Do you believe in fate? I can scientifically prove that it does exist.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
It depends on what you will accept as a reason:
If you accept that things like [cos(θ/2)]^2 can be reasons, then things happen for a reason.
If you don't accept that things like [cos(θ/2)]^2 can be reasons, then things happen for no reason.
How can a non physical thing influence a physical thing in the first place?
Is somebody claiming that it does?
Quantum mechanics deals with probability distributions, pure chance if you will. The position of an electron, for example, when not detected, can only be described as a probability distribution because, in a classical sense, position has no meaning for it under those conditions. That's what physicists call the spooky, superpositional state. If that means that something happens for no reason, then that's the way it is.
"The position of an electron, for example, when not detected, can only be described as a probability distribution because, in a classical sense, position has no meaning for it under those conditions." what you mean?
Consider the Two-Slit experiment. If an electron is not detected passing through one of the slits, it acts as though it went through both slits! However, it is always detected as a single particle on the background screen some distance behind the slits. If we assume that the electron has always been a particle, even when we are not detecting it, then its position has no classical meaning. A classical path, the consequence of classical position, would have to go through one slit or the other, not both. If we try to look at the situation by turning all the detectors on, then the electron acts like an ordinary particle and goes through one hole or the other, not both. Since this spooky stuff is going on only when we are not "looking" there is no way to say what is really happening. However, we can predict the odds of finding the electron here or there when we use our trusty detector. That gives us a 3-D probability distribution that resembles a wave, a wave that goes through both slits (just like light) and interferes with itself so as to leave an interference pattern on the background screen. (With the detectors on we get two, superimposed "bullet" patterns consistent with ordinary particles and positions.) That is what I mean when I say that an electron has no position (in any classical sense) when not being observed, but if the experiment is done over and over the electron will be detected at each location with a certain probability. This probability distribution is the most that we can ever know, even in principle, until we actually detect the particle, say at some position.
What you are trying to say is that we cannot say electron is there unless we could detect.. But it doesn't matter we could say where the exact location or not; truth is that it is there at some place at any instant..
And you concluded that it can never be known too.. So you think this is the limit of technologies?
I thought the two-slit experiment and the whole schrödinger-cat business turned out to have been a measuring cock up/flaw in the set up a couple of years ago?
The Almighty - "How would my argument mean that more than 2 outcomes would be possible?"
OK your large number of particles, lets say 1,000,000 particles. So we would need a function that can preform a 1:1 map of 1,000,000 inputs into 2 outputs (Liouville's theorem). This is impossible.
A more simple and hand-wavy argument would be, if the distribution depends on the interactions between these 1 million particles, how come altering the 1 million particles does not alter the distribution? See you are trying to have your cake (by asserting the random distribution is just an artifact from the untracked influences from the 1 million particles), but then eating it too (by ignoring the fact that the distribution is not influenced by the 1 million particles).
"how come altering the 1 million particles does not alter the distribution?" is it necessary that if 1 million particles are acting, then the distribution should be altered?
When we toss a coin, the outcome is influenced by millions of particles.. Does that mean that it will show anything other than Head or Tail?
The Almighty - "is it necessary that if 1 million particles are acting, then the distribution should be altered?"
It is absolutely necessary, in fact it is a truism. If they are acting on it, they are altering the outcome. You can't blame the outcome on these particles, then claim they don't effect the outcome!
The Almighty - "When we toss a coin, the outcome is influenced by millions of particles.. Does that mean that it will show anything other than Head or Tail?"
Coins have a huge number of degrees of freedom (their are many more outcomes than just heads and tails, in fact heads and tails are not outcomes). You are treating these coins as identical particles and they are not. They have rotation, temperature distributions, damage, variable mass, charge distribution; all kinds of stuff. This is why classical mechanics works well for coins, but not subatomic particles.
Head or tail is the only outcome, even though it can be reached in many ways. You are not sticking to the definition of outcome.
"If they are acting on it, they are altering the outcome" i asked why is it necessary and you are stating the same thing as the reason..
The Almighty - "Head or tail is the only outcome, even though it can be reached in many ways."
Well that is clearly wrong. The most obvious way to see that is to just consider the rotation of the coin. Say you flip a quarter once and find heads facing up, but you notice Washington's face is turned 90 degrees to you. Then you flip it again and you see the heads side, but this time Washington's face is aligned with you. When we are flipping coins to see who does the dishes, we ignore this degree of freedom, but it is there, and it is obvious, so clearly there are more than 2 results.
Again you have misinterpreted the definition of head or tail. Also since electron isn't the fundamental unit, the particle within the electron is likely to have different degree of freedom..
Even if electrons are made out of millions of internal pieces, we know they only have a few degrees of freedom because they obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. If you took highschool chemistry this was probably covered. An electron in an atom has exactly 4 degrees of freedom. If they had any more you could pack more of them into the ground state which would completely change all of chemistry (atoms would have very different properties). Again, this dog of yours does not hunt.
I think you missed "particles within the electron" part of my comment.
No that is exactly the point. Even if the electron has particles within it, they do not contribute to its degrees of freedom. There is exactly 4 degrees of freedom for an electron in an atom, no more. If there was even 1 more degree of freedom, the periodic table would be totally different. For example this would allow you to pack 3 (or more!) electrons into the same orbital, which would totally change its chemical properties.
I am not saying the particles would effect the degrees of freedom of electron (as it stands now).. And I wonder what made you think so?(please explain why you concluded so)
What I am saying is that for 1 degree of freedom, it is not necessary that the interior particles are static throughout that degree.
"I am not saying the particles would effect the degrees of freedom of electron (as it stands now).. And I wonder what made you think so?(please explain why you concluded so)"
I have answered this question several times already. In fact I answered it in the last post you just cited.
An interesting side note is the fact the electrons have 4 degrees of freedom was calculated before it was know what those degrees were, simply from the periodic table. So it isn't as if physicists just kept discovering degrees of freedom and when they couldn't find any more they said there were 4. Exactly 4 is required to reproduce the periodic table. The suggestion that there are more or less than 4, is equivalent to saying everything on the periodic table is wrong after Helium; that Oxygen, Carbon, Iron, Gold, etc do not exist. You've rode this sled of no randomness so far down the slope you are now failing high school chemistry. This dog does not hunt.
I take that either you didn't understand what i said or you don't really caring what i am saying. This might be my last attempt to atleast tell you I am not talking about electrons but it's building unit (if any). And I am talking about that building unit's degree of freedom and not that of "electrons".. And If you are yet again coming with arguments like It is going to change whole periodic table and all, because the building unit's(if any) properties (which is not even known yet), I have other things to do..
PS: I am a busy man
"I take that either you didn't understand what i said or you don't really caring what i am saying. This might be my last attempt to atleast tell you I am not talking about electrons but it's building unit (if any). And I am talking about that building unit's degree of freedom and not that of "electrons"
Saying that electrons have unknown internal structure that is responsible for their apparent randomness is equivalent to saying electrons have more than 4 degrees of freedom. This is why coins have something on the order of 10^23 degrees of freedom (despite your telling us they only have 2), because they have massive amounts of internal structure that can change. So you are back to having your cake (arguing that there is internal structure inside electrons that makes them different) and eating it too (that it does not make them different).
"Saying that electrons have unknown internal structure that is responsible for their apparent randomness is equivalent to saying electrons have more than 4 degrees of freedom." As before, I asked why you concluded so and you are saying the same thing as its reason.
Let me once again try to make it clear for you:
1) What is the probability distribution of tossing a coin where the top face is considered as outcome?
-Head or tail. It doesn't matter how the top face is arranged, it is only considered as head or tail.
2) What is the probability distribution of alignment of magnetic moment of electron with magnetic field?
-0 or 180. It doesn't matter how the internal particles( if any) is arranged, it is only considered as 0 or 180.
3) What am I claiming in the first place? - It is not necessary that when millions of particles are influencing, then the probability distribution is altered.
And If you are clear with these things let us continue.
The Almighty - "As before, I asked why you concluded so and you are saying the same thing as its reason."
That is right actually. Remember when I said it was a truism?
The Almighty - "What is the probability distribution of tossing a coin where the top face is considered as outcome?"
This is a very different question than what you said before. Before you said it had only 2 outcomes, when in fact is has more than 10^23. Now you are asking to suppress all the attributes of a coin except one, the facing. Here you get a binomial distribution.
The Almighty - "What is the probability distribution of alignment of magnetic moment of electron with magnetic field?"
It depends on how the system was prepared. I already explained this in detail. And even gave you the function that determines it. You are going backwards.
The Almighty -"It is not necessary that when millions of particles are influencing, then the probability distribution is altered."
Again this is the same truism. If the millions of particles are influencing the outcomes, then they are altering the distribution. That is what it means to influence the outcome! You can't have one without having the other, since they are the same thing. This is the 'trying to have your cake and eat it too". You can not assert that X is true, then run from the consequences of X being true.
1) I am claiming that it is not truism with the example of coin
2) "This is a very different question than what you said before." No. This is exactly what i said before. Maybe you misinterpreted it.
3)"What is the probability distribution of alignment of magnetic moment of electron with magnetic field?" that is actually not like a question.. Infact I am answering that too after that. (if you read the next sentence)..
4) Since you finally understand what I am claiming about the coin,( atleast) and I have simplified the comparison with that of electron, I recommend you to reread my comments. And if you do not have any other argument other than "truism" where you assume it is true for no apparent reason, then I'm done.
More rank speculation? What next?
To say that even the tiniest particle follows laws is to say nothing. You are simply saying that they act in some way. The description of their action would come under the "laws" of physics. You have not explained how they might act. New laws, such as the strong nuclear force, may come into play, and quantum mechanics becomes significant on a small scale. In particular, you have not ruled out randomness.
"You have not explained how they might act" We haven't yet been able to study things to such astonishing details.. But does that mean that we can never do so?
As I have said earlier I am arguing with assumption that the tiniest particle also react according to certain laws which are proven or yet to be discovered...
Yes, particles do act in some manner. What of it? Yes, if your teeny-tiny particles exist they would act in some manner too. Wow! That's just awesome! Before you use them you had better check their properties to see if they support your argument. But wait! How do we check the properties of these teeny-tiny particles since they are a fantasy creation of yours? Could be a problem there.
Or simply you are claiming that the tiniest particle discovered till today is the ultimate miniature level and further level could never exist... Wow!! Guess what? You are right!! I am too dumb to expect that many more levels would also exist..
There is no evidence that subatomic particles follow any rules.