Dear Chian Fan ,

As much as I dislike Mr. Preston Guynn, I have to agree with him in his previous comment.

Mikhail.

Dear Mikhail N Dulin

I completely agree with @Preston Guynn on this issue, although his statement seemed a bit annoyed, perhaps he was addressing my ignorance.

I've always held the view that randomness in the physical world, if it exists at all, can only have one form, complete randomness, i.e. the probability of all the counterparts appearing exactly equal and summing to 1. Any non-uniformly distributed randomness makes sense mathematically, but it can't exist physically because, for example, we would have to account for the causes that lead to such a distribution. And once that causality is constructed, it means that random is no longer random. The logic of this post points to only one conclusion that can be deduced, and that is that there can be no true randomness.

@Preston Guynn has queried, and even harshly accused, my motives on more than one occasion, so I understand what you're saying. But I'm sorry to say that such accusations lack basic thinking. How stupid can a person be to expect to seek real-world benefits in an academic forum?

All of the questions I posted were logically pointing to the same thing. Each of us has a specific knowledge base and inertia of thought, and easily rejecting a question is a habit we can hardly overcome. I would expect specific criticisms such as, there are logical errors in the question, the question has been answered for a long time, there are problems with your understanding of the equations, and so on.

You are welcome at all times!

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Chian Fan ,

Apparently, I got excited and in vain referred to Mr. Preston Guynn in my previous comment. Please forgive me.

The reason for this action was related to the mention of the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function in the main text of the discussion. With which I categorically cannot agree, since I believe that in the region of the quantum of action h (for which the wave function is periodic), that is, in the segment of space λ=h/p or time τ=h/ε, there is no randomness, but there is complete uncertainty for the coordinate or moment of time.

Therefore, I can happily agree with your conclusion that there can be no true randomness in nature.

Once again, I apologize.

Dulin Mikhail.

Dear Mikhail N Dulin

I've always thought that expressing my view of points directly in a question lacks the sincerity of listening to others. It seems like it could be potentially misleading. You really don't need to apologise and there is nothing to apologise for. Our focus remains on discussing academic issues. Your participation is enough to make me very grateful.

Best Regards, Chian

The question

“【NO.55】Unification Issues (4) - If the bridge between randomness and causality is the wave function Ψ(x,t), what should it be determined by?”

- relates to a really fundamental problem , problem – what is QM uncertainty and how it relates to causality and determinism in processes in Matter.

The problem - as any other really fundamental problem in physics - really can be scientifically rationally considered only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, two main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics [ in this paper section 2.9 “Mediation of the forces in complex systems” can be passed since this more comprehensively is given in section 6.“Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems” in the 2-nd paper below], and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383127718_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics .

In the model completely rigorously scinentifically, including in complete accordance with all reliable experimental data, it is postulated that everything in Matter is/are some specific disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE],

- which [lattice] is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct). FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP, correspondingly the always constantly running algorithms move constantly in the utmost universal, “kinematical” 4D space with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z) with the speed of light, c, c= lP/tP,

At that practically everything in Matter – besides fundamental Nature forces mediators – i.e. all/every particles and systems of the particles - are some cyclic disturbances - cyclic algorithms that tick with frequencies ω.

2-nd important point in this case is that because of the logical self-inconsistence of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Change” any changes are logically prohibited, and to overcome this prohibition it is necessary to spend some portion of energy, however that isn’t sufficient, and so on some scale changes are uncertain – “illogical”. In Matter that is QM scale, where changes, say, in position, Δx, and momentum, ΔP , of a particle, is in, as that postulated in QM with accordance with experiment, ΔPΔx ≥ћ .

At that Matter is rather simple and completely rigorously organized basing on the set of fundamental and universal laws/links/constants informational system, so the uncertainty above rather convincingly looks as is – and that is postulated in the model - rather limited.

First of all that the equation above is universally true independently on to what of numerously diverse Matter’ objects relates,

- it is completely identically applicable for all identical objects, first of all particles, nonetheless given types particles are identical [why? – see the links above], and so, say, while in an atom electrons and nucleus states constantly change, all given type atoms are identical,

- so in the model it is well rationally scientifically proposed that the inequality above really is equality ΔPΔx=ћ .

The post is rather long already, so now more see the links above, to read https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387933457_A_response_to_question_What_is_the_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception it is useful as well.

Cheers

Continuity & Discritness depends on what scale we study a system. Let take for example the motion of stone : shall us study it with wave mechanics od Shrodinger-Debroglie?: I don't think so beacuse Newton mechanics is suffisent . According to Shrodinger-Debroglie wave mechanics the stone can be considered as a packet of waves which are reinforced in limited region of space and destroyed each other away. This is a wrong model mathematically: a packet of waves is repeated along all space and there is no defined "position" of the stone.

According to Planck theory of heat radiation a Planck oscillator (which is here our stone) should take time to absorb energy from electromagnetic field in a black body cavity. Exchange energy is not instanious and Planck translate this to the condition that:

The frequency of oscillator times time >great integer.

But the stone is limited in space extension is like a pulse. A pulse to be considred as a pulse should not expand so much in time. This is translated as:

The frequency of the pulse times time