This article explores the existence of true randomness in the universe, challenging traditional mechanistic and deterministic viewpoints. The article begins by demonstrating the random waviness of electrons without external forces through the double-slit experiment in quantum mechanics, as well as the random distribution when individual electrons are imaged on a screen. It then discusses the theory of hidden variables, which suggests that there are undiscovered variables that could explain the deterministic motion of particles. However, experimental results from Bell's inequality have refuted this theory, proving the correctness of quantum mechanics. The article also mentions nonlinear systems in the macro world, such as the three-body problem in chaos theory, illustrating the uncertainty in the macro world. Finally, the article further explains the counterintuitive and random behavior of particles in quantum mechanics through anti-reflective film and delayed-choice experiments, emphasizing that randomness is ubiquitous even in the macro world. The article concludes that although the universe is full of randomness, this does not mean it is unknowable; humans can still understand and control these random phenomena through probability theory.
This article explores the existence of true randomness in the universe, challenging traditional mechanistic and deterministic viewpoints. The article begins by demonstrating the random waviness of electrons without external forces through the double-slit experiment in quantum mechanics, as well as the random distribution when individual electrons are imaged on a screen. It then discusses the theory of hidden variables, which suggests that there are undiscovered variables that could explain the deterministic motion of particles. However, experimental results from Bell's inequality have refuted this theory, proving the correctness of quantum mechanics. The article also mentions nonlinear systems in the macro world, such as the three-body problem in chaos theory, illustrating the uncertainty in the macro world. Finally, the article further explains the counterintuitive and random behavior of particles in quantum mechanics through anti-reflective film and delayed-choice experiments, emphasizing that randomness is ubiquitous even in the macro world. The article concludes that although the universe is full of randomness, this does not mean it is unknowable; humans can still understand and control these random phenomena through probability theory.
The fundamental deterministic nature of quantum mechanics (QM) is mathematically demonstrated by the modeling of the quantum (multiple) slit experiments; hence this paper is written from a deterministic perspective (DP) in quantum mechanics. Due to approximately 90 years of indeterminism and probabilistic statistical results, the theory consists of many interpretations and is often regarded as counterintuitive. The latter is in the deterministic perspective not the case and is illustrated with some examples. After a brief historic perspective, ‘invisible’ i.e. invisible entities of reality in mathematical treatment, are introduced. These entities are handled by mathematics indirectly i.e. are described in a transformed domain without variables violating the Heisenberg relation. In nature, i.e. on micro and macro levels, causality is fully ‘entangled’ with energy, information - in the meaning of ordering or coding - as well as time. In contrast with the macro scale with many forms and types of memory functions, without a memory property of quanta, causality is the bearer of information symmetry on the quantum scale. Further on in this DP paper: mathematical and philosophical consequences and influences in several paragraphs, regarding subjects such as ‘free will’ and expected ‘threats to science’, the Bell inequalities, Alice and Bob & entanglement, causality, information, retro-causality, spooky action, encryption and computing, teleportation, and in general interpretations rooted in indeterminacy in QM as well as associated topics on independence, fine-tuning. The last paragraph outlines the mathematical treatment of QM more extensively and may clarify references to the above-mentioned topics of discussion in QM further.
There is still no scientific consensus on the existence of ontic randomness. Understanding it is especially important for physics, as the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is believed to be irreducible. This theory aims to explain how the existence of true randomness is possible for the referential of a non-omniscient observer.The theory is built on a toy model in two thought experiments. We propose the concept of invisible and inaccessible laws as explanation for the occurrence of unpredictability and states that it represents the physical reification of Gödel's incompleteness theorem.The article proposes that the geometry of spacetime is able to explain several physical phenomena in the set of dimensional random events. Among these are the event horizon in black holes, the hypersensitivity to initial conditions, and the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. We develope the theorem of dimensional randomness for proving that a non-causal theory in a dimensionally incomplete space have correspondence with a causal theory in a dimensionally complete space. The theorem is used to question the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics through an implicit assumption that is made about the number of dimensions in spacetime for the development of Bell's theorem.
A theory with a simple physical model gives logical and reasonable answers to all the strange phenomena and difficult-to-understand problems in modern physics, from the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics QM, and up to the field of cosmology. It is a theory suitable for explaining phenomena from small particles to large bodies such as stars, galaxies, and the entire universe. In this article, we will define in an innovative manner how space-time is seen and we will give a different graphical representation to the special theory of relativity. We will show how the Lorentz transformation equations and the space-time interval are obtained from it, how light behaves in space-time, and according to it, how to obtain relativistic Doppler formulas. The most important thing in this article is that just as two bodies can be in two different times, according to the theory of relativity, they can also be simultaneously in two different locations. According to it, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and quantum superposition can be explained. We will present for the first time a very common physical phenomenon, but unknown up to this day, which we will call "leap set". According to it, we will logically and deterministically explain the double-slit experiment of electrons and we will show that the result of the experiment is not a wave interference because the electron does not pass through the slits, but it performs a leap set to possible locations on the screen. Also, according to the same model, we will see the conditions and reasons for quantum entanglement and how it is obtained. We will also show the expansion of the universe and Hubble's law according to this theory and model, the Casimir effect as a cosmological phenomenon. We will discuss the possibility of the existence of a mirror world completely identical to our world, located at a distance of 2x13.8Gly in the space-time and we will prove that the material mass energy of the universe is zero.
Abstract The nature of randomness and constructive and provable methods to obtain (extract) it from observations of physical systems are discussed. True randomness, which exists only in a microcosm in the quantum-mechanical description of physical systems, is a fundamental property of quantum systems, which manifests itself in the outcomes of measurements upon quantum systems. The classical description of physical systems does not include any randomness and, in fact, it is introduced ‘manually’ by means of uncertainty — unknown initial conditions. Methods to really ‘feel’ quantum randomness are discussed using the example of a quantum device, a random number generator. Issues related to the ‘proof’ of randomness — testing of numerical sequences — are reviewed, and logical constructions that underlie such testing are analyzed. A mathematical apparatus is used to this end, which does not require special academic training, so standard knowledge from university courses on quantum mechanics and probability theory is sufficient. The authors aim to track a unified logical path from the origin of randomness in the quantum domain to its extraction, physical implementation, and testing.
Recent tremendous development of quantum information theory has led to a number of quantum technological projects, e.g. quantum random generators. This development had stimulated a new wave of interest in quantum foundations. One of the most intriguing problems of quantum foundations is the elaboration of a consistent and commonly accepted interpretation of a quantum state. Closely related problem is the clarification of the notion of quantum randomness and its interrelation with classical randomness. In this short review, we shall discuss basics of classical theory of randomness (which by itself is very complex and characterized by diversity of approaches) and compare it with irreducible quantum randomness. We also discuss briefly “digital philosophy”, its role in physics (classical and quantum) and its coupling to the information interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM).
We argue that the double-slit experiment can be understood much better by considering it as an experiment whereby
one uses electrons to study the set-up rather than an experiment whereby we use a set-up to study the behaviour of electrons.
We also show that the concept of undecidability (like e.g. occurs in G\odel's theorem) can be used in an intuitive way to make sense of the double-slit experiment
and the quantum rules for calculating coherent and incoherent probabilities. We meet here a situation where the electrons always behave in a fully
deterministic way, while the detailed design of the set-up may render the question about the way they move through the set-up experimentally undecidable.
It is very important to make a distinction in quantum mechanics
between the determinism of nature (Einstein)
and the decidability of a question within an experimental set-up (Bohr).
The former is about the absolute truth of an answer to a yes or no question, and follows binary logic
(true or false),
the latter about what an experimental set-up
can decide and tell about the truth of that answer, and follows ternary logic (true, false or undecidable).
Binary and ternary logic are incompatible.
The viewpoints of Bohr and Einstein are thus operating on different levels and it is only by confusing these two levels
that these two viewpoints seem to be irreconcilable.
We show that the expression ψ1+ψ2 for the wave function of the double-slit experiment is numerically correct, but logically flawed. It has to be replaced in the interference region
by the logically correct expression ψ1′+ψ2′, which has the same numerical value as
ψ1+ψ2, such that ψ1′+ψ2′=ψ1+ψ2,
but with ψ1′=2ψ1+ψ2e4π=ψ1 and
ψ2′=2ψ1+ψ2e−4π=ψ2.
Here ψ1′ and ψ2′ are the correct
contributions from the slits to the total wave function ψ1′+ψ2′.
We have then $p = |\psi'_{1} + \psi'_{2}|^{2} = |\psi'_{1}|^{2} + |\psi'_{2}|^{2} = p_{1}+p_{2} $ such that the paradox
that quantum mechanics (QM) would not follow the traditional rules of probability calculus disappears.
The paradox is rooted in the wrong intuition that ψ1 and ψ2 would be the true physical contributions to
ψ1′+ψ2′=ψ1+ψ2 like in the case of waves in a water tank.
The solution proposed here is not {\em ad hoc} but based on an extensive analysis of the geometrical meaning of spinors within group representation theory
and its application to QM. Working further on the argument one can even show that an interference pattern is the only way to satisfy simultaneously
two conditions: The condition obeying binary logic (in the spirit of Einstein) that the electron has only two mutually exclusive options to get to the detector (viz. going through slit S1 or going through slit S2) and the condition obeying ternary logic (in the spirit of Bohr)
that the question which one of these two options the electron has taken is experimentally undecidable.
A very important element in the analysis is the problem of the non-existence of {\em common} probability distributions for different experimental set-ups.
And this is a recurrent theme in other situations that are felt as paradoxical.
The CHSH inequality used in the experiments of Aspect {\em et al.}
clashes with quantum mechanics because it
is based on the assumption that there would exist a {\em common} probability distribution for the
hidden variables in the different experiments that have to be made to determine the various quantities that intervene in the inequality.
That common probability distribution for measured quantities does not exist is well known from quantum mechanics itself (because the operators that come into play do not commute and therefore do not have common eigenstates, i.e.
common probability amplitudes). But this non-existence of common probability distributions applies also to certain variables in the set-ups of the different experiments and the latter fact
can also be explained by purely classical reasoning.