[extropy-chat] the structure of randomness

[gts]

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 01:52:19 -0500, Harvey Newstrom  
<mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:

> What part of "the distributions pass tests for normalcy" do you not  
> understand?  There is literally, rigorously, mathematically nothing  
> abnormal here.

 from the paper:

====
Moreover, imagine that some theoretician has decided to
simulate the time sequence of alpha decays and plot the
appropriate histogram. He knows quantum mechanics well
enough to be able to calculate the probability of alpha decay.
Now he needs to calculate the probabilities of fluctuations.
For doing this, he has two options.

First, he may assume that the fluctuations are distributed
at random and obey a certain law that states that large
fluctuations are rare compared to small fluctuations (for
example, according to Poisson's law). Then he will get a
histogram which decreases monotonically with increasing
deviation from the mean.

Alternatively, he may use an `ideal' random function and
produce a computer simulation of the time series. If he elects
to use an `ideal' random number generator, he will also get a
monotonically decreasing histogram. (Observe that the
concept of an `ideal' generator calls for clarification itself.)

But here `the frog jumps into the water' -- Professor
Shnol and colleagues demonstrate that the experiment does
not agree with the theoretician's assumptions -- and this is
what the first phenomenon is about.

It turns out that the number of fluctuations depending on
the magnitude of deviation may fall or grow again, and
behaves non-monotonically. More precisely, the overall
decline exhibits a clearly periodic pattern, such as shown, for
example, in Fig. 9. Moreover, this pattern is found to be reproducible --  
it
repeats itself under certain conditions.

Now the question is why our intuition has failed us, and
why our theoretician is wrong.
====


In theory the fine details Shnoll's histograms should be completely random  
 from one to the next. However he reports the similarity between histograms  
falls off as a function of time, contrary to what would be expected by  
chance. Histograms taken at time t are more similar to those at t2 than at  
t3.

Most remarkable is that these anomalies seem to be related to events in  
the solar system or perhaps the universe. Similar histograms recur with 27  
and 365 day periods. The sharpest corresponds to 27.28 days, the synodic  
period of the Sun with respect to the Earth.

Again, this is all assuming this data is valid. I'm as shocked as Damien,  
and somewhat skeptical.

If the Shnoll effect turns out to be real then I may start reading my  
horoscope each day. :)

-gts