FZM7 Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 ---------------------------Newbie Alert! ----------------------------------------------I was thinking that so far we have not been able to confirm anything as random. We have been able to put an equation behind nearly everything we have discovered, quantum physics is an exception at the moment but soon we will uncover it too.If it is true that there is nothing random in the universe then all events that occur do so at 100% probability because when you factor in all the variables the outcome can be predicted surely. So we no longer need a multiverse to explain all the possible outcomes because technically there is only one outcome.What do you think?
Strange Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 I was thinking that so far we have not been able to confirm anything as random. Yes we have. The radioactive decay of atoms, for example. We have been able to put an equation behind nearly everything we have discovered, quantum physics is an exception at the moment but soon we will uncover it too. We have very detailed and accurate equations for quantum physics. If it is true that there is nothing random in the universe then all events that occur do so at 100% probability because when you factor in all the variables the outcome can be predicted surely. Rolling a dice is completely deterministic (non-random) so one could in principle predict the outcome. The chance of rolling a six is still 1/6 not 100% So we no longer need a multiverse to explain all the possible outcomes because technically there is only one outcome. I am nopt aware that we need a multiverse for anything. It is just an idea (or a family of ideas) with no evidence. What do you think? Hmmm... not much.
FZM7 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Yes we have. The radioactive decay of atoms, for example. We have the Hidden Variable Theory too though. We have very detailed and accurate equations for quantum physics. I meant that as an explanation of phenomenon like decay. Its a new field and there is a lot that we not know, maybe it could explain Rolling a dice is completely deterministic (non-random) so one could in principle predict the outcome. The chance of rolling a six is still 1/6 not 100% Indeed it is but I meant that the chances of getting a 6 in a certain set of conditions could be either 0% or 100% I am nopt aware that we need a multiverse for anything. It is just an idea (or a family of ideas) with no evidence. Haha Some of us "need" to understand the universe out of curiosity Hmmm... not much. Thanks a lot for reading and replying anyway Edited February 9, 2015 by FZM7
Strange Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 We have the Hidden Variable Theory too though. We don't have ahidden variable theory. What we do have is Bell's theorem, which tells us that no locally realistic hidden variable theory can produce the same results as a hidden variable theory. Haha Some of us "need" to understand the universe out of curiosity And I guess that is why people invent things like multiverses. I will be excited by the idea when their is evidence for it. I find it hard to get excited about speculations with no basis. Thanks a lot for reading and replying anyway You're welcome
FZM7 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Posted February 9, 2015 We don't have ahidden variable theory. What we do have is Bell's theorem, which tells us that no locally realistic hidden variable theory can produce the same results as a hidden variable theory. That is the answer I was looking for. Thanks. Could you give me a brief summary of this or a link to an article that covers it nicely ?
Strange Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 This is one of the clearest, non-technical descriptions I have seen: http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm There have been a few threads about this recently which had some good videos. This was a good one: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87347-why-hidden-variables-dont-work/ 1
FZM7 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Posted February 9, 2015 Thanks a lot Strange, you were a real help 1
Phi for All Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Haha Some of us "need" to understand the universe out of curiosity I hope you're one of those who needs to be sure and methodical about what you think you understand about the universe. Most folks here are pretty sold on science methodology. We like to trust our explanations as much as possible, and that means seeking confirmation of the evidence when you hear things like, "We have not been able to confirm anything as random".
FZM7 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 I hope you're one of those who needs to be sure and methodical about what you think you understand about the universe. Most folks here are pretty sold on science methodology. We like to trust our explanations as much as possible, and that means seeking confirmation of the evidence when you hear things like, "We have not been able to confirm anything as random". I am a newbie (yet) but I hope I will be and I will try to be solid on methodology too Sorry if it disturbed you
Phi for All Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I am a newbie (yet) but I hope I will be and I will try to be solid on methodology too Sorry if it disturbed you Stick around and you'll find that the more you use the scientific method, the better your critical thinking skills will become. Welcome to SFN, and thanks for being so willing to learn!
Mordred Posted March 15, 2015 Posted March 15, 2015 If you can supply us with a particular field of interest to study. Let us know I have a huge database of useful training guides to help.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now