Tag Info

New answers tagged

1

You have just read reasonable answers of knowledgeable people, so now you know that "radioactive decay...- it's completely stateless (@Luaan)", "There are no patterns" (@Luboš Motl), and "Atoms are dumb" (@David Hammen). However, there is a bit more to it. Atoms may be dumb, but they happen to know quantum mechanics much better than we, mere mortals, do. So ...


1

Is there some sort of pattern to which atoms decay at which time, or is it some miraculous property of quantum mechanics that somehow each atom knows when to decay? Atoms are dumb. They don't know anything. Radioactive decay is a memoryless process, a process that doesn't depend on history. Consider three atoms of radon 222. One was created a month ago ...


5

There are no patterns. When a particle decays, the moment when it does so is absolutely random, chosen from the distribution $$ P_{\rm decay}(t\lt T\lt t+dt) = \frac{dt}{t_0}\cdot \exp(-t/t_0) $$ For $t=t_0$, the beginning of time when we knew that the particle still existed, the exponential is equal to one and we see that the "probability of the decay per ...


0

In standard EPR experiment, when detectors answer only match or not match , there is no classical solution. But experiments show other cases where one or both detectors don't detect their photon. Only 75% are detected on each arm. Read inside the papers, not only the abstacts. If you take account of the other options, there are classical probabilistic ...


0

Do we know any event (or whatever else) which has no reason? Reasons (causes) are constructions of human mind. There are many things that human mind has not been able to explain with reasons. I like the following example my friend told me. Imagine a man walking down the street that gets hit by a flowerpot falling down from a balcony above. You may ...


3

No, since 1925 or 1926, we have known – thanks to Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr, Max Born, and colleagues who have discovered the so-called "quantum mechanics", the new foundation of modern physics – that the Universe is not deterministic in this sense. Even the maximal possible knowledge of the initial state is insufficient for the prediction of phenomena ...


1

The premise of your question is flawed. It is not possible to know everything with perfect accuracy, even in a non-quantum fully deterministic system. (In a quantum system, even if you do know its state with perfect accuracy, you can't predict it accurately.) Ever hear of chaos? the butterfly effect? the three-body problem? No matter how well you know the ...


0

We don't know is probably the right answer to this question. With current knowledge of quantum mechanics it is believed that randomness is inherent in quantum mechanics. Or we may simply do not yet know the mechanics behind. In conclusion if randomness is real than there is no way for a universe to produce exactly the same result when started multiple ...


0

To my taste, the most coherent way to think about it is to realize that the whole concept of "randomness" is strongly related do lack of information. It only makes sense to talk about randomness when we have a small "agent", who is a part of a large "universe" -- thus he cannot have a complete knowledge about that universe. But he needs to make some ...



Top 50 recent answers are included