1

I am not a physicist, but I am very much into popular science, especially string theory. I would like to know if it is conceivable that string theory might be able to get rid of the randomness apparent in quantum processes.

For example, radioactive decay, could this process be related to the particular phases of the vibrations of the strings composing the particle? Can it be that decay occurs when a certain constructive interference occurs between the strings?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Aviad P.
  • 191
  • 4
    Do you know that string theory is a quantum theory? – Qmechanic Dec 18 '14 at 08:36
  • 5
    String theory is a special case of quantum theory. It follows the same rules as any other quantum mechanical model. In general, quantum mechanics has very little to do with "randomness". The evolution of quantum states is perfectly continuous. It's only when we do a measurement, that the state of the system is reduced to an eigenvalue of our measurement operator. It is easy to mistake this uncertainty for randomness, but it is logically and mathematically very different. – CuriousOne Dec 18 '14 at 08:39
  • @Qmechanic - No I was not aware of that, perhaps only vaguely, I will remember that now :) – Aviad P. Dec 18 '14 at 09:30
  • @CuriousOne - Can my question then apply to the possibility to determine exactly which eigenvalue will arise? – Aviad P. Dec 18 '14 at 09:31
  • No. That's the whole point why we need quantum mechanics. We can not predict which of the possible outcomes a single measurement will have. This seems to be a fundamental limit, not just a shortcoming of our knowledge. – CuriousOne Dec 18 '14 at 09:38
  • @AviadP.: Why is that disappointing? It's most likely the main reason why you are alive, or why there is even a universe. Take QM away and the world wouldn't be able to make a single stable atom. – CuriousOne Dec 18 '14 at 09:42
  • @CuriousOne - The disappointing part is the inability to definitely predict anything. I would like for there to exist some underlying mechanics which we haven't discovered yet, which provides deterministic results for all processes. In other words, it is disappointing from a computer science perspective (which I am a disciple of) – Aviad P. Dec 18 '14 at 09:45
  • @AviaP.: In QM you can predict the expectation values just fine. At least the situation is no worse than in classical mechanics, and for many types of systems it's even better (integrability throws a giant wrench into the idea that the classical world can be calculated... it can't be). – CuriousOne Dec 18 '14 at 09:52
  • Aviad P: If you find "disappointing" QM in its standard interpretation, then you should give a shot to the "hidden variable theory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory – Quillo Feb 17 '22 at 18:09

1 Answers1

4

No, it's not possible. The reason is that string theory is a quantum theory. That means it includes all of the properties of quantum theory among its basic assumptions. That includes the Born rule, which relates wavefunctions to stochastic probabilities ("randomness") when measurements are made. Because string theory includes quantum randomness as an assumption, it can never hope to explain it.

This is true of almost all theories in modern physics. Quantum mechanics is seen as so basic and fundamental that it needs no explanation.

N. Virgo
  • 33,913
  • 2
    What about the deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics? Are they still compatible with string theory? – Squirtle Mar 24 '18 at 02:23
  • 1
    @Squirtle I don't know enough about string theory to definitively answer that question. But if they are, it would be the deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics getting rid of the randomness, rather than string theory. – N. Virgo Mar 24 '18 at 02:32