From: platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt)
Subject: Re: What does quantum have to do with it?
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:03:00 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <MERRITT.93Jan22141329@macro.bu.edu>, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
|> In article <22JAN199309455729@csa2.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
|> 
|>    In article <martel.727705022@marvin>, martel@marvin.mr.sintef.no (Paulo Martel) writes...
|>    > 
|>    >Chip, I don't want to start an argument again. But the discussion started
|>    >because of Scott Chase's statement: "There is *real* randomness". I went
...
|> 
|> >>   Let's set the record straight.  Someone in a.s.p.new-theories asked if
|> >>   radioactive decay and other like phenomena were really random or if they
|> >>   were determinate, with the appearance of randomness.  I answered that
|> >>   there is *real* randomness.  That means that so far as we know, with
|> >>   no evidence to the contrary, QM is correct, and it predicts real
|> >>   randomness in such processes.  I stand by that statement.  I do not think
|> >>   that the original poster wanted your philosophical opinion.  He wanted 
|> >>   our best answer according to science.
|> 
|> This question about whether radiactive decay is "random" or not is not 
|> cut and dry. R. Armowitt was the instructor of a first year graduate
|> course in quantum mechnics when I was in grad school and he claimed is
|> was not.
...

|> 
|> "The is no such thing as a random number."
|> 
|> Instuctor at MIT in Random Number Math course, first words uttered
|> to the class.

According to the description of QM, if you excite some stable atom
into an excited state by hitting it with a photon, the excited state
will be fairly well defined (there's only a few ways that a photon can
be absorbed, and the result will be some superposition of them).  That
state may spontaneously decay, radiating a photon.  The question is,
is there some difference in the condition of an atom that would cause
the decay to happen in 1/2 of a half-life vs 8 half-lives?  In that context
the answer is no.  QM does not provide a mechanism to attach a particular
condition to an atom that is about to decay; it only computes cross-sections
and transition rates (Golden Rule kinds of things...  wasn't Fermi great?!?).

The next question is whether there's anything underneath QM...  Maybe.
Lots of people (Bell, Boehm, etc) have explored various versions of
the question.  Even if there is something underneath QM, would that
description include more information about decay rates?  I think
that's yet another question, and certainly one that must remain open
until a consistent deterministic model that explains QM results comes
along.

Dan

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel E. Platt                                      platt@watson.ibm.com
The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories