Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are there any philosophical or other implications to the underlying randomness« on: 07/06/2023 00:57:00 »
Thanks for your patience.Clearly I am poorly versed in Bell's theorem and also the localism vs realism question.As I hope I have understood Bell's theorem has clarified the random nature of physical interactionsDid it have much (anything?) to say about randomness? It seems that quantum theory in the first place (well before Bell came along) demonstrated the fundamental probabilistic nature of empirical things.
There were two principles held shortly after the turn of the 20th century: Realism and locality. The former says that things exist (a system is in a particular state) independent of measurement. The latter says that the effect cannot be separated from its cause in a space-like manner, or that cause-effect cannot move faster than light. Bell demonstrated that (barring superdeterminism), at least one of these principles must be false.Quotewe do only have interactions rather than isolated events don't we?I don't know what you mean by these things. An interaction is something that happens over time between different systems. An event (as usually used in physics) is a point in spacetime, but it also might be used to describe an occurrence, such as a particle interaction, say that shown by a Feynman diagram. In that sense, an interaction is a form of event. The decay of some nucleus is an event that isn't an interaction since there is but the one system.QuoteSo if the random event is something of a ground zero in our understanding of the physical world what else can we say about it aside from just accepting it and building on it?Again, I don't understand. Our understanding of the world isn't grounded on one event, or a group of them. There's a lot more to it.QuoteAre we still allowed to believe that randomness can still.be investigate to a deeper level of understanding or is this as far as things go?My apologies, but again, I don't know what's being asked. Measurements seem probabilistic by nature, but there are interpretations of QM that are not random at all, so the perceived randomness is hardly fundamental since it cannot be conclusively demonstrated.
Thanks for your descriptions of them
I also assumed that randomness was the only interpretation of QM that was accepted .
I suppose I may learn more from my errors than by trying to buildi on my imaginings.
I will need a little time for the lessons to sink in.
When I said that interactions were more descriptive than events (not using "event" to mean a geometric point in spacetime) I was expressing my feeling that everything has to have an environment to play out in.
So the decay of the nucleus is only of significance when it is measured (to my mind) and this "measurement" is a synonym with "interaction"
As the saying goes ,one hand does not clap and the nucleus decays into or from something ,doesn't it?
Do you stand by your explanation that some occurrences (eg nuclear decay) take place on their own and without a "partner" in the physical environment (the wider system they are part of)?
More generally,perhaps are not all systems ,large or small interconnected?
The following users thanked this post: Zer0