Peter Wegner (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:16:48 -0400 (EDT)
I have recently been added to the time group and have a response to the
following comment by Ben.
> When a random collapse occurs, of course it is constrained to within a
narrow range of choices. Otherwise the universe would be complete chaos!
A so called random collapse occurs when we attempt to observe the universe.
I claim that this observed randomness is not inherent in the universe, but is simply the revealing of properties of a system state that has been subject to unobserved modifications by effects such as random noise.
In the multi-stream interaction machine model (MIM) there is a primary observer with secondary observers that may affect the system in ways that are unobservable to the primary observer.
Secondary observers may cause system changes that are interpreted as random by the primary observer when the primary observer makes an observation.
According to this viewpoint a random collapse is not random but is caused
deterministically by unobservable secondary observers.
The above model appears consistent with observation and explains perceived
nondeterminism in accordance with Einstein's principle that God does not play dice.
Observed randomness is due to limitations of the observer rather than to inherent randomness of the universe.
This explanation of randomness is simply a hypothesis at this stage, but I
believe it could be tested.
Devising an experiment that distinguishes between this hypothesis and
random collapse is a challenge.
I believe that an extension of the experiment that demonstrated the Bell inequalities could possibly provide a framework for testing this hypothesis.
Alain Aspect showed the Bell inequalities by considering interactions among two particles.
If we extend this experiment to the interaction of three particles we can model a MIM and provide a framework for testing the hypothesis.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:51 JST