This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
determinism explains quantum entanglement
if a particle interacts with another particle, and becomes seperated, and shares characteristics simultaneously with the other particle at a distance, i am putting forward the case that determinism explains this phenomenon known as quantum entanglement.
determinism is when certain environmental variables are present, then a certain outcome is definitely going to happen. more profoundly, this can be explained as anything that is going to happen can be predicted.
Topics:
quantum mechanics quantum physics
Rick Ryan 10+
(Warning! Layman's Response!) ;-)
As an avid follower of current theoretical physics, I am intrigued by your above quote. But I'm also confused by it.
If, in a finite environment with a finite number of observable elements available to be arranged in a finite number of combinations, I agree that it would be theoretically possible to determine the state of the environment at any given time. Thus the "...certain outcome (that) is definitely going to happen." It would also be possible to predict all POSSIBLE outcomes in advance based on the state of all the elements within the environment. But any future prediction would only be "right" at any given future time if that was the prediction/outcome that actually occured. Any "future" prediction of what the environment might end up being would still be dependant on the variable changes that could take place by all the elements withing the environment. I may be able to predict POSSIBLE future environments, but I wouldn't be able to predict with any certainty WHEN that particular outcome may actually occur with any certainty, could I?
I'm thinking "Chaos Theory" in the above example. Originally known as "The Butterfly Effect". I may be able to predict what all other future possible outcomes might be by "number crunching" all future states of all the butterflies. But I couldn't predict WHEN each individual butterfly would engage in a particular combination of actions that would allow me to definitely say, "This is when that new environment state will occur." How can I predict each individual action of all the elements in an environment with any "time certainty"?
So I'm confused as to what advantage "determinism" has relating to quantum entanglement when "predicting" anything.
Help? :-)
griffin tucker 10+
although if everything is finite, then a finite amount of outcomes would be possible, and a virtual multiverse as created by a quantum computer could predict a finite amount of outcomes according to what limited variables it has. the more variables it has, the deeper into the future it could predict with a higher (but not exact) accuracy.
this goes with observing everything too, as anything is observed, the outcome is different. if everything is observed virtually, then the outcome is going to be known in one of the possible universes of the virtual multiverse.
learning algorithms (programming term: neural networks) can determine what algorithms are correct and incorrect, or rather, which algorithms are more correct than others, and use those more accurate algorithms to include 'hidden' variables such as an example of going from 'a' to 'c' by skipping b.
if you were to skip 'b', then it wouldn't be 100% accurate, but you could still get to 'c' without knowing anything about 'b'. in fact, 'c' could be 'g' for all we know, but the end result of what the algorithm thinks as 'c' actually being 'g' wouldn't make much of a difference of the determined outcome, just that sloppy (not exact) mathematics would calculate a way to get to the end result without knowing all of the variables.
this would in effect slow down the determination algorithm, but it wouldn't stop it from learning, and if everything is finite, then eventually a finite algorithm could be obtained if the neural network algorithm were to continue to learn new algorithms to determine the future. this finite algorithm could in fact be wrong, but it would be the nearest possible thing to determine the future.
just how accurate it could eventually be is what i wish to explore.
natasha nikulina 50+
maybe you'll be interested in this video, if you are not familiar with it already.
http://www.ted.com/talks/benoit_mandelbrot_fractals_the_art_of_roughness.html
"Bottomless wonders spring from simple rules, which are repeated without end.”
griffin tucker 10+
thanks very much for the link! i found it incredibly interesting.
it just goes to show how incredibly detailed a result can be, trying to re-create a result like that would require absolutely huge processing power.
natasha nikulina 50+
I am on board with your 'vision' Sounds true enough for me :)
Thanks for sharing !
griffin tucker 10+
i realised i didn't properly answer you question with the time variable.
what i mean is, two particles interact, they take on attributes of similar (perhaps even exact) variables, and once they part, one particle has been sort of 'programmed' to enact out the actions of the original particle, thus making determinism a part of the theory.
natasha nikulina 50+
he believes that there should be a deterministic theory underlying quantum mechanics.
For me David Bohm's theory of the implicate order or "unfolded" order is much more attractive.
"In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements."
I think that a 'quantum phenomenon ' needs a new frame of reference, it doesn't fit it to Newtonian deterministic vs random model . Most likely it is neither of those. In layman words : we can predict the road , but we can't know how the scenery will look like and when revealed it can change the road in the most profound way. It means that the process is infinitely changing unpredictably while unfolding and according to David Bohm each process is the Whole. The Whole is determined by itself . Sounds like a paradox, but maybe we should learn to feel mentally comfortable between two opposites.
Somehow i understand it this way :)
griffin tucker 10+
but i digress, i'm still following the philosophy of determinism to the extent that future actions can be predicted, whether or not we can do it from within the whole is a whole new can of beans.
if i were to speculate further on being able to determine future actions from within the whole, i'd say that a virtual multiverse could be created in this universe via means of quantum computer processing.
natasha nikulina 50+
If it is true that the Universe is governed by the rule is chaos and dynamics ( for me it sounds true enough :) and taking into the consideration that chaos in QM is defined as an infinitely complex order it suggests, that nothing is written down and nothing is certain, unless we can grasp infinite probabilities alongside with infinite consequences of these probabilities being realized in infinite realities. That would be cool, but most likely it will never happen.
As for your prediction "virtual multiverse could be created in this universe via means of quantum computer processing." i think it is already in place, we are creating virtual realities. I don't think there is any need for anything external, we don't need another universes/multiverses, how can we be sure that the universe we inhabit is not virtual ? We, alive people are a bit virtual nowadays and create virtual connections with another "'virtuals ". What do you think we are doing right now ? :)
griffin tucker 10+
a virtual multiverse can be created within a universe, yes, whether or not it can contain all the elements of this universe virtually is another conundrum. by definition, i see now that there would indeed be elements or variables missing from the virtual multiverse, as the only way to create a true representation of the universe would be another universe itself.
that being said, i still follow the controversial philosophy of determinism to an extent, just that true representation can't be formed. this doesn't mean that true predictions can't be formed via chance for a given set of space (less than the size of the universe) but then if quantum entanglement comes into play, then it would be very difficult (but not impossible) to know what would happen to the particles that are outside of the predicted space.
in terms of quantum entanglement, if we are to look outside of the space, there would be a finite amount of particles that are contained within the piece of predicted space as well as their partner particles outside of the space, so i think it can be done, just not for the entire universe.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
griffin tucker 10+
i respectfully disagree.
with the advent of technology rapidly evolving, i believe every particle/atom could be eventually observed, thus making determinism not a philosophy, but actual.
whether or not we are currently observing every particle/atom/whatever in the universe now is a matter for conspiracy theorists, but i'll try to avoid that topic.
i believe quantum computers don't have to exactly discover hidden variables to observe everything in the universe, but while this is happening, quantum computers could eventually discover work-arounds to hidden variables' definitions, thus making determinism real via means of sloppy (but highly accurate) mathematics.
griffin tucker 10+
'The Beholder,' track 5, is only available if you purchase the album. pretty much sums up the fear of determinism by most humans.
another link: http://bit.ly/Nxq0dw (free reg)
at the risk of exposing you to a possible new scientist magazine subscription (in my opinion a good thing) this link is a new scientist article on the mathematical algorithm that runs the world.
James Zhang 30+
If everything is really actually deterministic, then we gotta be missing some variables right?
Also, I just checked out that vid, I think he did a pretty good job of explaining Quantum Physics in a nutshell... which the concept is still really weird lol
griffin tucker 10+
one is that for every possible choice, the universe splits into two (or more) universes, making the complete universe as we know it, a multiverse.
the second theory (and what i'm proposing) is that every choice was pre-determined, and therefore it's just a universe not a multiverse. while probability, random chance and uncertainty have their place in this, it's just a matter of how much they are what they are. none of them are 100% accurate.
if everything is actually deterministic, then in order to predict in the way that i've mentioned to you before, would indeed mean variables are missing. learning computers can find out what the missing variables are.
it's just a matter of time.
James Zhang 30+
So then, the fact that a single atom can be in 2 different places in time also be part of the theory where they are actually in two different universes at the same time? So each possibility/different outcome is a path from another universe (universe splitting) into multiverses, and that all these split universes are in a set of a single universe where the outcome is already predetermined?
Then what about when other universes combine into one, as opposed to splitting?
griffin tucker 10+
going on to the multiverse theory, when a universe splits, particles share characteristics from one or more universes of a particle in that particular universe. this can be seen as combining into one universe, because essentially, they're all the same universe with different outcomes of each particle.
James Zhang 30+
griffin tucker 10+
however, the universe itself may not have been deterministic from the big bang, for if we were to be able to determine each particle's future, or rather, eventually observe every particle in the universe, the deterministic 'fate' or 'destiny' as it were would only be valid from that point onward.
what i'm saying is, whether or not determinism is currently true or not, eventually we will be able to observe every particle in the universe, once that happens, determinism will be not only possible, but present and true for the given time that we observe every particle.
keep in mind this is just theory.