|
Quite the opposite, in fact.
I don't like to disagree with you, but... I disagree. Being a physicist means accepting common consensus. I'm no physicist! I just like physics.
However, the purpose of physics is not to reveal what is True, rather it is to reveal what can be predicted, and to what extent it can be predicted.
Yeah, we've had this discussion before, and I get it. This is why I'm no physicist. I'm more interested in "why" than prediction. In the context of this discussion, apparent randomness is an excellent prediction tool. But it does nothing to explain the underlying causes. It's just a method for us to predict.
Fine, that's your model. Just keep in mind that it's just as frail as the Standard Model you poopood on for simply being a model.
I'm not poopooing on anything, I'm just pointing out that it's not necessarily right. In fact we know it's not right, in a complete sense at least. I hold Einstein's Theory of Relativity in the highest regard, but that is also incomplete. Me saying "randomness is an emergent property and not an inherent one" is not really a model, it's a belief. It's almost religious, only it's not based on a book, or culture. It's not a delusion, not least because I'm open to be proven wrong.
Does your model predict anything that is either not predicted by the current physical models, or which is at odds with same?
Not at all. My "model" is identical, it's just I would use the caveat "apparent" or "emergent" in front of the word "randomness". In all other aspects, it is identical. The only difference is I don't like the nature of the word "randomness" because it implies no direct cause. My claim is that "if A happens, B is the outcome", as opposed to "if A happens, B or C might happen". If we find ourselves in a situation where B or C might be the outcome, then we lack complete information. That isn't at odds with the Standard Model, because the Standard Model doesn't pretend to be complete. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the question of randomness isn't a critical aspect of the SM. Whether it's inherent or emergent is irrelevant. We both agree randomness exists, we just disagree on what randomness actually is a the fundamental level.
If not, then you have re-stated the current models (or some part thereof) in a way which changes your interpretation of physics, without changing physics.
I'm not trying to change physics. I'm rejecting the idea of inherent randomness. Doing so isn't to reject physics, it's to reject an interpretation, an assumption, and replacing it with my own assumption.
Mathematically, we can rigorously calculate what "perfect random variables" "should" behave like and we can apply QM and probability theory to show what those predict, given PRV's are behind it all, and that is what experiment shows...
I'm not at all surprised that the SM successfully predicts "perfect random variables". It's like playing a googolplex of poker hands. The predictive power of probability would be awesomely accurate at this scale. Of course, you might get dealt AA a large number of times (to us) more or less than expected, but given the scale, this hardly touches the accuracy of the percentages. It would be truly negligible. QM is even more insanely complex than a googolplex of poker hands, like a googolpex orders of magnitude! The word "negligible" takes on a whole new meaning at this level. We couldn't hope to measure any discrepancy. And so randomness emerges. But is it inherent? We still haven't answered that question with any certainty, and probably never will.
"as perfect as nature allows."
This is a problem, though, isn't it? Nature can never really allow perfection in this context. No two events will share identical initial conditions. And this is pretty much the foundation on which I hold my belief... if initial conditions are never identical, then we don't need randomness to explain why apparently similar events have different outcomes. We simply need to acknowledge that there's a difference between similar and identical.
Also, this is a logical consequence to your asserted model. If the SM is incomplete, yet as complete as observation allows, and we can prove that even if there are variables we cannot observe, that those variables do not act "locally," that is, in accordance with GR, then you must be right. There are hidden variables that act non-locally, which our current model has absolutely no means of dealing with, because our model is based on what can be observed, and "hidden" means unobservable, so we're screwed.
It seems to me that "randomness" in QM is a hidden variable. It's just an accepted one because of the predictive power of probability on this scale. As I understand it, hidden variables are a problem, so much so that any theory that has hidden variables is roundly rejected and pushed to the fringe. That was the fate of Pilot Wave Theory, at least until it was realised that the hidden variables are global, not local... which isn't so much of a problem. The wave function still contains all the information governing the behaviour of a particle.
It's just that Quantum randomness is an altogether different beast.
Indeed. Quantum systems are unfathomably complex. One event might have a different outcome if the only initial condition that has changed is the distance to a far-away black hole by a matter of meters. If such a seemingly irrelevant change in initial conditions can result in a different outcome, this is what I mean by unfathomably complex.
I know this isn't physics. I'm not pretending it is. This is physics flavoured philosophy.
|