why is superdeterminism not the universally accepted explanation of nonlocality?by jadrian Tags: accepted, explanation, nonlocality, superdeterminism, universally 

#361
Mar1912, 02:10 AM

P: 1,414





#362
Mar1912, 02:37 AM

P: 1,583





#363
Mar1912, 02:49 AM

P: 1,583

I think if you do not believe that the particles have chosen the good and bad angles in advance, but you believe in identical behavior at identical polarizer settings, you cannot sensibly call yourself a local determinist. 



#364
Mar1912, 03:12 AM

P: 1,414

But, in one way of modelling it, the rate of individual detection (ie., the photon flux), per unit time, is, cos^{2}(a  λ_{a}) This isn't in conflict with LR predictions, and doesn't necessitate a linear correlation between θ and rate of coincidental detection. 



#365
Mar1912, 03:41 AM

P: 1,414

As I mentioned, the usual way of thinking about this is that, wrt say the Aspect experiments, λ refers to an underlying common polarization orientation ... which is, as far as I can tell, an acceptable inference given the experimental results. From that inference one can construct a model of individual detection that's compatible with QM. But if one tries to model coincidental detection in terms of that underlying parameter (the parameter that determines individual detection), then such a model will not be able to reproduce all the predictions of QM. Now, go back to the visualization I suggested. You'll see that the parameter that determines individual detection, λ, the polarization of polarizerincident photons, has nothing to do with, ie., is irrelevant wrt, coincidental detection. What might we conclude from this? The assumption of identical underlying (and locally produced via emission process) polarization seems supported by experimental results. But, as we've seen, the polarization orientation has nothing to do with the rate of coincidental detection, and, additionally, the underlying parameter determining the rate of coincidental detection cannot be varying from pair to pair. Hence, the only logical conclusion is that the underlying parameters determining individual detection and coincidental detection are different underlying parameters. And, I also believe that rate of coincidental detection is not determined by λ. It can be anything. Doesn't matter. Coincidental detection is only determined by θ. 



#366
Mar1912, 04:09 AM

P: 1,583





#367
Mar1912, 04:19 AM

P: 1,583





#368
Mar1912, 05:43 AM

P: 1,414





#369
Mar1912, 06:03 AM

P: 1,414

It's already been demonstrated that the function correlating individual detection to λ and individual polarizer setting is compatible with QM. 



#370
Mar1912, 06:20 AM

P: 1,414





#371
Mar1912, 06:37 AM

P: 1,414

I asked you: which of your steps would a more comprehensive local deterministic view disagree with?
Stating that, it's the step (in your steps) from which a linear correlation between θ and rate of coincidental detection is necessitated. Then I asked: which step, in your opinion, is that? And you answered that it's your Step 2. Which says: So, which of your steps does imply such a correlation? 



#372
Mar1912, 01:50 PM

P: 1,583





#373
Mar1912, 01:54 PM

P: 1,583





#374
Mar1912, 02:08 PM

P: 1,583





#375
Mar1912, 02:11 PM

P: 1,583





#376
Mar2012, 06:34 PM

P: 1,414

We're concerned with the rate of detection at A, which can be denoted as the function R(A). Since λ_{a} is varying randomly, then the angular difference argument of R(A) is also varying randomly. So, averaging over that, you get R(A) = .5 (the rate of detection, or photon flux per unit time, without the polarizer, a, in place). That is, R(A) predicts a random sequence of 0's and 1's for a run ... half 0's and half 1's. Which is the same thing that QM predicts. 



#377
Mar2012, 06:45 PM

P: 1,583





#378
Mar2012, 07:46 PM

P: 1,414

Both LR and QM have coincidental detection determined by the incident photons consulting a common function. Ie., there's a common cause which produces the relationship between entangled photons that the polarizers are jointly measuring. The difference is that QM doesn't use λ (which refers to the polarization orientation of the polarizerincident photons), presumably recognizing that the value of λ is irrelevant wrt determining rate of coincidental detection. Why is the QM formalism the way it is? I'm not sure about that, but I think it does have to do with the assumption of a common cause. Also, as I think I've shown, the value of λ is irrelevant wrt determining rate of coincidental detection. And, anyway, QM doesn't have to be causal, since it's just calculating measurement probabilities. Why can one still assume local determinism given the QM formalism? Because the QM formalism is acausal wrt entanglement. So, one might interpret entanglement as being due to nonlocal transmissions between entangled photons, or not. No way to know, afaik. Ultimately, the QM treatment wrt optical Bell tests is evaluated wrt the known behavior of light. And of course so should be any LR treatment of entanglement ... which is something that your line of reasoning seems to ignore. 


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 