to give them a name) are both infinite do they have the same 'amount' (to use your words) of members?

 

An unknown quantity is not necessarily a variable in my book.

It may be a fixed invariant.

This is the difference between equality and identity in mathematics.

 

A hidden variable may be known but never explicitly calculated eg in the pharmaceutical process of 'alligation' .

There are also many examples in maths at all levels where an intermediate result has to be calculated to obtain a desired end result.

In both cases the 'hidden' variable can be recovered and calculated if desired.

The hidden variables interpretation Strange is discussion is a horse of a different colour entirely.
Read carefully what he said about them and ask questions, rather than make inappropriate pronouncements about them.

 

[Martyred Goat]

39 minutes ago, studiot said:

Thank you.

So if the set of outcomes is infinite and the set of all events, A (to give them a name) are both infinite do they have the same 'amount' (to use your words) of members?

 

It may be a fixed invariant.

This is the difference between equality and identity in mathematics.

 

A hidden variable may be known but never explicitly calculated eg in the pharmaceutical process of 'alligation' .

There are also many examples in maths at all levels where an intermediate result has to be calculated to obtain a desired end result.

In both cases the 'hidden' variable can be recovered and calculated if desired.

The hidden variables interpretation Strange is discussion is a horse of a different colour entirely.
Read carefully what he said about them and ask questions, rather than make inappropriate about them.

 

So if the set of outcomes is infinite and the set of all events, A (to give them a name) are both infinite do they have the same 'amount' (to use your words) of members?

Not necessarily. And now my words will really hold me back.... urm, they may both have an infinite "amount" after infinite iterations.... but the frequencies of positive outcomes differs.... 

(Well outside my comfort zone)

--------------------------------

An unknown quantity is not necessarily a variable in my book.

Agreed, i was wrong. 

A hidden variable is an unknown quantity. An unknown quantity is 'possibly' a variable, (possibly hidden)

------------------------------------

As for "inappropriate pronouncements", I can only word things in terms of the definitions i have. I can learn alternative definitions, and am trying. Seems my assumption was with the word "Hidden". I shall look into it. But i think "Badly Hidden" will do for now :p 

I think i need a disclaimer at the bottom of me boxes :/ 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Martyred Goat said:

 Urm.... "every action has an equal an opposite reaction" is clearly incorrect if anything can occur without cause. 

action/reaction is a Newtonian physics concept, and I don't think that you are applying it properly. Things happen spontaneously all the time, and that's not tied in with action/reaction.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Martyred Goat said:

"There are events that happen without cause, so that's not a problem."

You are saying there is a reaction with no action. So you are arguing against newtons third law.

You are misusing/misunderstanding Newton's third law.

2 hours ago, Martyred Goat said:

Please provide an example of an event without a cause.

Consider a muon. It is a fundamental particle, with no internal structure or moving parts. Leave it alone, with no interactions with anything else (in other words, nothing that happens that could be a cause) and after a few microseconds it will decay.

I know what you are going to say: "well in that case, it must have some structure that we don't know about". But that is not how science works. It doesn't invent things with no evidence just to satisfy our beliefs. It attempts to do the exact opposite: remove our beliefs and only look at the evidence. Scientifically, the muon is a fundamental particle.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Martyred Goat said:

So if the set of outcomes is infinite and the set of all events, A (to give them a name) are both infinite do they have the same 'amount' (to use your words) of members?

Not necessarily. And now my words will really hold me back.... urm, they may both have an infinite "amount" after infinite iterations.... but the frequencies of positive outcomes differs.... 

(Well outside my comfort zone)

Completely right. +1 for encouragement.

 

More later.

[Martyred Goat]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

You are misusing/misunderstanding Newton's third law.

Consider a muon. It is a fundamental particle, with no internal structure or moving parts. Leave it alone, with no interactions with anything else (in other words, nothing that happens that could be a cause) and after a few microseconds it will decay.

I know what you are going to say: "well in that case, it must have some structure that we don't know about". But that is not how science works. It doesn't invent things with no evidence just to satisfy our beliefs. It attempts to do the exact opposite: remove our beliefs and only look at the evidence. Scientifically, the muon is a fundamental particle.

So we know the muon will decay. Therefore there must be a reason for it to decay. I'm not inventing anything. The decaying muon is the evidence that it decayed for a reason. You seem to be saying that it decays for no reason. I am saying that no thing happens for no reason.... Which i thought was a given.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Martyred Goat said:

The decaying muon is the evidence that it decayed for a reason.

Well, the reason is that it is unstable and there are lower mass particles for it to decay into. But that isn't a cause. It is just a description of what is possible.

There is no clockwork mechanism that makes it decay after 2 us. There is nothing that causes it to decay at the exact time it does.

2 hours ago, Martyred Goat said:

I am saying that no thing happens for no reason....

Baseless assertions are not science.

[Martyred Goat]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is nothing that causes it to decay at the exact time it does.

But it does decay.... And it decays for a reason.... That is not a baseless assertion. If it decays, that decaying is evidence of a pre-decaying state.... and a transition from not decayed to decay. Doesn't matter what the reason for it changing is... It changes... therefore there is a reason.

I get that you may have seen evidence that says otherwise, I get that maybe you know things i don't. But trying to have someone agree that something occurs without cause.... without accepting that there may be a cause... seems incredulous to me. 

If we ever decide something happens without cause, then there is no point in looking further. If the assertion of no cause is incorrect, and no one looks further, then the mistake would never be noticed.

If i ask "why does the muon decay?" Would "I don't know why the muon decays" not be a better answer? 

If its not a better answer.... then please tell me why the muon decays...  

[Mordred]

Stange is correct in order for any particle decay to occur there must be a particle that the conservation of energy/momentum, charge, isospin color, flavor, parity etc allow. When a particle decays it must decay into another particle that satisfies those conservation laws. This is one reason why certain particles do not decay in the lifetime of our universe. There is no particle that satisfies those conservation laws for that particle to decay into.

I know this article will be beyond the majority of the readers, however It does demonstrate that the conservation laws are applied to decay rates in this paper it specifically mentions the lepton number conservation law being applied in the papers study.

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2018/reviews/rpp2018-rev-muon-decay-params.pdf

All measurements in direct muon decay, µ− → e− + 2 neutrals, and its inverse,ν µ + e− → µ− + neutral, are successfully described by the “V -A interaction,” which is a particular case of a local, derivative-free, lepton-number-conserving, four-fermion interaction

see introductory

Edited January 24, 2019 by Mordred

[Martyred Goat]

26 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Stange is correct in order for any particle decay to occur there must be a particle that the conservation of energy/momentum, charge, isospin color, flavor, parity etc allow. When a particle decays it must decay into another particle that satisfies those conservation laws. This is one reason why certain particles do not decay in the lifetime of our universe. There is no particle that satisfies those conservation laws for that particle to decay into.

Now... I am getting better with some of the technical stuff... but that is beyond me for now.

Layman level... Can i not say then that the muons entry into an environment where it does want to decay is the cause for the event and time of it? 

It still seems that (hypothetically) if i observe it decaying, then reverse time... there is a chance that the time of decay varies. If it does not, then its not true random..... if its not random.... then its deterministic? 

(I may have to leave shortly, If i don't squeeze in another noob question/complaint..... Ty Strange, Mordred and others  )

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, Martyred Goat said:

It still seems that (hypothetically) if i observe it decaying, then reverse time... there is a chance that the time of decay varies. If it does not, then its not true random..... if its not random.... then its deterministic? 

You can't reverse time. But all muons are identical. If you put them identical conditions, they will decay at different random times distributed around 2 us. That is the closest you can get to your experiment.

[Martyred Goat]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

You can't reverse time. But all muons are identical. If you put them identical conditions, they will decay at different random times distributed around 2 us. That is the closest you can get to your experiment.

Yeah, i wish i could reverse time. Can't even put them in identical positions... Do you think quantum fluctuations causes the varying decay rate... or is it just weirder than that? 

[Mordred]

Quantum fluctuations can contribute but isn't a major player. One has to get in depth on the distinction between a fluctuation or an excitation. A particle is often described as a localized field excitation under QFT treatments the fluctuations are often associated with virtual particles. Though that is an oversimplification under field treatments.

This will be easier to explain if I pull up an older thread give me a minute to track it down.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Mordred

[Martyred Goat]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Quantum fluctuations can contribute but isn't a major player. One has to get in depth on the distinction between a fluctuation or an excitation. A particle is often described as a localized field excitation under QFT treatments the fluctuations are often associated with virtual particles. Though that is an oversimplification under field treatments

That's the last straw, ima go learn about interior design instead :/