"Again an idea of Einstein’s gave me the lead. He had tried to make the duality of particles - light quanta or photons - and waves comprehensible by interpreting the square of the optical wave amplitudes as probability density for the occurrence of photons. This concept could at once be carried over to the psi-function: |psi|^2 ought to represent the probability density for electrons (or other particles). It was easy to assert this, but how could it be proved?"--Max Born, Nobel lecture, 1954
> Il 19/12/2020 20:48 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <everything-list@googlegroups.com> ha scritto: > > > As far as I know, it was Born who came up with the interpretation of the > equations as expressing probabilities. But there was (and maybe still is) > controversy over whether this was irreducibly random or whether there were > hidden variables and it was just the randomness of ignorance. For most > physicists this was resolved by the experimental confirmation of the > violation of Bell inequalities. At that point the choice was irreducible > randomness or nonlocal effects and most physicists saw randomness as the more > likely, less disruptive choice. > > Brent > > On 12/19/2020 2:53 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: > > > > > > I think that Bohr might have said that we cannot know, because when > > we try to measure (or observe) something we perturb it, at the same time. > > We - according to Bohr - cannot follow the causal course of a quantum > > through space-time. The important concept (Bohr) is "what we can *say* > > about nature" and not "what nature *is*". > > > > > > > Il 19/12/2020 11:18 Alan Grayson > > <agrayson2...@gmail.com> mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 19, 2020 at 1:30:17 AM UTC-7 > > > sce...@libero.it mailto:sce...@libero.it wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.07068 > > > > > > > > > > > > Randomness? What randomness? > > > > > > > > Klaas Landsman > > > > https://arxiv.org/search/physics?searchtype=author&query=Landsman%2C+K > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a review of the issue of > > > > randomness in quantum mechanics, with special emphasis on its > > > > ambiguity; for example, randomness has different antipodal > > > > relationships to determinism, computability, and compressibility. > > > > Following a (Wittgensteinian) philosophical discussion of randomness in > > > > general, I argue that deterministic interpretations of quantum > > > > mechanics (like Bohmian mechanics or 't Hooft's Cellular Automaton > > > > interpretation) are strictly speaking incompatible with the Born rule. > > > > I also stress the role of outliers, i.e. measurement outcomes that are > > > > not 1-random. Although these occur with low (or even zero) probability, > > > > their very existence implies that the no-signaling principle used in > > > > proofs of randomness of outcomes of quantum-mechanical measurements > > > > (and of the safety of quantum cryptography) should be reinterpreted > > > > statistically, like the second law of thermodynamics. In appendices I > > > > discuss the Born rule and its status in both single and repeated > > > > experiments, and review the notion of 1-randomness introduced by > > > > Kolmogorov, Chaitin, Martin-Lo"f, Schnorr, and others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This might be helpful, but more likely over my head. What I > > > want to know is WHO originally came up with the interpretation of QM that > > > it is irreducibly random -- meaning that in principle there is no way to > > > predetermine outcomes of experiments -- and WHAT was the justification. I > > > think it was Bohr, and what was his reasoning for this interpretation, > > > which is the "end of the road" for any theory better than QM. AG > > > > > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > > > it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > > mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . > > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8829438e-9fe9-42fe-93fe-4f028fbdd420n%40googlegroups.com > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8829438e-9fe9-42fe-93fe-4f028fbdd420n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer > > > . > > > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Everything List" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > > send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1778545083.336183.1608375209130%40mail1.libero.it > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1778545083.336183.1608375209130%40mail1.libero.it?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer > > . > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cb8db213-eaed-701d-cf5b-b5bf052352b6%40verizon.net > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cb8db213-eaed-701d-cf5b-b5bf052352b6%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/633896746.346276.1608411655301%40mail1.libero.it.
