- Mar 8, 2003[Nik Weaver]
The quantum Zeno effect asserts that repeated
measurements of an excited state tend to inhibit its decay. So what?
The rest of your post was pretty much nonsense, IMHO.
So the behaviour of the system no longer conforms to your mental image of
randomness. It moves closer to the situation that you might habitually term
The extrapolation of the experiment says that if the excited state could be
observed "constantly and forever", then it could never decay. A radioactive
atom would become non-radioactive in its behaviour. That seems a fairly big
deal for those who believe that the world "is" random. And pretty good
empirical proof that we can manipulate the statistics of a real-life system
to move it along a spectrum of behaviour between two modelling extremes -
the random and the deterministic paradigms.
Geez Louise. I stand by my assertion that in principle (yes, "even"
in principle. Whatever) one cannot prove that some phenomenon is
truly random. That has to do with a basic philosophical principle
that one cannot prove anything non-tautological about the physical
world. We can't "prove" evolution either, to come back to the
nominal list topic. You will recall, Steven, that I wrote this in
response to your comment that randomness of atomic decay "shouldn't
be considered proven". I responded, how could such a thing be
I also stand by my assertion that radioactive decay really is random,
just like atomic decay and many other quantum phenomena, contrary to
your mistaken claim that it is "almost certainly" (??) deterministic.
So you accept the basic modelling point - "one cannot prove anything
non-tautological about the physical
world". But you don't seem to understand that the quantum zeno effect is
empirical evidence that a system that looked "random" can be made to look
"non-random". And then you appear to contradict yourself by saying while we
can't "prove" (ie: gain certain knowledge of) anything about the truth of a
model, you know you are right that decay really is random and that is
mistaken to claim that it might be deterministic.
How do you know such a thing except as an act of faith? If you say empirical
evidence gives you no other choice but to believe the model, then that is
being scientific. If you ignore conflicting evidence to maintain a cherished
from John McCrone
check out my consciousness web site
neuroscience, human evolution, Libet's half second, Vygotsky and more...
- << Previous post in topic