HackerPapers

arXiv:1803.06824quant-ph

Indeterminism in Physics, Classical Chaos and Bohmian Mechanics. Are Real Numbers Really Real?

Nicolas Gisin

Abstract

It is usual to identify initial conditions of classical dynamical systems with mathematical real numbers. However, almost all real numbers contain an infinite amount of information. I argue that a finite volume of space can't contain more than a finite amount of information, hence that the mathematical real numbers are not physically relevant. Moreover, a better terminology for the so-called real numbers is ``random numbers'', as their series of bits are truly random. I propose an alternative classical mechanics, which is empirically equivalent to classical mechanics, but uses only finite-information numbers. This alternative classical mechanics is non-deterministic, despite the use of deterministic equations, in a way similar to quantum theory. Interestingly, both alternative classical mechanics and quantum theories can be supplemented by additional variables in such a way that the supplemented theory is deterministic. Most physicists straightforwardly supplement classical theory with real numbers to which they attribute physical existence, while most physicists reject Bohmian mechanics as supplemented quantum theory, arguing that Bohmian positions have no physical reality.

arXiv comments
8 pages. Presented at the David Bohm Centennial Symposium, London, Octobre 2017 V2: several mineurs changes and additions
Journal reference
Erkenntnis 86, 1469-1481, 2021
DOI
doi:10.1007/s10670-019-00165-8
Subjects
quant-phQuantum Physics physics.hist-phHistory and Philosophy of Physics

On Hacker News

Linked by 5 identifiable commenters in 6 comments across 6 threads, from Oct 2018 to Jul 2026. Found in 1 HN submission from Jun 2018 to Jun 2018. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments6 threads

    • We should also mention Nicolas Gisin. One of his mantras is Time is real; Real numbers are not. He conceives of real numbers resulting from processes (approximations, relaxations, computable calculations) that unfold over time. So there is a Heisenbergish uncertainty principle…

      mikhailfrancoView on HNParent context

    • If it really was continuous so that physical quantities were real numbers as defined in mathematics, then it is in contradiction to maximal information density. Because almost all real numbers contain infinite amount of information. Full argument is elaborated here…

      rini17View on HNParent context

  1. Struggles with the Continuum 1 comment
    • It is, this idea is explored a bit in this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.06824. It also argues that using real numbers for physical quantities makes classical mechanics misleadingly deterministic, that is, they're hiding information that is impossible to measure in the…

      rnhmjojView on HNParent context

    • There's an interesting paper[1] that argues that real numbers aren't physical, for the precise reasons you stated. That is, only the subset of real numbers that contain a finite amount of information (like constructive real numbers) are physically meaningful. A consequence of…

      rnhmjojView on HNParent context

    • I been juggling the following three papers for a bit and trying to brush my maths up. I don't know why I feel a hunch between them, but I do know that the hunch is to do with this problem. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.06824.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0533.pdf…

      starbeastView on HNParent context

    • Ah, okay, so it boils down to the question whether real numbers are physically realizable. There is a debate about that in the philosophy of physics and mathematics. AFAIK, according to the current state of physics real numbers cannot be realized within a finite amount of space…

      jonathanstrangeView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.