Quantum Mechanics

[pmad87]

I thought there was a board for Science and technology on here, but it turns out it is mainly only computer technology and the like, so I'll just post this in here, although im not sure how many on BF will have the background to be able to answer the question. Anyway...

I was told the other day that Quantum Mechanics is probabalistic and my first reaction was to ask if this is merely due to the fact that there are things we are unable to measure at that level. But the reply was that quantum mechanics actually rules out the possibility of "hidden variables". Of course I asked how it did this, but the person didn't understand it themselves (although I am fairly confident that this is true). So I was wondering if there is anyone out there who can explain how quantum mechanics rules out hidden variables. Can anyone explain this to me?

 

[bunsen burner]

SRP board

 

[pmad87]

If I put it in there, I'm sure someone would find a way to turn it into a vehicle for their political opinion.

 

[Axcellence]

You should use google... I don't know anything about quantum mechanics... can find this link...

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-77521

 

[pmad87]

Usually internet research on this topic yields extremely complicated acounts that I can't make head nor tail of or extremely simple outlines of it.

That link just says there is a theory that rules out hidden variables, but how does it rule out hidden variables?

 

[MightyFighting]

If I put it in there, I'm sure someone would find a way to turn it into a vehicle for their political opinion.

*cough* FIGJAM *cough*

 

[MightyFighting]

That link just says there is a theory that rules out hidden variables, but how does it rule out hidden variables?

I'm fairly sure that the answer is that it isn't known why. But you're perhaps looking at it from the wrong side.

i.e. It's not that someone said, "Because of A and B, I can reason that there must be no hidden variables." It's that they found experimentally that there was no way to externally influence the probability of getting a particular outcome.


After all, what hidden variables would you expect there to be? Is a clockwork universe more reasonable than a truly random one (as opposed to one that only appears random because it is unpredictable)?

 

[pmad87]

.e. It's not that someone said, "Because of A and B, I can reason that there must be no hidden variables." It's that they found experimentally that there was no way to externally influence the probability of getting a particular outcome.

So does that mean that there could in the future be a way of externally influencing the probability of a particular outcome as technology develops? Or is it mathematically impossible to do so?

 

[- PC -]

If I put it in there, I'm sure someone would find a way to turn it into a vehicle for their political opinion.

What ? Why bring your stinking Liberal rants on here for? Damm Commie

Let me guess yor a machinist but you have machines as friends

 

[Crosby87]

What is Science?

 

[bunsen burner]

If I put it in there, I'm sure someone would find a way to turn it into a vehicle for their political opinion.

More likely turn into an In The Net vs the Rest of the World debate. At least there'd be some quality sledging.

 

[crackers57]

I thought there was a board for Science and technology on here, but it turns out it is mainly only computer technology and the like, so I'll just post this in here, although im not sure how many on BF will have the background to be able to answer the question. Anyway...

I was told the other day that Quantum Mechanics is probabalistic and my first reaction was to ask if this is merely due to the fact that there are things we are unable to measure at that level. But the reply was that quantum mechanics actually rules out the possibility of "hidden variables". Of course I asked how it did this, but the person didn't understand it themselves (although I am fairly confident that this is true). So I was wondering if there is anyone out there who can explain how quantum mechanics rules out hidden variables. Can anyone explain this to me?

Head over to The Limbo Club board and ask for either ICanDressMyself or Gets! They are the pride of South Australia and will be able to help you out....

 

[MightyFighting]

So does that mean that there could in the future be a way of externally influencing the probability of a particular outcome as technology develops? Or is it mathematically impossible to do so?

It is theoretically impossible.

 

[pmad87]

It is theoretically impossible.

So there is no experimental proof that it is then?

 

[MightyFighting]

So there is no experimental proof that it is then?

There is no such thing as experimental proof of anything, but there are plenty of experiments that support it.

 

[Higgs Boson]

Head over to The Limbo Club board and ask for either ICanDressMyself or Gets! They are the pride of South Australia and will be able to help you out....

It is theoretically impossible.

 

[pmad87]

There is no such thing as experimental proof of anything, but there are plenty of experiments that support it.

Could you tell me what one of these experiments are?

 

[MightyFighting]

Could you tell me what one of these experiments are?

Oh, I'd assumed you already knew.

Check out the double slit diffraction experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

 

[Effes]

Particle in a box model
Shrodinger Equation

 

[Cassius_Clay]

My head hurts

 

[Andre]

Could you tell me what one of these experiments are?

Sure, you'll need a cat, a box and poison gas first though. Physicists can be a strange bunch.

 

[Effes]

Physicists can be a strange bunch.

Very strange

 

[dogs105]

Have a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

A really good book to read is "Quantum Physics" by Rae. How much Maths background do you have?

 

[fugsy]

Who

Cares

Board.

 

[MightyFighting]

Who

Cares

Board.

****

You

Board.