A little something from the deep recesses of my warped mind

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Ok. I don't expect this to get the level of attention that the fist fight thread will, but alas I realize there are some physicists/statisticians floating around so I thought I would shoot out my question in a form most easily appreciated.



We theorize that we have a two state system (lets say one like a spin 1/2 nuclei, where there is a definitive and measurable spin up and definitive measurable spin down). How many measurements are needed to exclude the possibility of a third measurable state above a certain confidence level, lets say for the sake of argument 95% confidence.



What I am saying here is if we measure the spin of a single electron, we won't know whether this is a two state system; if we measure the spin of two electrons, we still won't know if this is a two state system etc etc. What number of measurements need to be made to assure us above a 95% confidence level that the system has only two states?



This came up because I was thinking about the mass-energy density of the universe and then what is the largest volume the universe can be divided into to obtain a well behaved distribution of local densities that average to the universes' average density and how this volume relates to the models of the shape of the universe etc and perhaps more...



All in the shower... your best thinking happens in the shower...

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,262member
    This is about your penis, isn't it.
  • Reply 2 of 19
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    The one I grew in the basement in high school, yes, I am affraid it is...
  • Reply 3 of 19
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    The one I grew in the basement in high school, yes, I am affraid it is...



    How proud your parents must have been!
  • Reply 4 of 19
    carol acarol a Posts: 1,043member
  • Reply 5 of 19
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    It's all about those crazy Strings floating around in space, bobsky...



  • Reply 6 of 19
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    How proud your parents must have been!



    Not as proud as my classmates...



    And god damn it, if strings are mentioned once more in this thread...
  • Reply 7 of 19
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member




    BWAHAHAHAHAH!
  • Reply 8 of 19
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Foolishness...
  • Reply 9 of 19
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
    Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.



    Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.



    Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
  • Reply 10 of 19
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    I'll try and answer you using the canonical formulization of quantum mechanics (no path integrals).



    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    [B]

    We theorize that we have a two state system (lets say one like a spin 1/2 nuclei, where there is a definitive and measurable spin up and definitive measurable spin down).



    Ok. Let's do a Stern-Gerlach thought experiment with a hydrogen atom containing one electron in the 1s state (ground). Keep in mind that since electrons are fermions, they may not have the same set of quantum numbers(their wave functions are antisymmetric).



    Quote:

    How many measurements are needed to exclude the possibility of a third measurable state above a certain confidence level, lets say for the sake of argument 95% confidence.



    With our Stern-Gerlach thought experiment, all we are looking for is the spatial quantization resultant from the intrinsic magnetic dipole moment as hydrogen atoms pass through a non-uniform magnetic field. Since we assume all our hydrogen is in the 1s state (we can never be sure), we can ignore orbital dipole moment/angular momentum (we know this because the rotational energy part of the Hamiltonian is zero). We should see a clear delineation by banding from a detector due to spatial quantization from the two possible 1s states for the electron. After a few hundred events from our "perfect hydrogen" (very low temperature), we should be quite confident that the experiment matches theory that there are only two possible 1s states for an electron in a hydrogen atom.



    Quote:

    What I am saying here is if we measure the spin of a single electron, we won't know whether this is a two state system; if we measure the spin of two electrons, we still won't know if this is a two state system etc etc. What number of measurements need to be made to assure us above a 95% confidence level that the system has only two states?



    I'm not sure I understand you. It all depends on the details of the experiment.



    Quote:

    This came up because I was thinking about the mass-energy density of the universe and then what is the largest volume the universe can be divided into to obtain a well behaved distribution of local densities that average to the universes' average density and how this volume relates to the models of the shape of the universe etc and perhaps more...



    Any model of the universe must account for dark energy and dark matter. Leading candidates use general relativity(or quantum gravity) with a cosmological constant, and take supersymmetry into account for dark matter.
  • Reply 11 of 19
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Without knowing anything about the system, other than we predict a two state system with vague or even unknown probabilities, the probability of the third-plus state would be unknown. The confidence level should define the number of measurements needed to be made to exclude the existence of a third state but confirm two states, right? I presumed it was an easy calculation...
  • Reply 12 of 19
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    The stern-gerlach experiment with 10,000 measurements wouldn't tell you of the existence of a state that has a probability of less than 1/10000. Granted I am over simplifying this equation a great deal by using a two-state system, but the idea is there...





    Edit: It boils down to how much of the universe needs to be explored for us to reasonably say that we are confident in a model of the universe. Each model should have its own limit. Right now I am not sure this does anything for anyone but...
  • Reply 13 of 19
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    This came up because I was thinking about the mass-energy density of the universe and then what is the largest volume the universe can be divided into to obtain a well behaved distribution of local densities that average to the universes' average density and how this volume relates to the models of the shape of the universe etc and perhaps more...



    Big Bang glow hints at funnel-shaped Universe



    Sounds good to me...
  • Reply 14 of 19
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    The funnel model is my personal favorite because it is the one i came up with in high school...



    ok, so the math certainly wasn't there, but i did draw a hypothetical picture...
  • Reply 15 of 19
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Luther had his vision of the satanic nature of the world while squeezing a big shiit . . .



    anyway, "system"?!?!?



    you are clearly deluded?



    \
  • Reply 16 of 19
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    This is basically a (three-headed) coin flip probability problem. What's the chance of flipping a three-headed coin 'n' number of times in a row and never turning up bellies (the 3rd state)? You can calculate that easily enough. (2/3)^n, where n is the number of flips, is the odds that the belly side will not come up. 5 flips will give you 99.2% certainty (1.0 - (2/3)^5) that belly does not exist.



    But that assumes the chance of coming up bellies is the same as heads or tails, 1/3. If you don't know the probability of observing that 3rd state, then you can't calculate how many observations you need to be reasonably certain it doesn't exist. If the belly side is 1x10^-100 the size of the head and tail sides, you'll need an awful lot of coin flips to observe it - but it is there all along.
  • Reply 17 of 19
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    if by "warped" you mean "high as a ****ing kite", then yeah. this thread makes total sense.



    (or you could just say it's like a coin flip perfectly. 99.999% of the time it's probably heads or tails, but it could, in theory, land on the edge and be neither heads or tails.)
  • Reply 18 of 19
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Fine, I will propose what I was really thinking...



    If the universe has a predicted set of properties/rules, what is the largest you can segment the universe into that will give a well behaved distribution of all of those properties?



    I am basically assuming there are some properties that are represented best in ensembles rather than assumed immutability...





    And no I am not high...
  • Reply 19 of 19
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
    Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.



    Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.



    Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Sign In or Register to comment.