Ø

Ø

Ø

FAQ | Register Now | Sign In

Full Site

Physical Sciences

Earth Sciences

Life Sciences

Medicine

Social Sciences

Culture

Newsletter

HOME

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

PHYSICS

SPACE

CHEMISTRY

APPLIED PHYSICS

AEROSPACE

OPTICS

EARTH SCIENCES

ENVIRONMENT

ENERGY

ATMOSPHERIC

PALEONTOLOGY

GEOLOGY

OCEANOGRAPHY

LIFE SCIENCES

GENETICS & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

EVOLUTION

MICROBIOLOGY

ECOLOGY & ZOOLOGY

IMMUNOLOGY

NEUROSCIENCE

MEDICINE

CANCER RESEARCH

PUBLIC HEALTH

PHARMACOLOGY

CLINICAL RESEARCH

AGING

VISION

SOCIAL SCIENCES

ANTHROPOLOGY

ARCHAEOLOGY

PSYCHOLOGY

SCIENCE EDUCATION & POLICY

SCIENCE HISTORY

PHILOSOPHY & ETHICS

CULTURE

TECHNOLOGY

MATHEMATICS

SCIENCE & SOCIETY

SPORTS SCIENCE

RANDOM THOUGHTS

HUMOR

VIDEO

CONTRIBUTORS

Subscribe to the newsletter

[x]

Stay in touch with the scientific world!

Home > Physical Sciences > Physics > Science 2.0

God Does Play Dice With The Universe (And The Dice Are Fair)

By Hank Campbell | July 11th 2012 10:00 AM | 28 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

Science 2.0

More Articles

Prediction: 'Dark' May Be The Top Science Media Cliche Of 2013

Climate Change: Where Republicans And Democrats Agree

2-Year-Old Gets Trachea Transplant, Made From Her Own Stem Cells

All Articles

About Hank

I'm the founder of Science 2.0® and co-author of "Science Left Behind".

A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone...

View Hank's Profile

Hank Campbell

Want to get into a bar fight at a physics conference? Argue that quantum mechanics is the best way to predict outcomes. Or argue the opposite.

A new paper argues that quantum mechanics is close to optimal in terms of its predictive power but even if all the information is available, the outcomes of certain quantum mechanics experiments generally can't be predicted perfectly beforehand. Optimal but unpredictable? The best but often not good enough? Quantum mechanics is a confusing dichotomy, basically the LeBron James of the physics world.

Einstein and the giants of his day could not settle whether quantum mechanics is the best way to predict outcomes. Einstein's  'God does not play dice with the Universe' is often invoked in these arguments (less well known is Neils Bohr's one-time annoyed response, "Stop telling God what to do").

Quantum mechanics does not want to be limited to clever sound bites.

A group of theoretical physicists looked at measurements of maximally entangled pairs of photons sent into a Stern-Gerlach experiment, in which each photon can take one of two possible paths, generally spin up or spin down. (Want to do some Stern-Gerlach of your own?  The University of Colorado has a handy online tool here)

"In our experiment, we show that any theory in which there is significantly less randomness is destined to fail: quantum theory essentially provides the ultimate bound on how predictable the universe is," said Dr. Wolfgang Tittel, associate professor and GDC/AITF IndustrialResearch Chair in Quantum Cryptography and Communicationat the University of Calgary in a release.

Dr. Renato Renner, Professor at the ETH in Zürich added, "In other words, not only does God 'play dice,' but his dice are fair."

Take that, Einstein.

Dice with the universe?  Randomness makes things better.  Photo: Shutterstock

Randomness in quantum theory not only here to stay, it is apparently the way to go. "Its appeal is its fundamental nature and broad range of implications: knowing the precise configuration of the universe at the big bang would not be sufficient to predict its entire evolution, for example, in contrast to classical theory," says Tittel.

So if that person on television can't accurately predict the weather, give them a break.  Even if all of the information is available the outcome is still not certain, there is still some randomness built into the universe - and that's for the best.

Citation: Terence E. Stuart, Joshua A. Slater, Roger Colbeck, Renato Renner and Wolfgang Tittel, 'Experimental Bound on the Maximum Predictive Power of Physical Theories', Phys. Rev. Lett. Volume 109 Issue 2 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.020402

Related Articles on Science 2.0

Thomas H. Ray: care about Vongehr's idea of science

Einstein Got It Wrong, Can You Do Better?

God Does NOT Play Dice But Einstein Is Still Wrong

Sascha Vongehr Science 2.0 Articles by Topic

Indeterminism Comes Before Quantum Mechanics

Comments

It's Campbell in the Blue corner, Vongehr in the Red corner.

Seconds away... Round One.
knowing the precise configuration of the universe at the big bang would not be
sufficient to predict its entire evolution, for example, in contrast to
classical theory
Oh, Vongehr's taken totally unprepared, Hank lands a stunning left hook and Vongehr's down already... but not for long, he's up now and spitting blood! The crowd are loving it... Listen to them booing and hissing !!!
Even if all of the information is available the outcome is still not certain,
there is still some randomness built into the universe - and that's for the
best.
That must have been a foul!  Surely the Referee won't let that go?

Derek Potter | 07/11/12 | 11:33 AM

Link

That's what makes it great - quantum mechanics can't even agree on what quantum mechanics can't do!

—

Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind

Hank Campbell | 07/11/12 | 12:24 PM

Link

I can only imagine that there are at least 2 Universes where both Hank and Sascha each win by a knockout.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/11/12 | 14:05 PM

Link

It seems you can explain randomness in many worlds with each possibility existing, but how about in the other paradigm's, Is there some fundamental randomness generator built into the universe?

—

Thor Russell

Thor Russell | 07/11/12 | 17:50 PM

Link

Then how is it random?

Gerhard Adam | 07/11/12 | 18:30 PM

Link

It isn't.

You either keep all the worlds and have no inherent randomness, OR you have randomness chosing one world out of many possibilities.

In the first, the appearence of randomness is created because you are just one of the observers and therefore have only your own history of observations.  Note that the statistical randomness occurs relative to each observer, it is not a case of nature choosing one "potential" observer and making then "real". In fact, there is no meaning to the question "why am I in *this* world, not *that* one?" because each version of you is in their own world - in the same way as I am always "here"; the time is always "now" and I am always "me" etc.

As to *how* a random choice could be made: if we could define the random machinery then it would behave the way our description says it must and would therefore be deterministic. Reductio ad absurdum. So random must always be a black box. Not one with unknown mechanisms inside, but a fundamental element of the universe.

Derek Potter | 07/12/12 | 01:10 AM

Link

In an Eternalism view of time would such fundamental randomness be the same as that which determined the initial conditions of the this universe?

—

Thor Russell

Thor Russell | 07/12/12 | 02:57 AM

Link

The quick answer is I don't know. I would like to think the physics is the same right back to the initial state so any randomness will also be the same, but I get the impression that cosmologists are not so tidy-minded when they are intent on finding out where a low entropy start could come from!

Derek Potter | 07/12/12 | 05:25 AM

Link

Not one with unknown mechanisms inside, but a fundamental element of the universe.

If I understand even 10% of this topic, let me make one slight change to this.

"Not one with unknown mechanisms inside, but a fundamental random element of the universe."

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/12/12 | 09:29 AM

Link

No, Mike, I meant it the way I said it. I would not say "randomness is a random element" as that tells us nothing and detracts from the point I was making: which is that it is fundamental.

Derek (not verified) | 07/12/12 | 16:10 PM

Link

It isn't that these processes are invisible to us, they're inherently unknowable. I didn't think that was clear in your phrase, now it's quite possible your phrase is exactly right, but I wasn't implying "randomness is a random element", my intent was "randomness is a fundamental part of the Universe".

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/12/12 | 17:10 PM

Link

Vongehr argued for fundamental randomness all along (so what the hell are you even intending to hint at???). Also, Vongehr does not step into the ring with anybody who makes screaming "communist" count as a knock-out punch. In other words: If you have no idea what "Vongehr" is, maybe best be quiet about it.

Sascha Vongehr | 07/13/12 | 00:34 AM

Link

Touchy!

Still, I think a lot of people would like to know what your views on fundamental randomness actually are - your approach to MWI is an eye-opener and I for one would be interested to know whether you feel that fundamental randomness (not just emergent statistics in records which are peculiar to each world)  is forced upon us or whether it's just an option to keep open. And of course, where it would come in? Sub quantum theory or cosmology or what?

Genuinely curious but perhaps here is not the place?

Derek Potter | 07/19/12 | 09:19 AM

Link

Perhaps someone would care to explain what they mean by "randomness" since it doesn't appear that "randomness" is what's actually being referred to [versus simply "unpredictability"].

In other words, it's one thing to use the mathematical principle of "randomness" as a vehicle for producing essential unpredictable values, but it's quite another to attribute the trait of "randomness" to the various components of the universe.

Gerhard Adam | 07/11/12 | 14:45 PM

Link

Actually IMHO God doesn't 'play' dice; but he certainly uses them, and yes they are fair.

—

Tony Fleming
Biophotonics Research Institute
[email-masked]

Tony Fleming | 07/11/12 | 17:01 PM

Link

Neils Bohr's one-time annoyed response, "Stop telling God what to do"

Lol...

eloheim (not verified) | 07/13/12 | 08:21 AM

Link

For some reason, I am reminded of Godel's incompleteness theorems.

Kishore (not verified) | 07/14/12 | 19:32 PM

Link

It's interesting one of your referenced mathematicians is involved in Cryptography. The process of hiding deterministic solutions
within seemingly stochastic jumbles is well known to the mathematical
discipline of cryptology, a field of study used by banking institutes and
intelligence networks who desire to communicate within a secure network of
users.

Again, like the white noise of radio signals it is easy to see why quantum theory is thought to be a model of reality at the atomic level. Yet if we understand how the determinism works then the apparent randomness disappears.The cosmic microwave background radiation was not discerned from the cosmic radio noise before 1965.

—

Tony Fleming
Biophotonics Research Institute
[email-masked]

Tony Fleming | 07/15/12 | 18:43 PM

Link

An unspoken assumption coursing through this debate (and all cosmological debates) is that human cognition is unlimited in its capacity to generate algorithms that explain all things. I understand there's no value to a cosmologist in assuming the opposite, but it is hard to identify any selective pressure in our milieu that would push brain evolution to infinite acumen, and we may just have to admit we cannot know.

Hominid (not verified) | 07/17/12 | 07:03 AM

Link

Good job we don't need infinite acumen to think about infinite problems then innit?

Derek Potter | 07/17/12 | 13:08 PM

Link

Randomness and chaos theory are just necessary intermediate waypoints required for us to grasp for a breath of air while we tread water trying to understand the underlying deterministic processes that are revealed to us through scientific experimentation. The facts are that we, as a species, don't know jack.

Any theory based on statistical smearing is just a stopgap measure that allows us to think that we understand our universe. The reason Einstein said that "God does not play dice" is because he was fully aware how easily statistics can be manipulated, consciously or unconsciously, to show us what we want to see as opposed to what reality is actually trying to reveal to us.

It is appallingly easy for anyone of us to be fooled into thinking statistics themselves are deterministic. The only variable in these statistical equations and theories that are deterministic are that human behaviors WILL manipulate them for their own benefit. Einstein understood that better than any one of his contemporaries.

God does not play dice because he does not have to, he already knows the outcome. He is the ONLY one who can see all of the causal pathways that make each roll completely deterministic.

Dan Dady (not verified) | 07/17/12 | 07:07 AM

Link

The analogy to dice is actually faulty, and it is interesting to consider why.

Rolling dice is not actually random, but merely beyond our predictive powers. If you had a powerful enough computer, and input all the necessary variables (orientation of the dice, the force and angle of the throw, the surface on which they are thrown, etc) you could predict accurately how the dice would turn up. Same thing for other "random" events like coin flipping.

Not so in quantum mechanics. The event is truly random.

Such true randomness is beyond our understanding. How can there be an outcome that is independent of its causes? If the outcome is not an effect that is caused by the physical universe, then what on earth DOES cause it? Now we're truly in the realm of God. Quantum mechanics would seem not to disprove God, as Einstein feared, but to prove Him.

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/17/12 | 10:52 AM

Link

Sure, in an infinite universe that's possible.  As you might gather, what you consider faulty is context to a million people who wouldn't otherwise have a foundation in quantum mechanics.

—

Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind

Hank Campbell | 07/17/12 | 12:23 PM

Link

Then how does one explain women?

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/17/12 | 13:01 PM

Link

I am Christian but having studied physics to some extent I agree with Bohr, don't tell God what He can and/or cannot do. Sometimes I kiddingly think God watches and thinks "Guys, I can play this game all day."

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/17/12 | 15:31 PM

Link

This is stupid.

So-called randomness emerges from the rules of QM, notably the Schrodinger equation and the Born rule plus decoherence. The latter leads to a zillion interpretations of QM some of which manifestly include a random jump, others avoid random processes by creating an entire "ensemble" (???) of observer-data worlds, the internal histories of which obey "statistics" and are therefore random as far as you, the observer, are concerned.

Unless, of course, you happen to know exactly which world you are in, ha-ha.

"In our experiment, we show that any theory in which there is significantly less randomness is destined to fail: quantum theory essentially provides the ultimate bound on how predictable the universe is," says Dr. Wolfgang Tittel...
... Dr. Renato Renner .. added, "In other words, not only does God 'play dice,' but his dice are fair."

Take that, Einstein, said Hank.

Dr Tittel, it's nice that you have done some precise experiments but did you tabulate all the results you got in all the other worlds (the ones which may or may not exist)?
Didn't think so!
You have found randomness agreeing with theory in your own world.  But, Dr Renner, it says nothing about God playing dice across the worlds, indeed it says nothing about where those worlds have gone.

God rolling dice - pfft! Schrodinger knew that multiple worlds was the issue 30 years before Everrett filled the cosmos with every universe imaginable and unimaginable. So let's skip the "God does play dice" nonsense (translation: Hank knows better than Einstein.) and just say:

"If God Plays Dice With The Universe Then The Dice Are Fair (But If He Doesn't Then QM Still Predicts The Odds Correctly*.)"

Doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?

*Fairy-winged qualia permitting, as always.

---- edited a bit; live with it.

Derek Potter | 07/19/12 | 17:01 PM

Link

The statement Einstein made regarding God playing dice was not actually a value judgment about the existence of God. Rather he was commenting on the ease of which statistics can be used to manipulate the data in order to fit the theories. Or worse, manipulate the theories by embedding statistics into them in order to force the theories into fitting the data. Either way it leads to a "zillion interpretations of QM" for which only a few, if any, will eventually to have been proven to have been correct. How many resources have been wasted thus far chasing nonexistent ghosts down blind alleys leading us to nowhere?

The "randomness" is built into the QM theories in order to conveniently explain results that aren't or can't be predicted, yet. That was the warning given to us by Einstein with his dice analogy.

"I am well aware that no causality exists in relation to the observable; I consider this realization to be conclusive. But in my opinion one should not conclude from this that the theory, too, has to be based on fundamental laws of statistics. It is, after all, possible that the (molecular) structure of the means of observation involves the statistical character of the observable, but that it is expedient in the end to keep the basis of the theory free from statistical concepts."

-Albert Einstein

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/19/12 | 19:39 PM

Link

Anonymous:
As to your Einstein quote:  While it may be preferable (you quote Einstein as saying "expedient") "to keep the basis of the theory free from statistical concepts", it may not be possible.

So, the more truly fundamental question is whether it is possible "to keep the basis of the theory free from statistical concepts".

It seems to me that that's what the referenced research is trying to address.

David

David Halliday | 08/02/12 | 17:24 PM

Link

Know Science And Want To Write?

Register Now To Get Your Own Column!

What's Happening

Top Articles

New Comments

Events

Saturn Still Looks Young And Hot For Its Age

When Anti-Science Is Not

Climate Change: Where Republicans And Democrats Agree

Your Move

The Cave Of Death: 10 Million B.C.

New fossil arthropod named after Johnny Depp

The Complex Physics Behind Ducks' Feet

"I started with Practical Wireless, but in about 1960 I was introduced to Radio Constructor by a..."

"ヴィヴィアンウエストウッド 財布 ヴィヴィアン 財布 メンズ ヴィヴィアンウエストウッド..."

" Semi Truck Parking Тягачи с кузовом, наполненным чем-то тяжёлым..."

" Semi Truck Parking Тягачи с кузовом, наполненным чем-то тяжёлым..."

"Fabio: I value every comment which adds educational value to my article, which you did with the..."

Science Online Bay Area May 6th: The Reproducibility Crisis

Nautilus - Science Gets A Literary Magazine

PRX STEM Story Project - Do You Have A Radiolab Idea In You?

Keck Futures Initiative - 2013 National Academies Communication Awards

University of Minnesota's "Physics Circus" January 10th, 2013

How graphene and friends could harness the Sun's energy

Robotic insects make first controlled flight

Increased risk of heart attack and death with progressive coronary artery calcium buildup

Heart cells change stem cell behavior

Researchers find that some 'green' hot water systems fail to deliver on promises

more

Hot Topics

Links

Science 2.0 News

Current Topic:

Planck And The Young Universe

The best writers in science tackle science's hottest topics.

Science 2.0 Links

Take a look at the best of Science 2.0 pages and web applications from around the Internet!

Science 2.0 Cool Links

Science 2.0 Version 3 Product Planning

Mark Changizi on ScriptPhD And Andrea Kuszewski at the H+ Summit

Kindle Ad Space

Want To Go Ad Free?

Books By Writers Here

There Is No Scientific Method

Millennials: Generation Unreal

Sea Snakes Break Evolution Rules

Fasting: Here's What Happened

Another Psych. Embarrassment

more

Who's
Online?

<

Hank Campbell

Patrick Lockerby

Greg Morris

Robert H Olley

Steve Savage

Mi Cro

462 guests

>

About Us | Contact Us | RSS |
Terms |
Privacy |
Copyright and Removal |
Advertise with Us

© 2013 ION Publications LLC