why is superdeterminism not the universally accepted explanation of nonlocality?

lugita15

Quote by ThomasT

Not necessarily. At least not wrt effective causes. Emergent systems. Scale and observational specific organizing principles. See R. B. Laughlin et al., The Theory of Everything, and The Middle Way ... both published in 2000 I think.

Forget effective and emergent properties. I'm concerned about fundamental properties.

They refer to the detection results at the separated detectors A and B. Eg., you might write P(A, a) to denote the probability of detection at A for polarizer setting a, or just P(A). So, P(A,B) can refer to the probability or normalized rate of identical detection attributes (1,1)'s and (0,0)'s, and P(A≠B) can refer to the probability or normalized rate of mismatches (nonidentical detection attributes), (1,0)'s and (0,1)'s. It's just an easier notation to understand than the P(θ) notation you're using, because θ usually represents the angular difference between the polarizers. Also λ is traditionally used to refer to the hidden variable, with, eg., λ_a referring to the value of the hidden variable of the photon incident on a.

OK, but that's just notational differences. Do you or do you not agree with my logic in going from step 5 to step 6? If you don't, I can lay out that logic in greater detail.

*ThomasT*

Quote by lugita15

Forget effective and emergent properties.

If we were to do that, then it seems that we wouldn't be able to explain or understand much of anything.

Quote by lugita15

OK, but that's just notational differences. Do you or do you not agree with my logic in going from step 5 to step 6? If you don't, I can lay out that logic in greater detail.

Rewrite it using the conventional notation. Or, you can refer to some other LR proofs (Bell, Herbert, etc.) and we can talk about why they don't prove that nature is nonlocal, while still ruling out a certain class of LR models of quantum entanglement.

lugita15

Quote by ThomasT

If we were to do that, then it seems that we wouldn't be able to explain or understand much of anything.

Whether we can practically understand everything at the fundamental level, the important point is that there EXISTS an explanation at a fundamental level. So if coincidental detection data is composed of individual detection data, then at a fundamental level the former must br explainable in terms of the later, even if such an explanation is complicated or hard to find out.

Quote by ThomasT

Rewrite it using the conventional notation. Or, you can refer to some other LR proofs (Bell, Herbert, etc.) and we can talk about why they don't prove that nature is nonlocal, while still ruling out a certain class of LR models of quantum entanglement.

Well my steps are just an attempt to state Herbert's proof more precisely. If you don't understand anything in my notation, I'll be more than happy to explain it.

catellus

ThomasT,

This thread has been inactive for a bit, but I hadn't been following it at the time and wanted to make a observation.

From your post #389

Quote by ThomasT

I'm not arguing that the combined results aren't composed of individual results. Obviously, mismatches or coincidental detections are composed of individual results. But you still don't get that the randomly varying underlying parameter that determines individual results can't be what's determining the combined results.

Under an LR theory, isn't it impossible for particle B (say) to tell whether the detection that's happening is individual or coincidental? If that's right, then you can't have different parameters or relationships controlling what happens in individual vs. coincidental detections. Certainly it might be combination of factors, but it has to be the same combination every time.

(edited to correct a small typo)

billschnieder

Quote by catellus

ThomasT,

This thread has been inactive for a bit, but I hadn't been following it at the time and wanted to make a observation.

From your post #389

Under an LR theory, isn't it impossible for particle B (say) to tell whether the detection that's happening is individual or coincidental? If that's right, then you can't have different parameters or relationships controlling what happens in individual vs. coincidental detections. Certainly it might be combination of factors, but it has to be the same combination every time.

(edited to correct a small typo)

What you and lugita are not understanding is that the answers to the following questions are different:

(1) what is the probability of a hit at station A
(2) what is the probability of a hit at station A given that a hit was registered at station B

The reason the answers are different is not because the second one involves any non-local influence but because in (2), the fact that a hit has been registered at B, severly limits the domain within which the probability of A should now be calculated. In other words a logical dependence between the the two stations is introduced simply because you chose to consider them together as coincidental results.

Similar discussions 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