Register to reply 
Why is superdeterminism not the universally accepted explanation of nonlocality? 
Share this thread: 
#235
Mar312, 04:50 AM

P: 1,414

EDIT: I should add that there are some quite knowledgeable people who contribute to these sorts of threads. Not the least of which is DrChinese. His web site is a great resource. Also, by the way, I noticed in passing some references to 'free will'. I don't think it has anything to do with any of this. There are subtle considerations, but free will isn't one of them, imho. It's one of those things, like superdeterminism, that can muddy up the real issues. 


#236
Mar312, 04:57 AM

P: 143




#237
Mar312, 05:00 AM

P: 1,414




#238
Mar312, 05:09 AM

P: 143




#239
Mar312, 05:27 AM

P: 1,414

By the way, I appreciate your posts, but try to stay on topic. I'm going to go back and read the preceding several pages because it seems that you've had a lot to say. Give me at least 30 minutes. And if there's any point that you'd like to make that you think is important to the thread topic that you haven't already made, then let's hear it. EDIT: jadrian, my apologies. I recall now that you're the original poster (the OP, which can refer to original poster, or original post). Well then, perhaps you might synopsize your assessment of the thread thus far ... and we'll take it from there. 


#240
Mar312, 05:42 AM

P: 143




#241
Mar312, 05:48 AM

P: 143




#242
Mar312, 05:54 AM

P: 1,414




#243
Mar312, 05:58 AM

P: 1,414




#244
Mar312, 08:15 AM

P: 143




#245
Mar312, 08:29 AM

P: 1,414

Anyway, yeah, I agree that it's generally not a good idea to blindly accept assertions from anybody, though, in my experience, DrC's assertions are generally pretty good. But nevertheless check them out. 


#246
Mar312, 08:49 AM

P: 143




#247
Mar312, 01:21 PM

P: 261

The idea that Nature conspire somehow to produce the results observed in Aspect, Gisin, Zeilinger and so on type of experiments (which do not necessarily involve strong determinism but only the existence of some predeterminism at Planck level, no counterfactual definiteness in the experiments) is still a solution to the problem no doubt. And it is by no means above science. Unfortunately at this time this program is far from being even remotely close to the alternative programs which accept counterfactual definiteness in the experiments. But this does not mean that it cannot become progressive in the future. We must remain open to this. In my view this is the best decision at this moment in time, inventing another 'nogo theorem' in this case (extremely shaky anyway) is at least counterproductive (and which could even prove to be an error far worse than von Neumann's 'proof' that hidden variables are impossible). Happily some leading scientists take it seriously, among them t'Hooft: http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/0104219 http://arxiv.org/abs/quantph/0212095 http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/0105105 


#248
Mar312, 03:03 PM

P: 1,583

1. Pretend you are a local determinist who believes that all the experimental predictions of quantum mechanics is correct. 2. One of these experimental predictions is that entangled photons are perfectly correlated when sent through polarizers oriented at the same angle. 3. From this you conclude that both photons are consulting the same function P(θ). If P(θ)=1, then the photon goes through the polarizer, and if it equals zero the photon does not go through. 4. Another experimental prediction of quantum mechanics is that if the polarizers are set at different angles, the mismatch (i.e. the lack of correlation) between the two photons is a function R(θ) of the relative angle between the polarizers. 5. From this you conclude that the probability that P(30)≠P(0) is R(30), the probability that P(0)≠P(30) is R(30), and the probability that P(30)≠P(30) is R(60). 6. It is a mathematical fact that if you have two events A and B, then the probability that at least one of these events occurs (in other words the probability that A or B occurs) is less than or equal to the probability that A occurs plus the probability that B occurs. 7. From this you conclude that the probability that P(30)≠P(30) is less than or equal to the probability that that P(30)≠P(0) plus the probability that P(0)≠P(30), or in other words R(60)≤R(30)+R(30)=2R(30). Which of these steps do you disagree with and why? That's why I said the following to you earlier in this thread: "So here's another way to put it: An ordinary local realist theory just assumes that particles which are considered entangled according to QM must have had local interactions in the past which is determining their EPRtype nonlocal correlations today. But a local superdeterminist theory assumes that a particle must have interacted in the past with not only those that are entangled with it according to quantum mechanics, but also other particles which quantum mechanics would say have no connection with it. This is how a local superdeterministic theory would be able to produce Belltype nonlocal correlations." And again, remember that when I say local realism I mean the philosophical stance you call local determinism. 


#249
Mar312, 03:11 PM

P: 1,583




#250
Mar312, 03:13 PM

P: 1,583




#251
Mar312, 03:54 PM

P: 1,583




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
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 