why is superdeterminism not the universally accepted explanation of nonlocality?

DrChinese

Quote by IttyBittyBit

He posted a question and you replied, immediately equating his (perfectly legitimate) line of thought with religious belief.

Of course, you did answer the question, ...

This was from post 48, so 140 posts later:

I think jadrian has quite proven me correct about it taking on a religious fervor. And I really didn't need to be clairvoyant to see this coming.

*jadrian*

Quote by DrChinese

Yes, and to drive home to jadrian a point I keep making: A and D could NEVER have interacted in the past because they NEVER existed in a common light cone. They were "born" too far apart! So now you have to modify the physics so that the lasers that created them (which are pulse matched) must contain the information needed to yield the correlations. But that means it is the pulse that does this (since other lasers won't be able to do this). The pulse doesn't contain enough information to cause that to happen. So now you need even more ad hoc hypotheses to make it all work out.

And this is just one setup.

how are a and d not in a common light cone for this experiment to be theoretically carried out? that would violate relativity. and you cant prove that nonlocal interactions could take place outside lightcones even if you want to violate relativity. exercise possibility of lightcones existing before the big bang or perhaps our big bang and we might be in an infinitely large lightcone. a and d never had to interact in the past. what makes you think causality didnt govern the singularity?

*jadrian*

Quote by lugita15

To explain such a correlation requires not just that the photons interacted some time in the past, but it also requires that some time in the past the photons interacted with whatever is controlling the polarizer setting (and that could be anything: neurons in the brains of the experimenters, coin flips, dice rolls, the weather in Houston... a wacky experimenter can set the polarizer angles based on just about anything)

thats simply determinism

*jadrian*

Quote by DrChinese

There is not a scintilla of evidence this is so. Do you not see that you are making up the physics as you go along? This is why I refer to superdeterminism as "ad hoc".

Please note that photons A and D only exist for a short period of time, and have never been in contact with each others' light cones. Yet they are entangled. That entanglement can be made to occur AFTER they cease to exist. (Yes you read this correctly.)

See page 5 especially:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201134

So none of that is contemplated by your version of superdeterminism. Since by your definition, causes must precede effects. Obviously, if I choose to entangle particles that no longer exist, then I am changing the past (which I am in quantum terms).

And if I am correct, in that you are creating an ad hoc theory, I am sure a modification will be forthcoming in an attempt to keep the idea going. Or perhaps you will say uncle, and realize that some additional research on quantum theory would be beneficial to you. There is a lot of fascinating stuff out there!

By the way, we have all been down similar roads at one point or another. No one is picking on you, and we are not foolishly pro free will. I really don't care if there is free will or not, I still have to make the same decisions every morning either way.

a and d interacting outside eachothers light cones... still waiting for the result on that experiment. if d could alter the future of a, than that violates relativity. how many times have i said that.

*jadrian*

Quote by DrChinese

, I am sure a modification will be forthcoming in an attempt to keep the idea going. Or perhaps you will say uncle, and realize that some additional research on quantum theory would be beneficial to you.
I really don't care if there is free will or not, I still have to make the same decisions every morning either way.

you believe free will is possible, and you are telling me to cry uncle? haha bias much?

but tell me how you can effect the past through entangled photons that no longer exist. id like to try it.

*jadrian*

Quote by lugita15

That characterization of delayed choice experiments is a controversial one that's not agreed on by everyone. In fact, I think there was an old thread where Demystifier set out to show that almost no major interpretation of quantum mechanics would actually interpret delayed choice as changing the past. But yes, I agree that delayed choice poses some thorny issues for deterministic theories.

choice has no meaning. but what is this delayed thing you are speaking of

*jadrian*

Quote by kith

Maybe we should consider another point of view on the "conspiracy".

I'm not sure, if this wording is really a good choice. Seemingly very special initial conditions in other areas are well-known, consider the problem of finetuning. So maybe the "conspiracy" is analogous to the situation there.

If the universe started in a very dense state, it seems probable, that all particles are correlated. And since quantum mechanics is necessary to explain the stability of atoms, the special choice of initial conditions could be explainable by the anthropic principle: a world with only classical correlations would not support life.

did you not read my annihilation of the idea of choice and free will that appears to have pissed off 2 free willers in this thread? support life? didnt i clearly define that you cannot from any perspective distinguish ourselves from any laboratory chemical reaction

DrChinese

Quote by jadrian

a and d interacting outside eachothers light cones... still waiting for the result on that experiment. if d could alter the future of a, than that violates relativity. how many times have i said that.

I will try to explain, where a=Alice, b=Bob, c=Chris, d=Dale.

Alice and Bob are created in Venice at 10am precisely. Chris and Dale are created in New York precisely (it's just an analogy of an experiment that has actually already been performed and which I referenced earlier)). The polarization of Alice and Dale are immediately checked and they both cease to exist. They never existed in a common region of space time because they were both too far apart.

Bob and Chris are sent to our space station on Mars, where they arrive about 10:03. There, an experimenter decides to entangle them or not. After deciding to entangle, we now have the situation where Alice and Dale were entangled after they were detected, and they never existed in a common area of space time.

Now of course all of the remaining apparati/observers involved were in causal contact with each other previously, no argument about that. What I want to know is by what specific mechanism is it possible for the laser that created Alice and the laser that created Dale supposed to know how to impart a different future result for each, all the while knowing which photons will later be entangled and which ones will not.

If you understand how a laser works you will understand that there is no known distinguishing factor for one photon as compared to another. They are all 100% identical, even as to polarization.

Or maybe it isn't the laser, maybe it is the BBo crystal. But the same question then applies, how does a crystal make it do one thing versus another? By definition, the inputs are identical and the crystal has no active component which is dynamic (changes). So why one result versus another?

So the question is about the mechanism. Where is it? How does it interact with known particles? Maybe we could probe it if you told us what to look for! I think once you go through this exercise a few times, you will realize the stretch you are making. Or you can simply skip my critique and continue to hold onto your (near religious) beliefs, and prove me right as I have said.

*jadrian*

Quote by DrChinese

I referred to it in the quantum sense of temporal order, just as you might refer to quantum non-locality. Quantum non-locality is not the same as having physically non-local forces. Of course there are interpretations, such as Bohmiam which we already mentioned, that do not involve retrocausality and in fact are deterministic.

On the other hand, I consider any interpretation in which there are elements of time symmetry or block structure to be retrocausal. The point is, time exhibits a degree of freedom. Any way you look at it, in the experiment cited, the decision to entangle is made after the entangled pair is detected. So whatever you choose to call that, it isn't viable under superdeterminism UNLESS jadrian postulates ever more and more new and exotic features to our universe. Which is I think what we are both saying, the ad hoc nature of the theory never ceases to grow.

you seem to have blindly excepted everything in qm, randomness etc, without evver questioning it. you apparently learn from the top down, like a chemist, while i prefer to start at the rock bottom, so ill stick to the einstein line(i know he was wrong in this case, but proving einsteins apprach to science).. "your math is correct, but your physics is abominable"

DrChinese

Quote by kith

If the universe started in a very dense state, it seems probable, that all particles are correlated.

This is inaccurate. The entire universe might be ENTANGLED, but that would NOT make particles properties CORRELATED at all. This is easy to see if you have as few as 4 to 8 particles. There is no correlation at all between any 2 randomly selected. The entangled statistics apply to the group as a whole and constrains the observable permutations but does not say anything about small subsets.

*jadrian*

Quote by DrChinese

I will try to explain, where a=Alice, b=Bob, c=Chris, d=Dale.

Alice and Bob are created in Venice at 10am precisely. Chris and Dale are created in New York precisely (it's just an analogy of an experiment that has actually already been performed and which I referenced earlier)). The polarization of Alice and Dale are immediately checked and they both cease to exist. They never existed in a common region of space time because they were both too far apart.

Bob and Chris are sent to our space station on Mars, where they arrive about 10:03. There, an experimenter decides to entangle them or not. After deciding to entangle, we now have the situation where Alice and Dale were entangled after they were detected, and they never existed in a common area of space time.

Now of course all of the remaining apparati/observers involved were in causal contact with each other previously, no argument about that. What I want to know is by what specific mechanism is it possible for the laser that created Alice and the laser that created Dale supposed to know how to impart a different future result for each, all the while knowing which photons will later be entangled and which ones will not.

If you understand how a laser works you will understand that there is no known distinguishing factor for one photon as compared to another. They are all 100% identical, even as to polarization.

Or maybe it isn't the laser, maybe it is the BBo crystal. But the same question then applies, how does a crystal make it do one thing versus another? By definition, the inputs are identical and the crystal has no active component which is dynamic (changes). So why one result versus another?

So the question is about the mechanism. Where is it? How does it interact with known particles? Maybe we could probe it if you told us what to look for! I think once you go through this exercise a few times, you will realize the stretch you are making. Or you can simply skip my critique and continue to hold onto your (near religious) beliefs, and prove me right as I have said.

your post doesnt make much sense to me in regards to the identical photons producing different futures. ether way, you are talking talking about entangling photons which no longer exist, thats sounds cool/ridiculous. and at 1005, scatch your head and ask how could anything that had just occured in the last 5 min, have occured differently than it just did?

and near religious haha. your the one clinging to the defintetively falsified idea that you are alive and have free will haha

*jadrian*

plus it seems to assume implied randomness, something you seem to have just accepted when learning qm, along with free will, the idea that you are alive, santa clause etc without the full implications of randomness hitting you.

if you could clarify what you mean by different futures that would be nice

*jadrian*

Quote by DrChinese

No, you must now add physics which explains the experimenter's choice of measurement directions as being part of everything, i.e. themselves part of the initial conditions AND causally connected to the results themselves. We don't have anything in current theory that does that. So you have to make it up as you go along.

.

are you saying you dont believe the experimenters actions and measurement directions are part of everything?

*jadrian*

[QUOTE=kith;3788023

Quantum mechanics may be important for life (because classical atoms are not stable). Nonlocal correlations have not to be directly related to this. They may be just another consequence of the structure of quantum mechanics.[/QUOTE]

haha omg

*jadrian*

also if these entangled photons no longer exist in the present, how do they affect anything? and if they did have the ability to affect the past, would it not be possible for them to disrupt the experiment and prevent the experiment from happening, negating their own creation? paradox?

*jadrian*

Quote by lugita15

Yes, "the Universe cheats" is actually a pretty good description of superdeterminismBell's theorem implies that any local deterministic theory which reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics must be superdeterministic. But you can have a nonlocal deterministic theory like Bohmian mechanics, and that need not be superdeterministic. But you're right that Bell's theorem does not disprove superdeterminism.
Science does not accept all theories until they are rejected by experiments. In science we do not accept claims unless we have good experimental reason to do so. Currently we have a nondeterministic theory, quantum mechanics, which is extremely accurate in its predictions. Thus the burden of proof is on the determinist to demonstrate his thesis, not on the scientific community to disprove it.

define accuracy or precision for that matter. what we may think of as precise may be grossly imprecise compared to absolute predictive ability. 8 decimal places sounds accurate to us compared to our everyday measurements, just as cosmological decades are something our minds are not tuned to percieving.

lugita15

Quote by jadrian

if you could match experimental settings, which you cant, then you wouldnt have correlations, youu would have the exact same result.

But having the exact same result just means 100% correlation. And what makes you think you can't exactly match polarizer settings?

Similar Threads for: why is superdeterminism not the universally accepted explanation of nonlocality?
Thread	Forum	Replies
Gauss' Law Universally True?	Classical Physics	36
superluminal instantaneous influence	Quantum Physics	5
Arguments Against Superdeterminism	General Discussion	142
why is there such little talk regarding superdeterminism?	General Discussion	23
I hear a lot about nonlocality and it's relationship to QM	Quantum Physics	3

jadrian	plus it seems to assume implied randomness, something you seem to have just accepted when learning qm, along with free will, the idea that you are alive, santa clause etc without the full implications of randomness hitting you. if you could clarify what you mean by different futures that would be nice