• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Indeterminism, causality and information: Has physics ever been deterministic? Flavio Del Santo Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI-Vienna), A-1090 Vienna, Austria; and Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, A-1090 Vienna, Austria; and Basic Research Community for Physics (BRCP) (Dated: August 18, 2021) A tradition handed down among physicists maintains that classical physics is a perfectly deterministic theory capable of predicting the future with absolute certainty, independently of any interpretations. It also tells that it was quantum mechanics that introduced fundamental indeterminacy into physics. We show that there exist alternative stories to be told in which classical mechanics, too, can be interpreted as a fundamentally indeter- ministic theory. On the one hand, this leaves room for the many possibilities of an open future, yet, on the other, it brings into classical physics some of the conceptual issues typical of quantum mechanics, such as the measurement problem. We discuss here some of the issues of an alternative, indeterministic classical physics and their relation to the theory of information and the notion of causality. I. WHEN DID PHYSICS BECOME UNPREDICTABLE? time.1 But is it really so? In this essay, we will show that this is not necessarily the case and that the alleged fundamen- tal difference between classical and quantum physics based Like all of the human activities, also science maintains tra- on their alleged inherently deterministic, respectively indeter- ditions that are handed down from generation to generation ministic, character should be rethought. and help to form the identity of a community. One spe- From the historical point of view, as early as 1895 –thus cific story that seems to have crystallized among practition- before that any quantum effect was discovered and such the- ers is that classical physics (i.e., Newton’s mechanics and ory formulated– the father of the kinetic theory of gases, Lud- Maxwell’s electrodynamics) would allow, in principle, to pre- wig Boltzmann, already doubted the very possibility of having dict everything with certainty. The standard story continues by perfect determinism at the microscopic scale (see, [2, 3]). It telling that the foundations of such a theory are perfectly well ought to be noticed that according to the standard understand- understood and free of any interpretational issues. In partic- ing of classical statistical mechanics, probabilities are there ular, it is widely accepted that classical physics categorically introduced to account for a lack of knowledge about the ac- deterministic entails a worldview. tual state of affairs (epistemic randomness) and are not sup- Indeed, due to the tremendous predictive success of Newto- posed to be irreducible.2 This is due to the fact that statistical nian physics (in particular in celestial mechanics), it became physics deals with an enormous amount of components (and customary to conceive an in principle limitless predictability of degrees of freedom), but it is generally accepted that ev- of the physical phenomena that would faithfully reflect the ery single classical particle has a perfectly predetermined be- fact that our Universe is governed by determinism. This view havior (and that in principle this is predictable). Despite this, was advocated and vastly popularized in the early nineteenth Boltzmann maintained: “I will mention the possibility that the century by Pierre-Simon Laplace, who envisaged the possibil- fundamental equations for the motion of individual molecules ity for a hypothetical superior intelligence –which went down will turn out to be only approximate formulas which give av- in history as Laplace’s demon– to predict the future states of erage values.” [5]. Also Franz S. Exner, another eminent the universe with infinite precision, given a sufficient knowl- Viennese physicists, contemporary of Boltzmann, questioned edge of the laws of nature and the initial conditions [1]: the validity of determinism in classical physics even at the macroscopic level: “In the region of the small, in time and space, the physical laws are probably invalid; the stone falls Given for one instant an intelligence which could to earth and we know exactly the law by which it moves. comprehend all the forces by which nature is ani- Whether this law holds, however, for each arbitrarily small mated and the respective situation of the beings fraction of the motion [...] that is more than doubtful.” [6]. which compose it –an intelligence sufficiently One of the intellectual heirs of Boltzmann and Exner in Vi- vast to submit these data to analysis– it would enna was the Nobel laureate and founding father of quantum arXiv:2003.07411v2 [physics.hist-ph] 17 Aug 2021 embrace in the same formula the movements of theory, Erwin Schrodinger.¨ Indeed, he fully embraced their the greatest bodies in the universe and those of skeptical positions about determinism: “As pupil of the ven- the lightest atom; to it nothing would be uncer- tain, and the future as the past would be present to its eyes. 1 By indeterminism we denote the sufficient condition that there exists at least one phenomenon, or a type of phenomena, which does not obey de- The standard story goes on by stating that this faith in terminism. perfect determinism was abruptly shattered by the advent 2 Probabilities are said to be irreducible if “it is not possible by further inves- of quantum theory, which, with its probabilistic predictions, tigation to discover further facts that will provide a better estimate of the made indeterministic doubts burst into physics for the first probability.” [4]. 2 erable Franz Exner I have been on intimate terms for a long time with the idea that probably not microscopic lawfulness but perhaps ‘absolute accident’ forms the foundation of our statistics.” [7].3 Interestingly, contrarily to the text-books presentation of FIG. 1. Toy example of a system (a classical particle confined in a classical physics, the fact that classical systems have a per- cavity), in which the indeterminacy on the initial conditions is am- fectly predeterminate dynamics (thus giving rise to perfectly plified in the future indeterminacy of the physical state while time deterministic predictions) is not inherent in the formalism (see passes. Section II). Rather, it is based on an additional hidden assump- tion that takes the form of a principle. In a previous work [9], we have named this principle of infinite precision. This is ar- ticle that is bound to move in a one-dimensional cavity with ticulated in two parts, as follows: perfectly elastic walls and total length l. If the particle has a perfectly determinate (i.e. with infinite precision) initial posi- tion x(t = 0) = x0 and velocity~v(t = 0) =~v0, classical physics Principle of infinite precision then allows to predict, also with infinite precision, the future positions x(t) and velocities ~v(t) for any time instant t. Yet, 1. Ontological – there exists an actual value of every phys- imagine to slightly relax the principle of infinite precision and, ical quantity, with its infinite determined digits (in any while x0 remains fully determinate, the initial velocity (say arbitrary numerical base). pointing to the right) of the particle has a small indeterminacy, i.e. v0 ≤ v(t = 0) = v0 +Dv0. Once the particle starts moving, 2. Epistemological – despite it might not be possible to its initial indeterminacy starts to be reflected on the determi- know all the digits of a physical quantity (through mea- nation of its position at later times. According to the laws of surements), it is possible to know an arbitrarily large classical mechanics, the range of possible future positions of number of digits. the particle increases linearly as time passes, i.e. Dx(t) = tDv0. This means that, for any arbitrarily small indeterminacy of the initial velocity Dv0, there always exists a critical time instant It is only when its formalism is complemented with this tc := l=Dv0, such that Dx(t = tc) = l. Namely, independently principle that classical physics becomes deterministic. of how small is the initial indeterminacy, it is sufficient to wait However, the principle of infinite precision is inconsistent enough long time for having complete indeterminacy on the with any operational meaning, as already made evident by particle’s position within the cavity. This clearly shows that Max Born. The latter gave pivotal contributions to the foun- the principle of infinite precision is a necessary condition for dations of quantum formalism –introducing the fundamental determinism. rule that bears his name, which allows to assign probabilities This example is one of the simplest instantiations of those to quantum measurements, and for which he was awarded the systems whose future dynamics is highly susceptible to a vari- Nobel Prizein 1954– and became critical of determinism, even ation of the initial conditions (a property called instability). in classical physics, due to its reliance on “infinite precision”. Such a phenomenon is typical of the so-called chaotic systems Indeed, in his essay Is Classical Mechanics in fact Determin- wherein the uncertainty in the determination of future val- istic? [10], he affirmed: ues of some physical quantities increases exponentially with elapsed time. Actually, our example displays what in chaos It is usually asserted in this theory [classical theory is referred to as the real butterfly effect [13]. Namely, physics] that the result is in principle determinate not only high sensitivity to the initial conditions, but –since and that the introduction of statistical considera- the system is bounded, and, accordingly, it is the region of tions is necessitated only by our ignorance of the phase space within which its physical state can evolve– after exact initial state of a large number of molecules. a certain time the uncertainty saturates the whole allowed re- I have long thought the first part of this assertion gion of phase space.

Load more

  9

Copy Link