My professor was teaching us about random noise. Can you somehow predict random noise? (Ans: yes, and that's how they make noise cancelling headphones... I'll talk about this later when I've had time to make figures) How do you tease real data out of random noise? (Ans: using very, very tedious techniques, that's how)

"No matter how well you know the physics behind your experimental setup," he said, "you will always have to deal with random noise. The only way you can deal with it is statistically."

I raised my hand here. I'm sure he loves it when I do this. I said, "But if you really knew everything about your experimental setup, you wouldn't have any random noise."

"No," he said calmly, "you would still have random noise."

"Ok, let's say," I pressed, "let's say that we are God." A "God-cringe" wave swept over the faces in the room. They hate it when people mention God, even it's just as an analogy. It makes them all uncomfortable, like you just made a major faux pas.
But I didn't let that faze me, of course.

"Let's say that we are God, and we know EVERYTHING about our experimental setup. We know about every stray gamma ray that passes through, neutrinos, beta-particles, minute changes in the wind, whatever, and we put ALL of these things in our model with the right relations. Then we should be able to account for ALL of the random noise in the experiment, no?"

He was about to say no again, but he paused. "Yes," he answered a little uncertainly. "Hypothetically, if we knew everything, then there would theoretically be no random noise. But we don't, so it isn't really an issue."

But ISN'T IT?! Isn't it THE ISSUE?! To assume that no noise is truly random is to assume that that the Universe is infinitely knowable! Isn't that the entire point of science?! If something isn't understood, it's because there are variables that we haven't accounted for! To say that an electron is statistically in a particular place in the electron cloud is to say that you DON'T KNOW but roughly what influences its orbit! To say anything is statistical is to say that you haven't discovered all the variables that govern its true equation of state!!! To rest there, at statistical probabilities, and consider the problem solved, is a HUGE COP-OUT. There should be a big FAT ASTERISK next to any solution with a statistical spread as an answer which leads to an explanation that says, *the answer, or as close as we care to get for practical purposes/government work.

Now all of this rant flies in the face of my personal opinion that there are some things in the Universe which are infinitely unknowable, such God himself, altruism, love, and what the tupperware container in my refrigerator used to contain before several weeks of neglect.

But I have to make Sloppy Joes for myself before I starve to death so I'll have to talk about that later.

Yes, Zanzi, it's because he sucks.
Yes, Zanzi, I'm going to Denver. I've been selected to represent my University at the
"National Collegiate Honors Council's annual conference in Denver, Colorado, October 31 – November 4, 2007"



Reading this made me remember why I fell for my favorite bar.

Oh, and your tupperware container was filled with green bay packers

» Dilated on 2007-10-07 11:19:34

Oh no Zanzi, he's just being abstract!... which is a cop out.
» jinyu on 2007-10-10 01:37:01

Name.

URL.

[to enter your email, use "mailto:youremail@domain.com"]
Subject.

Comment.

Word verification.

Copy the first 4 characters only.

If you are a member, try logging in again or accessing this page here.