• This area is a closed archive from PF2 which did not abide by the same quality standards as the current main community.

Does Quantum Randomness Influence Ordinary Experience?

In summary, the exploration of whether quantum randomness influences ordinary experience examines the implications of quantum mechanics on everyday life. The discussion highlights the distinction between quantum randomness and classical determinism, suggesting that while quantum events are inherently probabilistic, their effects may not directly manifest in macroscopic experiences. The article considers philosophical perspectives on reality, consciousness, and the extent to which quantum phenomena might subtly shape human perception and decision-making, ultimately questioning the interplay between fundamental physics and subjective experience.
  • #1
rhinehartg
Dear Folks,I have often seen it stated that quantum randomness, other than in a few very contrived situations, cannot aftect the determinacy of larger scale events.I believe that this could not (accepting only, as an initial premise, that individual quantum events really are random) be true, in view of the implications of Chaos Theory.In a nutshell, the behavior of complex systems is critidally sensitive to initial conditions. This means ANY input to the system, including that so small as to be described quantitatively as at a limit approaching zero, will be significant to the future behavior of the system. I further think it is easy to show that quantum events do provide non-zero input to large scale chaotic systems. Hence, the notion that (presumed) quantum randomness does not effect the behavior of ordinary reality, would appear to be out of date.Here is a concrete example:The radioactive isotopes of Radon gas are everywhere measurable in the air. Over time, a predictable number of these atoms will decay. Whether or not a given atom will decay, in a given time, is the sort of event which we presume to be random.Consider a samlple of air at time T. At time T+1, there are a huge number of different possible forms that air sample may assume, depending on which radon atoms decay, and which do not. On the other hand, the future of any complex system of which that air sample is a part (after time T+1), will be critically dependant upon exactly which configuration we begin with (at T+1), and therefore, critically dependant upon exactly which radon atoms decay.My concluson, would be, that at time T, the future of our chaotic system is truly undeternined, because the inital conditions at time T+1 have not yet been "randomly" produced. Thus, quantum randomness will, in this example, affect ordinary reality, on any scale, in which the composition of any air sample, is considered input to the behavior of any complex system. And this situation can hardly be characterized as exceptional, or contrived.Remember, that I have stipulated that we presume quantum events really are random.Is my conclusion correct ?Regards,Rhinehart G.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You showed that quantum events affect the microscopic behavior of any system. But you haven't shown that the macroscopic properties (which are the only thing we are sensitive to) are not determinant.----------------Dance salsa! :-)
 
  • #3
salseroquote:You showed that quantum events affect the microscopic behavior of any system. But you haven't shown that the macroscopic properties (which are the only thing we are sensitive to) are not determinant.Dear Salsa,The point of "sensitivity to initial conditions" (the lynchpin of Complexity Theory), is that even the tiniest imaginable difference between two systems, will create raapid divergeance in the states of those systems over time.Take the weather. It may rain, or the sun may shine. According to the information available, it appears that the whole atmosphere of the earth, identical in two models at Time T, and then, plus or minus one decayed radon atom, or, alternatively, with the decay of an atom in Peru, rather than the decay of an atom in Brazil (both apparently random quantum events) at Time T1, could make the difference at Time1 Plus 14 days, between a daylong drizzle and a day without a cloud in sight.Similarly, the same small quantum deviation between two models at Time T1, after three million years, could produce a radically diferent configuration of our solar system.At least that is the way that I interpret the non-controversial claims of Complexity Theory.Regards,Rhinehart G.
 
  • #4
Experiments have shown that a well adapted human eye in the dark can respond to just one quantum of light. One quantum is an uncertain beastie, energy versus time, momentum versus position...Now imagine you are Paul Revere, across the river from Old South Church in Boston, looking for the signal that will report the direction the British will use to attack, "One if by land, two if by sea". Andthereis one now!, and -- -is--that--another--one?...The number you have dialled is imaginary. Please rotate your telephone 90 degrees and try again.
 
  • #5
Experiments have shown that a well adapted human eye in the dark can respond to just one quantum of light.*********************Dear Self,This is an interesting example of a presumably random quantum event impacting directly upon ordinary reality.What do you think about the amplifying effect, which I am suggesting, when such an occurance serves as input to a complex system ?Regards,Rhinenhart G.
 
  • #6
Of course quantum randomness affects system like what you just explained. Maybe what is meant by : "quantum randomness, other than in a few very contrived situations, cannot aftect the determinacy of larger scale events." is in most cases we don't see our large scale world behaving in such a random way, like a ball suddenly bouncing up or a marble passing a sheet of paper. Try letting a book free in the air. Are you sure that the book will fall down?In conclusion, even though randomess is the underlying property of our universe, for most problems/cases we can neglect the randomness.
 
  • #7
gamemania1986quote:In conclusion, even though randomess is the underlying property of our universe, for most problems/cases we can neglect the randomness.******************Dear Game,The theory which concerns us here, sometimes called Deteministic Chaos, is just a little more subtle than that. The effect, of random events, is a function of time.We do not expect to see, "a ball suddenly bouncing up or a marble passing a sheet of paper" as you say, and I am quite confident that a book I drop will fall down. That is, we do not expect to see something bizarre and statistically improbable happenning right now.The claim that is being made, is that the future, all of the future, is not fixed, ie, determined, now, but is subject to random input, and that this random input will create large scale divergeance from other possible futures which did not occur, over time. Hence, the future is non-deterministic.Returning to the weather, the claim is not that someone is likely to be suddenly hit by lightening, right now, on a perfectly calm day, with not a cloud in the sky. But if we call the present moment Time T, and take some arbitrarily small interval (perhaps one nanosecond)Time T+1, we can say that any one of gazillions and gazillions of radon atoms may or may not decay in that time, and that the fate of any particular atom is random.In these circumstances, Complexity Theory allows us to deduce, that in the two different possible cases concerning even ONE atom (atom R does decay/atom R does NOT decay) it is quite probable, that at the end of fourteen days, the weather will be either sunny or rainy, with the result that (somewhat less probably, but still easily possible) someone would, or would not be struck by lightening, such that their accidental death would be the result of pure chance.In other words, it is not decided, even in theory, whether fourteen days from now any one of us will be, or will not be, struck by lightning.Now, the effects of this proposition have certain philosophical consequences. I do not want to conern you with these here, because this is not the place for such discussion. However, because the point keeps coming up in those discussions, and diverse participants contest its validity, I thought it would be useful to submit the queston, as a purely physical proposition, in a forum where there are people who might be able to help me confirm or negate it.regards,Rhinehart G.
 
  • #8
so some day we might actualy see "a ball suddenly bouncing up or a marble passing a sheet of paper." or more than likely not within our lives, but none the less the day may well come or for all we know it was once that way. sure, i whole heartedly agree, i think it would be silly to argue otherwise.
 
  • #9
Reefer kills>quote:eek:r more than likely not within our lives, but none the less the day may well come or for all we know it was once that way.Greetings Reefer,Nice to see you again. Knowing a little about your personal views, I understand why "randomness" would interest you.What concerns me here, though, is not so much incredible events, ripping away the curtain of illusion, as the more discreet and constant way that randomness is apparently influenceing events, without any noticeable break in our sense of deterministic cause and effect.What I notice, is that most people accept the notion of quantum randomness, as applied to individual events. And most of these agree that this creates the possibility of extremely improbable things happenning from time to time. On the other hand, though, they usually do not think that the steady course of cause and effect in the ordinary scale is significantly influenced by this quantum level randomness.My contention, is that no matter how steady the world appears, it is actually determined, not by conditions of the Big Bang alone, but by a steady stream of random input.In this interpretation, the state of the weather in two weeks from today, is as yet undetermined. It may either rain, OR shine fourteen days from now. Many people would say that the state of the weather in fourteen days IS fixed now, but that we simply lack the means to measure the initial conditions with sufficient accuracy. I am suggesting, that this is incorrect.If we take three moments, T, T+1, and T+2, and we know PERFECTLY all of the conditions in the Universe at time T, we still cannot know conditions at T+2, because there is a stream of random quantum input from T to T+1, such that the conditions at T+1 cannot be known, exactly, at time T. And even if conditions at T+1 are almost identical to what we would predict, without considering the quantum effects, the further developement of the complex system from T+1 to T+2, chaotically sensitive, as it is, to the new initial conditions at T+1, will likely diverge quickly and radically from any projection made at Time T.The only factor we need to remember is the time each system takes to show its random roots. For weather, that is two weeks, for the configuration of the solar system it is about three million years, and for lots of simple things like turbulence in gas or liquid, or the state of the human brain, it is only moments.The basic idea is that while everthing we observe is based upon random events, we never see that, because the course of reality always (or at least always in practice) follows a "reasonable" course.However, there is a big difference in the nature of reality, depending on whether it is unfolding in strict determined form from the conditions of the Big Bang, or if it is actually just wandering around under the influence of every random quantum event.I am interested in knowing what physicists think of this proposition. And I am intrigued that we hear so little about it, considering that nearly everybody accepts Chaos Theory, and most people think that quantum randomness is real.Regards,Rhinehart G.
 
  • #10
seems to me that the time needed for a random event to change a sytem as well is not a fixed thing either though. after all a metior or volcano or the like could make short work your two weeks leway for weather. but as for the general permise, ya its sound and while a lot of selous fanatics might argue otherwise any good statistician will tell you that there is no such thing as 100%; there is a very small possablity that you could dissapear right now and reapear on mars a second later, and there is a possablity anything else might happen aswell. seems to me that any good physicist would have to agree despite how counter-productive such an event could be.
 
  • #11
seems to me that the time needed for a random event to change a sytem as well is not a fixed thing either though. after all a metior or volcano or the like could make short work your two weeks leway for weather.*************Dear Reefer,This is quite correct. And there are, as has been explained to me by a meteorologist, places on earth where the weather is, practically speaking, always the same.I have not looked at the details for estimating the "prediction horizon", for specific systems (weather 14 days, solar system 3 million years), but the underlying principle, is that bigger objects/events make their effects felt faster on the system (as you say, a volcano will affect the weather a whole lot faster than the proverbial butterfly).The "prediction horizon" is like a brick wall, because to predict farther, we would have to measure things now, which are simply not available for measurement, even theoretically, because they are so minute as to be masked by the background noise in the Universe.And my conclusion, that the constant stream of random quantum events is significantly affecting complex systems, and hence rules out a strictly determined universe, including the ordinary scale, is founded on the knowledge that plenty of quantum events stand out perfectly clearly against that Universal noise background. Therefore, their effects should be felt before the "horizon" is reached.Regards,Rhinehart G.
 
  • #12
you are not proposeing that you can divine the future from such things though are you?
 
  • #13
Quantum Mechanics still obeys the laws of causality. I believe the formulation for QM is that energy (and thus mass) cannot be transported faster than c.Now, the universe "observes" you very frequently. Since there's a limit on the speed at which energy can be transported, these frequent observations localize you. Even if the universe only looked at you once per second, that means you could still only "jump" a light-second between observations, so there's no chance of instant transportation from Earth to Mars! However, since you're made up of so many interacting parts, your observed much faster than once per second, which means that you have a very small distance over which you're allowed to jump. In fact, even if you were jumping as fast as you can from earth to mars, it would look like you were suddenly accelerated to light speed and travelling continuously from Earth to Mars.But, of course, the energy required to accelerate you to light speed has to come from somewhere as well! There isn't enough energy near you to accelerate you to near light speed when the universe "isn't looking", so you'd wind up accelerating normally.All in all, the fact that the universe looks at you so often forces you to act normally. There is (I believe) literally zero chance of seeing quantum effects beyond a certain "size".Incidentally, I believe this is the reason the weak and strong forces don't work like gravity and electromagnetism; the force carriers for the weak and strong force have mass, so they, like you, are limited in their "quantumness", so on sufficiently large scales they are simply incapable of acting.Hurkyl
 
  • #14
I believe that what is meant by the statement "Quantum fluctuations cannot effect the determinacy of larger scale events" is that these fluctuations tend to cancel out in larger scales.Let us suppose that we have formulated an equation to predict the behavior of an object. This prediction must take place over time, of course.Now, there does exist the possibility that any electron (for example) within this object may spontaneously shift its position by a certain distance (+1) at a particular instant. However, there also exists the exact same probability that this same electron will shift its position by the same distance in the opposite direction (-1) in the next instant. Or, that the electron next to it will shift position (-1) at the same instant. In this case, our original equation can have equal predictive power even though does not contain the (+1) and the (-1), because their net result is zero.Did they have irony in the Bronze Age?
 
  • #15
good arguments Hurkyl, and that defenatly puts the odds toward unlikely but you cannot provide an argument to prove you are not overlooking something, hence your 0 fault claim is overconfidence.also. LURCH_001, cancelation most defnatly plays a role in why reality tends to behave consitantly. however, one must respect the possablity that what tends to happen what will always happen.
 
  • #16
Right. I say with less than 100% confidence that there is an exactly 0% chance that quantum effects occur on sufficiently large scales (but, of course, they can happen on individual components of the system).Hurkyl
 
  • #17
Dear Folks,I am a bit perplexed that nobody has yet directly adressed either the question of chaotic sensitivity to initial conditions, or the examples I have used to illustrate the relevance of this effect to the shaping of ordinary reality by random quantum events.It might be worth recalling the legendary decsription of the first discovery of this effect. It appears that back in the sixties or seventies, some guy was working with a computer weather simulation, and he lost a few pages of print-outs of the ongoing evolution of his virtual system. So he started the program again before the break, by keying in the last values he had, but being just a little lazy, he didn't put in all of the decimal places. His expectation, was that using pretty much the same starting situation, he would get a system evolving pretty much the same way. But to his great surprise, whent the cumputer had calculated through the lost pages and got up to data which he still had, from the original run, the print out at that point had no similarity whatever to the original. And the rest, as they say, was history.To understand what had happenned, he (and others of course) started up programs with non-linear sequences, and they determined that it makes no difference HOW similar two starting values are. You can put a THOUSAND decimal places of precision. But if the thousand and first decimal is a four, in the first run, and you run the program again with a five ( after a thousand identical digits), the second run will immediately begin to wander away from the first, not in a PARALELL fashion, but in a chaotic fashion, such that knowing the details of one run will tell you nothing about the evolution of the second.So much for any consideration of quantum events cancelling themselves out in the agregate. It doesn't happen. If two initial states of a complex system are different in any way at all, the evolution of those systems will divirge chaotically from one another over time.Therefore, opnce again, here is the concrete situation:Imagine an air system containing a radon atom at Time T. At Time T+1, that atom can be either decayed or intact. Clearly, these two cases are DIFFERENT. Clearly the air system can have two different states at time T+1, based only on the state of that one radioactive atom. If we imagine BOTH of these states evolving over time, they will diverge chaotically. Hence, because we can only have one state actually realized, the FUTURE of the whole air system, is determined by that one quantum event (and of course by every OTHER quantum event as well). And that is the same thing as to say that the one true future, of the air system, of the world, of the solar system, of the Universe, will be decided by chance.No ?Rhinehart G.
 
  • #18
quote:Originally posted by rhinehartg:Dear Folks,I am a bit perplexed that nobody has yet directly adressed either the question of chaotic sensitivity to initial conditions, or the examples I have used to illustrate the relevance of this effect to the shaping of ordinary reality by random quantum events.It might be worth recalling the legendary decsription of the first discovery of this effect. It appears that back in the sixties or seventies, some guyHis name is Lorenzquote:was working with a computer weather simulation, and he lost a few pages of print-outs of the ongoing evolution of his virtual system. So he started the program again before the break, by keying in the last values he had, but being just a little lazy, he didn't put in all of the decimal places. His expectation, was that using pretty much the same starting situation, he would get a system evolving pretty much the same way. But to his great surprise, whent the cumputer had calculated through the lost pages and got up to data which he still had, from the original run, the print out at that point had no similarity whatever to the original. And the rest, as they say, was history.Imagine an air system containing a radon atom at Time T. At Time T+1, that atom can be either decayed or intact. Clearly, these two cases are DIFFERENT. Clearly the air system can have two different states at time T+1, based only on the state of that one radioactive atom. If we imagine BOTH of these states evolving over time, they will diverge chaotically. Hence, because we can only have one state actually realized, the FUTURE of the whole air system, is determined by that one quantum event (and of course by every OTHER quantum event as well). And that is the same thing as to say that the one true future, of the air system, of the world, of the solar system, of the Universe, will be decided by chance.No ?Rhinehart G.
 
  • #19
Heumpjequote:His name is Lorenz********************Dear Heum,That's it. Thanks for providing the name. That is exactly the guy I was talking about. And I take it that you concur with me on the essential truth of the historical anecdote, and particularly, on the crucial point that even the smallest difference in the initial conditions of two systems will cause those systems to diverge, in their evoltuion, chaoticlaly, over time.And now, here is the crux of the problem:Heumpjequote:The point is that you are talking about two different things here.1.- Macroscopic objects behaving erratically (they follow "classical" rules)2.- Microscopic objects behaving erratically ("quantum" rules)
 
  • #20
One thing to note, when you are talking about quantum randomness, you cannot use "lorenz/chaotic system" because they contradict each other.Why?Chaotic system implies that with initial condition C1aat time T1, C2awill happen at time T2. It is called chaotic because a slight variation of condition in T1will give us a very different result in lim[n->infinity] Tn.On the other hand, with quantum randomness we cannot even know what will happen in T2. That's why you cannot use a chaotic system (which is deterministic) with a quantum system (which random). Using a chaotic system implies that our universe is deterministic.Remember, chaotic/non-chaotic is different from deterministic/random.PS: How about developing/devising a "random chaotic system" :)?
 
  • #21
When our eye seems to observe a single photon, what we actually see is a classically singular recorded event, ameasuredquantum with but one of the of indefinite possible energies and their complementary spread of times.Any attempt to observe or measure a quantum causes a particular macroscopic selection (some say "wavefunction collapse") from the infinite probabilities for the observable in question.One may think of the quantum (or its mathematical representation, the wavefunction) as requiring us complete knowledge of one physical variable, while disallowing any realization of another.Phase reality!{^,^}
 
Back
Top