No, you are making a scientific error. Whether or not you accept the scientific model I am describing, the fact remains that it is NOT one that holds that there are hidden variables which are determining when an atom decays, and that without knowing these variables the model is incomplete. Rather, the model is complete in itself.
You keep saying that, and it’s really odd because every physicist I have read on this subject says what I am saying (which is why I am saying it). Here’s just one example (my bold):
Imagine that after 10 minutes the atom on the right decayed and the one on the left did not decay.
We ask a basic question: What is the difference between the two Nitrogen-13 atoms?
The answer to this is trivially easy: one atom decayed and the other did not.
A more interesting question is: What was the difference between the two Nitrogen-13 atoms before we waited 10 minutes?
The answer to this better question is sort of hard. According to Quantum Mechanics there was no difference between the two atoms: we had two completely identical atoms but one decayed and the other did not.
Einstein never accepted Quantum Mechanics, and this part of the theory is one of the reasons. He summarised his objections by saying “God does not play at dice with the universe.” Bohr responded “Quit telling God what to do!”
Einstein’s God may not play at dice, but there are other views of divinity. For example, in the Bhagavad Gita Krishna says:
“I am the game of dice. I am the self centered in the heart of all beings.”
If, with Einstein, we reject the idea that completely identical initial states can evolve to different outcomes, then we conclude that initially there must have been some difference, some variable, that distinguishes the two Nitrogen-13 atoms. To date all attempts to discover what that variable is have failed; thus we would say that there is some hidden variable inside the atoms. In Quantum Mechanics there are no such variables.
https://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SchrodCat/SchrodCat.html
Have you any examples of physicists saying what you say they say?
1 Like
Depends on what you mean by “needed”. You might say that for the purpose of physics, the explanation is complete, since we can calculate whatever quantities we need to predict future events. And many physicists prefer to just “shut up and calculate.” But that doesn’t necessarily mean the metaphysical explanation is complete.
3 Likes
Doesn’t mean it isn’t, either, does it? Anyway, I’m just talking about scientific models for the moment.
There is a model that is the most widely used one, and in which there are no hidden variables. There are no models that work any better than this model, nor which can be shown to be more accurate than this model thru any empirical evidence.
Is that a correct summation of the situation?
Are “metaphysical explanations” ever complete?
1 Like
It is correct to say that from our tests of Bell’s inequality, we know that almost all local hidden variable theories are ruled out. All we know scientifically is that when a particular atom decays is irreducibly random. We cannot predict individual decays in advance.
However, this does say much about which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct. Nor does it necessarily mean that one can say that atom decay is “uncaused”. I would even go so far as saying that we cannot definitely say that decay of a particular atom is “uncaused”, given how the definition of “caused” may vary and you have the non-local hidden variable option here.
Finally, I don’t know whether it is very meaningful to say that the decay is “caused by probability”. In that sense I echo Eddie’s criticisms. I think scientists sometimes use that language, but it doesn’t really explain anything - I take it more as a tautological shorthand to say “we know that the decay follows this probability distribution, and that’s all that matters for physics.”
5 Likes
And again, you are missing the point. You are not reading what I have written, or you are not understanding it. I am not making a statement about the truth or falsehood of the Copenhagen interpretation. I am making a statement about parts of your amateur, layman’s restatement of the Copenhagen interpretation. I have all along given you the particular statements I am objecting to. They aren’t statements that physicists make; they are statements that Faizal Ali makes.
Some of what you say does correspond to the Copenhagen interpretation. I have not challenged those parts of what you say. But you keep restating a correct interpretation of Copenhagen alongside an erroneous extrapolation made by yourself.
I don’t contest the statement you reproduce in your latest post, The error you are making is found in certain other previous statements, and I have highlighted them as we’ve gone along. But you aren’t seeing your error. You don’t see that what you reproduced above doesn’t justify the inference you draw from it. Again, the problem here is not in your understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation (which is no different from my understanding of it), but in your insistence on making a careless inference from it, and putting that careless inference into the mouths of physicists. No physicist here on this site or anywhere else that I am aware of has made the remarks of yours that I am objecting to. it’s your English and/or your reasoning that are the problem here, not what you say about hidden variables.
I haven’t offered a report of what the physicists say about quantum matters; I have commented only on your claim that what they do say amounts to something you think is implied in what they say. You are confusing your inference from the Copenhagen interpretation with the Copenhagen interpretation itself. The Copenhagen interpretation doesn’t say that the reason an emission occurred at 3:15 rather than 3:14 was that there was a probability that it would occur at 3:15. It says that the emission in fact occurred at 3:15 rather than 3:14, and we have no idea why and never will have any idea why. The timing is just a brute fact of nature which physics cannot explain. “Probability” was not responsible for the 3:15 rather than 3:14. “Probability” only tells us that the moment could just as easily have been either. It provides no sufficient explanation why the one moment was chosen over the other. Again, it’s your reasoning and/or your English writing that is the problem here, not the Copenhagen interpretation.
1 Like
Fine. That statement is an accurate description of the position I have been defending throughout this discussion. If I appeared to be saying something different, I apologize for any part I may have played in that confusion.
1 Like
They can be much more complete than purely scientific ones, if they were actually true. Whether they convince a lot of people is a different story.
4 Likes
I would consider demonstration that they are true, to the point that rational people are convinced, to be an important aspect of deeming a metaphysical explanation to be complete. But that is just me.
Change “true” to “accurate” and I’d agree.
2 Likes
The stability of the nuclei is what determines the rate of decay. From what little I know about this subject, the relative stability of different nuclei can be determined from first principles which has to do with the interaction between protons and neutrons. For example, U-238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years while U-235 has a half life of 0.7 billion years. These isotopes differ by the number of neutrons, so the number of neutrons obviously plays a part in determining the rate of decay. We can also find many examples of elements that have stable and radioactive isotopes (e.g. 12C and 14C).
5 Likes