Page Nav


Classic Header




How to incorporate indeterminacy into a definite system?

There was a discussion in the earlier thoughts about Bell's inequality. This proven theory undoubtedly showed that the quantum wor...

There was a discussion in the earlier thoughts about Bell's inequality. This proven theory undoubtedly showed that the quantum world is really a strange world, where the action in the distance phenomena is an actual property of specific interactions. We do not know how, but it happens, we can see it. Bell's theory even proved that the locally acting laws could not govern the quantum world, where entanglement exists.

It was an attempt in earlier thoughts to find a possible setting, which could provide the effect of the entanglement without the "spooky action in the distance." It was a proposal, which suggested synchronicity between the entangled particles. Synchronicity may save locality for the quantum world but not without an explanation of the unpredictability, the randomness of that world.

The only possible solution if we want to save our real-world from the non-locality, from the instant distance effect, which seems to be acting in the quantum world,  if the collapse of the quantum probability wave is not a random phenomenon.

What kind of physical process can act as a random process but it is really not, random and at the same time deterministic?

Why we use the thrown up coin for events that we want to be random? Because in the given situation, the tossed coin lands on its either side "randomly." Actually, the coin is not acting randomly. If we could measure all the physical parameters of the throw and all of the environment, we could predict the result. In an actual situation, we do not measure all the parameters of the toss, so it behaves as a random result to us. It usually is. If we carry out this experiment, the chance of the tale and the head is the same in the long run. However, we must have to be aware of another circumstance in the randomly behaving case of the coin, if we want it to remain a random event. The initial conditions, the initial parameters, the toss must remain different for every instance. It is not difficult to achieve that. It would be rather difficult to throw the coin in the same way, even just twice. Actually, tossing a coin is a pseudo-random event. It behaves randomly because we do not care, we do not want to know, or we can't know the throw's initial parameters. Otherwise, the throw would be predictable.

How could we toss a coin in a controlled environment and still maintain the "random" behavior? Let's fix the coin at its diameter to a rod, and start to rotate the rod. The coin will rotate with the rod at the rod's rotating speed. We can change the rotation speed of the coin by rotating the rod at different speeds in this experiment.

Try to stop the rotation, when the coin is facing toward the head. When the rotation is slow, the task is easy. We can do it by hand. If the rotation is faster, we may need a machine to watch and act more quickly. As the speed of the rotation is faster and faster, we need a better and better mechanism to watch and respond quicker and quicker. And as the rotation is faster and faster, we may reach the limit of our technical capabilities, and we cannot make a more precise machine to register the coin rotation. There will be a technical limit of our capabilities, a rotation speed limit at which above the rotating coin behavior, on what side it will stop, become random. We just created a deterministic system, which acts randomly.

We may think, we can improve the performance of our machine, which makes the stopping of the coin, by creating a fundamentally different stopping mechanism. Instead of watching and acting when the coin turns toward its head, we can build a machine that synchronizes itself to the rotating coin. This setting is fundamentally different from the watch-and-act mechanism. Much simpler and need less processing power. We do not even need to watch the coin. We just need to modify the frequency of the stopping machine, until its stopping mechanism creates an always-head result. When it has happened, the two devices are synchronized, the randomness of the coin ceases. We can find this way, discover, that the randomly acting coin rather a deterministic system.

How about if the coin is rotating even faster. Well, just need to make the synchronization on the faster rotation speed. However, if the coin rotates faster and faster, eventually we will reach our synchronized machine technology's limit. We will not be able to synchronize with the coin, and the stopping becomes random again.

We may think, we still can stop the coin in an always head state and prove that the system is deterministic if we modify our stopping machine synchronization on a scaled-down, but in harmonic speed with the rotating coin, for example, half, third, or any but in proportionally slower speed. The stopping mechanism could act successfully and could show an always head result again. It looks like the scaled-down synchronization machine could always prove, the coin act deterministically.

However, that is not necessarily true. As the coin's rotation is faster and faster, our scaled-down stopping machine's precision must be better and better. If the coin's rotation speed is orders of magnitudes faster than our synchronously rotating stopping device, the accuracy of the stopping must be orders of magnitude better. If we reach the technical limit of our precision, our scaled-down synchronization method will not work again, and the results of the stopping of the coin become random again. Our accuracy always has limits, at least in practice, in the real world. When the rotation speed overcomes the accuracy of our capabilities by magnitudes, the experienced randomness becomes essential.

No escape from the randomness at this point. Only a fundamentally same machine as the coin's, with the same mechanism with the capability of a similar speed of rotation, would be able to demonstrate the definiteness of the rotating coin's system. Otherwise, if we do not, or cannot have such a testing tool, no way to prove that the rotating coin, which rotates at a constant speed, is actually a deterministic system. No fundamental randomness in its system, but behaves random and not determined for an outside examiner.

However, its randomness is not chaos. Its randomness has rules. Still unpredictable, but the results of our tests show patterns. In the coin's case, the pattern shows a 50-50 chance for the probability of finding the stopped coin facing head or tail. This rule is routed and comes from the coin's structure, and comes from the many magnitude higher rotation speed, where our stopping mechanism is working. A deterministic system becomes non-determined, unpredictable, but follows statistical rules, which are revealed by our experiments. It is a mystery for an outside spectator what is happening inside: a mechanism of randomness and unpredictability with precise but statistical rules.

What if we would use a more complex shape than the coin has? The randomness and unpredictability remain, but the statistics would show a more complex pattern of the results. The possible faces where the shape can stop can be several, and according to the shape itself, can show each of them with different probabilities. However, there is an important point: the sum of the probabilities always gives 100 percent. It is another golden rule, and it is the law of quantum mechanics also.

We could define systems, which are deterministic but can behave randomly, still follows statistical rules, can mimic the unpredictability of the quantum world.

The quantum particles are certainly not rotating shapes, but they can be a vibrating pattern of waves at frequencies that are many magnitudes higher than the outside world can follow. We may call it Planck's frequency, suggesting, it belongs to the quantum world, to the world with extreme values. This frequency must be extremely high compared to what we, an outside reality can reach. This frequency must belong to another level of reality. However, that reality still could be determined, fundamentally understandable, and not just by experiments, but in principle too.

This world could exist without spooky actions in the distance. The entanglement is a natural phenomenon in this world. The entangled particles are simply just synchronously vibrating waves. No need for any action between them at the moment of the measurement. They were always synchronized, always shows the connection, but without the distant action. The action occurred at the birth of these particles. They remain correlated in all of their lifetimes, yet they carry their quantumness, having the laws of the quantum world.

Is the high-frequency vibration the explanation, the fundamental reality of the quantum world? Perhaps not. Nevertheless, at least this model would save the determinism for our world. It may less exciting than the ghostly action in the distance. Moreover, it is an unproven guess too.

No comments