Plus, at its heart, quantum rules rely on probabilities — quantum mechanics only reproduces classical physics on average. Based on these two insights, Bohr argued that a quantum theory can never explain classical physics. In other words, atoms and their ilk operate under one set of rules, and trains and people operate on another set of rules. They can and must be connected via the Correspondence Principle, but otherwise they live separate and parallel lives.

Was Bohr right? Some physicists argue that we just haven't worked hard enough, and that we do fundamentally live in a quantum world, and that we can reproduce classical physics from purely quantum rules. Other physicists argue that Bohr nailed it and we don't need to talk about it anymore. Most just keep their heads down and crunch through the math without worrying about it too much.

But still, it's something to think about. - Copied

only dead fish go with the flow ; )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSSPDwAQLXs

https://medium.com/intuitionmachine/there-is-no-randomness-only-chaos-and-complexity-c92f6dccd7ab

Deconstructing Randomness as Chaos and Entanglement in Disguise

https://medium.com/intuitionmachine/cargo-cult-statistics-versus-deep-learning-alchemy-8d7700134c8e

im fascinated by mad scientists !!

That's a whole lotta fascinating to be doing !

now. Onward....to the edge of chaos !

https://curiosity.com/topics/why-computers-can-never-generate-truly-random-numbers-curiosity/

Modern computers can do some pretty amazing things. So why can't they do something as simple as simulating a dice roll? It all comes down to the way computers are programmed. Computers follow algorithms, which are essentially just lists of instructions on how to carry out tasks. They're slaves to their instructions, so they're completely predictable. Still, engineers are pretty savvy, and they've come up with a few different ways to make computers generate something very close to random numbers, even if they can't generate true randomness.

If true randomness existed at any time, perhaps it was at the Big Bang, if that's your cup of tea. Since then everything is ordered. If true randomness ever came into being, the universe would have ended long ago.

Bye 'til next week so.... 

Happy Valentine's Day Everyone !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBCDvINm0Vo

Same in randomness! x

Well, the second law of thermodynamics says that there was less randomness at the Big Bang than at any time since then!

Repeat "the Big Bang does not exist" 7 times.

I said it 10 times ... gave it that little extra boost.

There is no question that the Big Bang exists - as a time when everything we see now in the observable Universe arose from a tiny, rapidly expanding, extremely hot, and nearly uniform state. This is a matter of inference from facts including the visible state of the Universe as it was 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when it first became transparent.

Indeed these days it is generally agreed that the emergence of this extremely hot, dense and rapidly expanding state from a period of cosmological inflation is also a reliable conclusion, based on successful quantitative predictions from this hypothesis.

If you want to redefine "Big Bang" to require something else, you can reject the existence of that something else, but pretty much every cosmologist uses the term Big Bang for the above picture and accepts it as true.

Define the Big Bang, please. Nothing you have written there indicates exactly what you think the "Big Bang" is.

Do you genuinely think that at the moment of the Big Bang, all the matter at present in the universe existed in that tiny point? 

Cosmologists in general have very varying ideas of what they think the Big Bang must be. I've talked to scores of them.

To make it straightforward, the classical BBT is that all the matter at present in the universe existed at a minute point in space and time and due to a miracle (which they call a singularity) this matter exploded (which some of them claim was not an explosion but an expansion or an inflation) into an expanding universe which we have now. Clearly, some theoreticians have problems understanding the English language if they do not know what an explosion is, or a miracle.

Problem is, that model
(a) has never been successfully **mathematically modelled** in the first instant after the singularity and
(b) cannot possibly account for acceleration of universal expansion without a steady state factor.

mustang talk about true randomness, and elroch talk about general randomness.
the difference between these two concepts already discussed here in details. so instead, i want to talk about Contextomy. lol.

quote: "Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning"

another quote:"Contextomies may be either intentional or accidental if someone misunderstands the meaning.."

The Big Bang is the early history of the Universe, back to the epoch of cosmological inflation. There is no "moment of the Big Bang" in this picture, nor (with inflation) is it clear that one exists. Note that time is not an absolute anyway, rather it is a partial order on space-time and events. There is no necessity that there is some point in space time which is before all others.

Quantum gravity seems to inevitably smear points to something less clear at the highest energies/temperatures/temporal resolutions, but with the (fairly) modern idea of inflation, the temperatures at which that is key never quite get reached (at a somewhat lower, but still stupendously high, temperature inflation kicks in.