Lumo Confuses Himself About Probability - Again

Unfortunately I must report that the Blogfather has once again gotten himself dizzy while chasing his tail in yet another futile attempt to make his version of Statistical Mechanics make sense. This time he decides that suitable mutilation of the concept of probability will do the trick:

But what's important to notice is that the meaning of the probability always refers to the situation

a property is unknown/blurred at t=1−ϵ it is well-known/sharp at t=1+ϵ

The two signs simply cannot be interchanged. The very meaning i.e. the right interpretation of the wave function or the phase space probability distribution is in terms of probabilities so the time-reversal-breaking quote above is inevitably understood in every and any discussion about probability distributions and wave functions.

He is trying to tell us that probability only applies to prediction of the future - though the stuff about wave functions and quantum mechanics is thrown in mostly for obfuscation. Oddly enough, he forgets one of the more familiar roles of probability in particle physics - his subdiscipline - is in retrodiction. Suppose one is measuring the cross section for a particular type of event as a function of energy and one notices more events at one energy than the rest. The question one then wants to answer is what is the probability that the current state resulted from the various possible or imaginable states in the past - is the bump in your curve a fluctuation or does it indicate resonance producing a real change in cross section.

Probability is a more versatile concept than is imagined in the Lumonator's world. We use it in a for more time symmetric fashion than he imagines. Of course all these ideas, including the unitary evolution of the quantum state, have been discussed by more subtle minds than mine or Lumos. He really ought to read some of them.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anti-Libertarian: re-post

The most pointed critique of social security and liberalism in general is the libertarian critique. The problem with libertarians, for a liberal, is that we have too much in common. We both believe in individual rights, tolerance of individual differences, and dislike government prescription of religion. The basic difference, it seems to me, is the different answers we give to Cain's (with thanks to the Captain - my original version had the corpse asking the question!) famous question: "Am I my brother's keeper?" That's not really my basic bitch against the libertarians though. My real complaint is the same as my complaint against most religion - its premise is a fraud. For those who can't stand to wait for the punchline, I believe that trying to implement libertarian principles leads to tyranny or social disintegration. Demonstrating that takes some historical (and pre-historical) context. For all but the last 15,000 or so of the 100,000 years the human spec...
Read more

Uneasy Lies The Head

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown ........... Shakespeare Henry IV, Part II. So it is with us and our slightly distant primate cousins , so it seems. A 9-year study of wild baboons in Kenya by Princeton University and the Institute of Primate Research may turn conventional assumptions of alphas males upside down. The study found that alpha males have high testosterone levels, which allows them to dominate other baboons, get access to more food, and attract better mates. This is expected. Surprisingly, though, the alpha males also have high levels of stress hormone glucocorticoid, which scientists measured from their feces samples. In fact, the stress of alpha baboons was on par with low-ranking baboons. The convention wisdom is that access to food and females provides life security and thus less stress for dominant males. Conversely, weak males who are constantly threatened by starvation and physical violence from stronger males are thought to be more stressed. The st...
Read more

We Call it Soccer

The US played its best, and maybe only good game of World Cup, but lost thanks to brilliant goalkeeping by the Swedish keeper and the bizarre method soccer uses to settle ties when three US stars could not put the ball on frame from the 12 yard spot.  At the end it came down to a blocked shot that spun in by maybe a couple of centimeters. Well, that's football - too much like life.   Which brings me to a modest proposal.  Replace the thirty minute overtimes with as many 7-player 15 minute periods as needed to settle it.  Scoring should be much easier with fewer players.
Read more