Is there really any such thing as uncertainity/Infinite universes?

Question

I read in some books about a theory, that states that every time we get into a problem with more than one possible outcomes like the tossing of a coin, the universe splits into as many times as there are solutions, each universe contining one of the possible solutions. Thus, for the tossing of the coin, the universe may be split into two, one universe with the coind landing heads up, the other with the coin landing tails up.
But I have been wondering, is there really radomness. I mean, if we know the precise conditions that the coin was tossed in, e.g. the speed with it was spinned, thrown in to the air, the gravity at various heights, the windspeed, etc, we can put all this into some formulas and get back the result of the tossing without actually performing it.
So, I guess my question is, is there really something like randomness, or is it just because of our inability to measure things correctly that we call things random?

Answer 1

There are randomness in independent events. But there is no randomness in a set of data. Chaos theory suggests that every random or chaotic set of data is actually in some order. If you are trying to pick a bead from a bag that contains 6 different colors of beads, you can say that the color you pick is random. But if you do it 100 times, then you can say that there is an order and the set of data is not completely random.

Answer 2

Very good questions. You're obviously thinking about this quite a bit.



There are a couple levels to the discussion of randomness. You're absolutely right tht if we know everything about a coin toss with sufficient precision, we can predict the outcome. In fact, coin tossing robots have been built, often for use in statistics simulations by students, which are so accurate that the coin always lands the same way. So, the randomness of a coin toss is really a reflection of the slight variations in human movement. So, it's not really a random event, it's a poorly calibrated one which gives rise to a sort of pseudo-randomness, if done sloppily.



Then there's the question of randomness at all, and does it even exist in nature, or is nature, as many early scientists thought, entirely deterministic. This is a much more interesting question. At the large scale, that of macroscopic objects, it appears to be deterministic, or at least sufficiently close to deterministic for most cases, that the early laws of physics were all similarly deterministic. In the early 1700s, many though that if you knew the position and the momentum of everything in the universe, you could predict the future accurately. This "clockwork universe" idea was very much a product of its time, and as we learned more, it became apparent that there was true randomness.



The quantum scale is where we find truly random events. It's possible to make probabalistic statements about quantum mechanics, but it's not possible to say exactly where a photon will land, or precisely where an electron is at a given time. This was debated at first, and led to the development of a branch of quantum mechanics (QM) that tried to show that there was determinism, but we just didn't (or couldn't) measure everything with sufficient precision. This was called "hidden variable theory". In the 60s, this issue was finally put to rest when the theory was developed to the point where there was found to be a measurable difference in the hidden varaible theory, and other pursuits in QM which accept things as random, even if the additional varaibles are not measured. This was JS Bell's inequality, and what it is and what it means is too much to go into here. Look it up if you want to know more.



So, it looks like at the quantum scale there really is true randomness. But, this can be difficult to interpret. The idea of universes splitting is actually one interpretation of QM, called the Everett-Wheeler hypothesis. The more standard Copenhagen interpretation involves a single universe, but a non-strongly deterministic model of QM. The EW hypothesis, also called the "many worlds" interpretation is really very interesting and has a lot of good arguments going for it, in my opinion.



Neither hypothesis has any provable outcome that can distinguish them from each other, but a recent poll by the American Insititue of Physics found that among theoretical physicist, EW hypothesis and the Copenhagen interpretation have roughly equal popularity as far as which one "seems right". Perhaps as science progresses we'll be able to understand these ideas well enough that we can experimentally determine which is right, but for now they're both open questions.

Answer 3

Radom variables deal with probability densisties.These are mathematical representation of How an event would behave.

In reality probability is not a function of something which is haphazard;It is actually a forced function which is dependent on more than one variable.For example ,the tossing of a coin;The outcome is a function of temperature,and gravity. it depends differentely at at each flip and temperature change ,as well with the potential energy while its in the air. If grains of sand are dropped to the floor ,a pilewill results which will resemble the Binominal Probability Distributions.The reason this occurs is because its Gravity Field dependent.



Hence every event in the universe follows a patterns which are dependent on physical laws.Hence what appears as chaos is really a well designed order.



The Is the reason why some of the Theorethical Physisits attribute to a recent belief that the Creation of the Universe was planned since Eternity as a very intelligent designed sytem.

As far as measurements are concerned we can only measure average value.We can only calculate. Instantaneous value. For example the speed of light as measured relative to our solar system is an average value.This is something that Einstein skipped. It took Eisenberg to prove that point.He called the "underteminancy principle".Later it was translated as the uncertainty principle. All this is refered to was basically about the limitation of measurements.What is called a probability boils down to bedeterministic.In the same way we can solve an nth order differential equation but only use the second order as the solution.



How ever no measurements can be assumed to be exact we can only approximate in Science.

Answer 4

Interesting question! What you are thinking of is one possible interpretation of quantum mechanics. The Everett many worlds interpretation. This is definitely not the accepted favorite among physicists. As one man said, this interpretation is cheap on assumptions but expensive on universes. Most of us currently side with the orthodox interpretation, that the universe just has some fundamentally random events. Its just simpler than thinking new universes are constantly being created everytime we make a measurement. As for the little things that affect the outcome of the coin flip, speed, air, and other stuff...this illustrates the big difference between probability in classical and quantum physics. In classical physics, we use probability whenever the system under consideration is just way too complex. In classical physics we could in principle predict the future if we just knew everything about the motions and positions of all the particles in the universe. In quantum physics probability is fundamental to events. We can't know the exact position and momentum of even one particle, and certainly not every particle in the universe because of the uncertainty principle. The best we can do is talk about what is probable and what isn't. There may be causes in the classical sense for the outcomes of quantum events, but nature prevents us from ever knowing anything about them. The question you must ask yourself is does something I can never know anything about exist all the same. Dirac likened this to the ancient question of how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. Physicists just prefer to say that the universe has some random events and they leave the question of whether or not there are causes from outside the universe to philosophers and theologians. So keep in mind that there are some random events in nature. If you have six uranium atoms sitting in a row you know that on average three will decay in 4.5 billion years. It is possible none may decay or that five will decay, and when they do finally go nothing caused them to decay. It is as if God flips his coin, rolls his dice and says...you decay now.

Answer 5

u shouldn't try things like geuss and check. it may lead u to the wrong conclusion about your problem