Randomness in Nature

>>8640979
You mean replicate the Big Bang in a controlled setting?

>>8640981
Theoretically if a superadvanced race was "observing and recording" the Big Band and had an absurdly powerful computer, could they simulate everything that is happening? If the universe ends in a crunch (not likely), and is indeed a closed system, how autistic is it to think that if there is another Big Bang, that it would be exactly like this one down to this thread?

File: finalfifieldcinefex.png (713KB, 710x518px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 710x518px

>>8640979
>tfw too dumb for /sci

File: 160204075148-jeb-bush-audience-please-clap-new-hampshire-sot-00002230-large-169.jpg (24KB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 460x259px

>tfw /sci too dumb to answer

Please bump
Please BmeTFO

is sci dead? someone at least tell me i am retarded or something. at the very least direct me back to where i came from.

>>8640979
First, how would you simulate infinity no machine can process this concept.

Second: quantum mechanics are not deterministic at least under the Copenhagen interpretation there's some other theory that can explain most of its phenomena in a deterministic way, for example pilot wave theory, but never bias yourself if you like this one more than the other be objective

>>8641176
I don't remember mentioning infinity, but it brings up a good question over whether infinity exists in nature. There are not infinity sub-atomic particles in the universe. And no "Pi" is not a good answer.

I agree about objectivity. I am not looking to affirm a "belief". I want a discussion, I want to learn, I want to know what a physicist has to say about whether "random" and "infinity" are more than mind games. I mean, for the love of god, you should see the threads I made about this on /his/ and /sci/. Disgraceful.

>>8641187
What I meant is we could never simulate, for example ourselves you see, you can think of infinity, but a computer can't so it won't be a perfect simulation that's what I was saying.

Also, you asked about quantum randomness I gave you an answer I don't see anything wrong.

>>8641199
We are in the philosophical realm now. It is why I keep using the word "theoretically". I can barely do algebra.

I am reading all about it now, thank you!

first things first, time is a human construct, not something that exists naturally in nature. Do animals ever seem concerned with time? Sure they operate on rhythms, but i've never seen animals freak out because they were 2 hours late.

You can't time travel backwards, but you can speed up or slow down your sense of time, so theoretically you can time travel hundreds of years in a few weeks time but not the other way around.

if a simulated big bang had the exact conditions that were present in the 'original' big bang then given enough time, anything and everything will happen(infinite time-lines).

though the human understand of the universe would not be able to reproduce the exact conditions that were present at the big bang. we can get close but we will always be missing something.

>>8641214
So you are saying that *****IF***** the universe eventually collapses, and all energy becomes contained in a single point, and there is no more or less than there is currently in the universe, that the following universe would be different somehow.

>>8641214
Time as hours doesnt exist naturally but time itself do exist and its co related with the space and travel to the past its possible under this theory

>>8641221
I would say so. When everything collapses would it collapse back into the exact same point that it first expanded from? It would have to be 100% exact to replicate the exact same universe.

>>8641224
rhythm exists. you can observe and measure the degree of which something oscillates between two points but to add time to it would be a human construct

>>8641243
>the exact same point that it first expanded from?
This is not something that I can answer. Not even sure if it is applicable if we can only imagine space being within the bounds of the universe.

>>8640979

At the moment, there are processes in nature that 'appear' random. Many determinists will claim that this is not the full story, that we are missing something to 'fill in the blanks' (God does not play dice and all that shit). So, these process may be truly random (having no pattern and being impossible to predict) or perfectly characterised by a deeper theory that is yet unknown.

A more pressing question to consider is whether, even if a system IS determnistic, it would be possible to perfectly predict its behaviour. The equations involved would doubtless be horrifically complicated and their solution time would be impractically large. Physics hinges on building models, and efficiency is an important consideration.

>Bell's Theorem
Bell's Theorem is not the end of the story. It doesn't rule out determinism completely.
>If you could reverse time to the moment of the Big Bang, would the resulting universe be exactly the same as this one, or could there be different physical laws?

That depends whether laws of nature have randomness or whether some things are truly constant (e.g. physical constants), but there are random processes too. I guess if the basic laws were the same, but there were random processes, you'd expect the universe to look the same large scale (morphology of galaxy clusters), but small changes would be amplified á la chaos theory. Hence, we might not expect the Milky Way to look exactly the same, or Earth to exist.

>I guess I am asking whether the universe is a closed system. If we had could observe and record the Big Bang, could we theoretically simulate the entire universe including ourselves?

Even without randomness, we'd need to simulate every atom in the universe ... which would require more memory (for the computer) than the entire universe i.e. the computer would have to be larger than the universe. We are forced to approximate.

File: Double-compound-pendulum.gif (218KB, 160x120px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 160x120px

>>8641339
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH