Why is superdeterminism not the universally accepted explanation of nonlocality?

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of nonlocality and entanglement in a deterministic universe, where the information about instantaneous transfer is known to the universe. The conversation also touches upon the idea of superdeterminism, which some people reject due to its conspiratorial nature and lack of a concrete scientific theory. The possibility of interpreting nonlocality as an answer rather than a problem is also mentioned, as well as the importance of keeping beliefs aligned with measured reality. The conversation concludes with the suggestion that it may be better to believe in the existence of random and non-local phenomena rather than inventing longer explanations.
  • #71
jadrian said:
let me clarify my pov. in a universe governed by causality, there is nothing conspiratorial about a particle essentially knowing about every other particle in the universe.
No, there isn't, but there is something conspiratorial about a particle behaving in just the right way based on the information it has about what other particles are going to do at just the right time and place.
if i am a particle that bumped into another particle in the past, based on my change in state/momentum/whatever, i will have information about that other particle ie where it is headed, how fast its moving, the fact that it exists etc. that particle likewise now has info on me. we basically traded information. if the particle i bumped into hits another particle, it will be transffering info to the third particle, but that info transferred in the second particle collision has my information in it. so if i was particle a which first collided with b and then b collided with c, i would have INTERACTED with particle c without ever seeing it or coming near it.*

im using a simple example to show how particles in the universe have all interacted, without the need for it to be regarded as a conspiracy.
Again, particles interacting and transferring information is not regarded as a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy if their interaction induced some very special behavior on their part which leads to a Bell-type nonlocal correlation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
jadrian said:
reason is capable of intuitively understanding our universe in my opinion, and einsteins. i don't draw pictures of what i think the world should look like, but I am also not like a lab rat who gets a false reading and takes a swing at einstein only to get their arm torn off.

Einsten told us that the speed of light would be measured the same regardless of how fast we were travelling. Is that intuitive? His theories also tell us that a spaceman who travels around the galaxy for a while and returns to Earth will be younger than his twin. That's certainly not intuitive either. Our intuition has evolved to help us in everyday life, and it works well, but on an atomic scale it's obviously lacking.

jadrian said:
i get it, people psychologically can't function or live happily with the idea that everything they do is already predetermined. all ill say is most of my life i believed in free will, but all you have to do is think very deeply and ask yourself, how could you have possibly done anything different than the way you did it?

I'm not sure there are too many scientists who believe in free will (maybe I'm wrong), but you don't need superdeterminism to rule it out. As long as you accept that certain things in the universe happen randomly then the future isn't already mapped out. It doesn't mean you have any more "control" over your actions, just that you can't predict them.
 
  • #73
lugita15 said:
No, there isn't, but there is something conspiratorial about a particle behaving in just the right way/QUOTE]

you said a and d were correlated. saying "just the right way" implies more than correlation in my mind
 
  • #74
jadrian said:
you said a and d were correlated. saying "just the right way" implies more than correlation in my mind
To repeat, in order to have Bell-type nonlocal correlations between A and D in a local deterministic theory, we need A and D not only to have interacted in the past, but to have interacted in just the right way so that they would get the right "conspiratorial" initial conditions so that they would display the right kind of nonlocal correlations years later.
 
  • #75
Joncon said:
Einsten told us that the speed of light would be measured the same regardless of how fast we were travelling. Is that intuitive? His theories also tell us that a spaceman who travels around the galaxy for a while and returns to Earth will be younger than his twin. That's certainly not intuitive either.

you say "is that intuitive?" intuition isn't the same for all. in fact it is relative lol no pun intended. einsteins thoughts that the speed of light is the same for all observers and the spaceman traveling at high speed will age slower and that space and time were inseparable WERE INTUITIVE to him.

f=ma is not intuitive to a retarded person.

you might ask if we would arrived at relativity today without einsteins intuition.

my guess is yes but its possible we might still not have come to relativity without einstein.

either way, einstein proves how far iq and intuition can take you.
 
  • #76
jadrian said:
you say "is that intuitive?" intuition isn't the same for all. in fact it is relative lol no pun intended. einsteins thoughts that the speed of light is the same for all observers and the spaceman traveling at high speed will age slower and that space and time were inseparable WERE INTUITIVE to him.
Off topic, but Einstein definitely did not find the new radical notions of space and time he came up with intuitive. He was led to SR because he saw that the electrodynamics of moving bodies seemed to possesses a greater degree of symmetry than their conventional description gave them credit for, and so he tried to redo the laws of kinematics so that Maxwell's equations could be shown to conform with the principle of relativity.
 
  • #77
jadrian said:
you say "is that intuitive?" intuition isn't the same for all. in fact it is relative lol no pun intended. einsteins thoughts that the speed of light is the same for all observers and the spaceman traveling at high speed will age slower and that space and time were inseparable WERE INTUITIVE to him.

f=ma is not intuitive to a retarded person.

you might ask if we would arrived at relativity today without einsteins intuition.

my guess is yes but its possible we might still not have come to relativity without einstein.

either way, einstein proves how far iq and intuition can take you.

another example, is it intuitive that we are indistingushable from nonliving chemical processes, leading to the conclusion that either we must either regard all chemical reactions as living, or that we are not alive in the traditional sense. i came to this conclusion through my intuition, and simply thinking about it. while kiths intuition apparently was not adequate, i think this conclusion i came to should be intuitive to anybody.
 
  • #78
jadrian said:
from my thinking nonlocality and entanglement are never a problem because in a totally determinstic universe, the information about what is going to be instantaneously tranferred from a to b is already known to the universe.
There's no way to know or demonstrate that information, or anything else, is instantaneously transferred from a to b. In fact, instantaneous propagation is a contradiction in terms. If a and b are changing instantaneously, then they're changing simultaneously. And there's nothing in our observations of our world, our universe, that suggests that simultaneous, spacelike separated, changes in a and b imply a causal relationship, or any sort of communication, between a and b. Rather, what this does imply is that a and b are part of a larger system, or that a and b have something in common due to a common cause.

Wrt some formulations (eg., inferred wrt standard QM and explicit wrt dBB interpretation) a and b can be said to change, or are explicitly encoded as changing, simultaneously. So, if one wants to give this some sort of pseudo mechanical meaning, then one might say that information is being instantaneously transferred between a and b. But this isn't really mechanics. It's just an assumption that can't be verified or falsified. Ie., a physically meaningless statement.

jadrian said:
... we may not be in block time but the universe acts as if it were.
That's news to me. I would say that observations indicate that our universe behaves contrary to the notion of block time. That is, it's evolving and transitory. But that certain theoretical constructs/eventualities suggest block time. And, afaik, the theoretical stuff that suggests block time (or that contradicts observation) is more or less routinely disregarded/discarded.

jadrian said:
... why is [my view] not mainstream?
Because it's unwarranted wrt extant observation and mainstream interpretation of theory.

Your title asks why superdeterminsim isn't universally accepted. My guess is that it's because superdeterminism doesn't refer to anything other than determinism. Determinism might not be universally accepted, but I think it's the predominant assumption and starting point wrt virtually all of the physical sciences.

Demystifier said:
In this context, superdeterminism is NOT merely the idea that everything is deterministic, i.e., that future is completely determined by the past. If superdeterminism was only that, then it could not avoid nonlocality.
Why not? Are you saying that the assumption of determinism implies action at a distance? Or superluminal propagations?

Demystifier said:
Instead, superdeterminism is much more. It is the idea that
1. Future is completely determined by the past.
Ok. So far this is just determinism.

Demystifier said:
AND
2. The past (i.e., initial conditions) is not arbitrary, but is fine tuned so that in the future we see correlations between distant object which never mutually interacted.
You've arbitrarily assumed a starting point (ie., initial conditions) that isn't influenced by past events. But we can just as well assume that wrt whatever you want to assume as a starting point there are antecedent events, ie., some prior history/conditions.

So, as far as I can tell, superdeterminism is a superfluous term, which actually just refers to determinism.
 
  • #80
lugita15 said:
ThomasT, a while back I told you what distinguishes superdeterminism from regular determinism ...
Yes, I reread your reply. I still don't understand what differentiates superdeterminism from determinism. I think Demystifier also tried to explain it one time to me. That didn't do it for me either. Or what Bell or 't Hooft have to say about it. I mean, it just isn't clear to me what the word superdeterminism refers to that's different from what the word determinism refers to.
 
Last edited:
  • #81
ThomasT said:
Yes, I reread your reply. I still don't understand what differentiates superdeterminism from determinism. I think Demystifier also tried to explain it one time to me. That didn't do it for me either. Or what Bell or 't Hooft have to say about it. I mean, it just isn't clear to me what the word superdeterminism refers to that's different from what the word determinism refers to.
Superdeterminism equals determinism plus conspiracy. If you take an arbitrary local realist theory with arbitrary initial conditions, it will satisfy Bell's inequality, meaning that it will not display the Bell-type nonlocal correlations necessary to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. In contrast, in a local superdeterministic theory you make all the particles in the universe have some big meeting some time in the past, where they all set the initial states of their hidden variables just right, so that they can all work together in an elaborate conspiracy to make sure that every Bell test performed in the history of the universe will make Bell's inequality appear violated even though it really isn't. In other words, you're making it seems as if local determinism is false even though it is really true. On the other hand, an ordinary local realist theory will easily produce predictions which disagree with quantum mechanics.
 
  • #82
lugita15 said:
To repeat, in order to have Bell-type nonlocal correlations between A and D in a local deterministic theory, we need A and D not only to have interacted in the past, but to have interacted in just the right way so that they would get the right "conspiratorial" initial conditions so that they would display the right kind of nonlocal correlations years later.

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.
 
  • #83
lugita15 said:
Superdeterminism equals determinism plus conspiracy. If you take an arbitrary local realist theory with arbitrary initial conditions, it will satisfy Bell's inequality, meaning that it will not display the Bell-type nonlocal correlations necessary to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics.
I'm not sure what you mean by "arbitrary initial conditions". An experimental preparation designed to produce entanglement stats isn't "arbitrary", is it?

lugita15 said:
In contrast, in a local superdeterministic theory you make all the particles in the universe have some big meeting some time in the past, where they all set the initial states of their hidden variables just right, so that they can all work together in an elaborate conspiracy to make sure that every Bell test performed in the history of the universe will make Bell's inequality appear violated even though it really isn't.
Hmmm. Well, this just seems silly to me. No offense. Maybe you can elaborate on this, explain what you're talking about, in a way that doesn't seem silly?

lugita15 said:
In other words, you're making it seem as if local determinism is false even though it is really true. On the other hand, an ordinary local realist theory will easily produce predictions which disagree with quantum mechanics.
Like I said, this makes no sense to me. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm just extraordinarily dense. I don't know (obviously, I wouldn't). But if so, is there another way that you might present/explain what superdeterminism means that I, and other laymen, might understand? Because what you've written so far doesn't make any sense to me.

How is superdeterminism different from determinism?

Determinism has a pretty simple definition. So, just define superdeterminism. What, exactly, does it refer to (that makes it different from determinism)?
 
  • #84
DrChinese said:
The pulse doesn't contain enough information to cause that to happen.
To cause what to happen? Entanglement? But entanglement can be created by zapping spatially separated particles with the same pulses, can't it? If so, then apparently the laser pulses do impart enough common info to produce entanglement.
 
  • #85
Superdeterminism is a subset of determinism. A
local superdeterministic theory is a local deterministic theory in which the behavior of particles today display Bell-type nonlocal correlation (as opposed to just EPR-type nonlocal correlation) not due to nonlocal interaction today, but due to local interaction in the past. Is that clear enough?
 
  • #86
lugita15 said:
Superdeterminism is a subset of determinism. A
local superdeterministic theory is a local deterministic theory in which the behavior of particles today display Bell-type nonlocal correlation (as opposed to just EPR-type nonlocal correlation) not due to nonlocal interaction today, but due to local interaction in the past. Is that clear enough?
Ok, thanks. Give me a few minutes to consider this.

EDIT: Ok, I've considered it. A local superdeterministic theory is a local deterministic theory in which the behavior of particles display entanglement correlations due to interaction with each other, or a common origin, or an identical torque applied to both.

This is just determinism. There's nothing, as far as I can tell, super about it.
 
Last edited:
  • #87
ThomasT said:
To cause what to happen? Entanglement? But entanglement can be created by zapping spatially separated particles with the same pulses, can't it? If so, then apparently the laser pulses do impart enough common info to produce entanglement.

The pulse synchronization IS enough for entanglement. But doesn't impart the information beyond that necessary to maintain the superdeterministic mechanism. After all, the pulse is periodic and there are no other variables to speak of. So it is a pretty small communication channel.
 
  • #88
DrChinese said:
The pulse synchronization IS enough for entanglement. But doesn't impart the information beyond that necessary to maintain the superdeterministic mechanism. After all, the pulse is periodic and there are no other variables to speak of. So it is a pretty small communication channel.
Thanks for the reply. But you're doing it also. I really don't know what you guys mean by superdeterminism.
 
  • #89
lugita15 said:
OK, let me give you an example of why you need special initial conditions.

In a deterministic theory, in order to predict the current behavior of any object, you need to know the initial conditions of the object, as well as the deterministic laws of the universe. In Newtonian mechanics, for example, you need to know the positions and velocities of all the particles at time t=0, and then F=ma will tell you the behavior of the particles at all later times.

Now let's consider what a local deterministic explanation of entanglement would look like. Let particles A and B be an entangled pair of photons, which are separated by a great distance and then sent through polarization detectors. We also have particles C and D: C tells the experimenter what angle he should set the polarizer that measures A, and D tells the experimenter how to set the polarizer that measures B. You can think of C and D as neurons in the brains of the experimenters if you like.

Now we find experimentally that the behavior of particle A through its measurement device is strongly correlated with the angle at which B's measurement device is set. And that angle is determined by particle D. So we have a correlation between the behavior of particles A and D.

But particles A and D are separated by such a large distance, so they cannot communicate with each other to coordinate their behavior (unless you have a nonlocal theory like Bohmian mechanics which allow undetectable faster-than-light signalling between particles). So a local determinist has to conclude that A and D are correlated not based on a current relationship between the present states of A and D, which would be impossible, but based on a past relationship of the initial states of A and D.

This is what we mean by special initial conditions: A and D seemingly have nothing to do with each other. After all, it is A and B that were in the entangled state, and yet somehow we have to conclude that the initial conditions of A and D had to be specially set so that a correlation between A and D would be observed in the future. And instead of just D, we can have a large number of particles D1, D2, D3,... which together determine the measurement setting, so the initial state of particle A had to have been set based on the initial states of all these particles. And in the real world, almost all particles in the universe are interacting in some way with almost all other particles, so really the setting of measurement device depends on almost everything in the universe, from which we conclude that the initial conditions of the whole universe were specially set so that the right kind of correlation would be displayed billions of years later between particle A and the measuring device.

This is why superdeterminism is called "conspiratorial". That doesn't mean it's wrong, it just has some issues which make it rather difficult to construct a viable superdeterministic theory, but let me repeat that some potential first steps toward such a theory have already been taken by a few people.

By the way i think you should be focusing more on simply c and d which i presume are next to the measurement devices and thus are far apart so they are the "conspirators", because they causally effect the outcome of the measurements by bumping the measurement device into whatever angle. either way a and d or c and d doesn't matter which you consider to be conspiring. There should be nothing conspiratorial about particle d being able to affect particle c and therefore effect a because in the history of the universe, the 10^10^MILLION (who can say how many?) interactions that have taken place, through causality and info exchange, HAVE PREDETERMINED that particle d was going to effect c and therefore a. you say a and d seemingly have nothing to do with each other. THEY HAVE EVERYTHING TO DO WITH EACHOTHER! Simple logical determinism would lead you to the conclusion that d had causal effects on perhaps everything in the universe which ultimately led to the causal outcome of the measurement of a. Not only that but particle d,d1,d2,d3 d infinity not only via cause-effect cause-effect cause-effect...eventually caused c to affect the measurement device for a, but d, d1, d2... caused the experimenters to make the experiment take place in the first place.

i don't believe faster than light info transfer will be an issue here as it is not an issue with normal entanglement, because info transferred at the speed of light will always beat instantaneous info transfer to the punch. Sending light in opposite directions i suspect would be solvable by relativity to give the same conclusion.

dont think of it not particles all knowing about each other, think of it as historical interactions in the universe as spreading a virus to every particle in the entire universe.

its not that every particle knows everything about every other particle. it only knows what has happened to it in the past. but the addition of all current states of particles which are in their current state because of their continuous past history traced back in time will give you the full information in the universe, and having this information, you would be able to predict it. and if you could predict it, that would mean it must be deterministic as a whole. so although we cannot predict the future, and the future isn't predictable, que sera' sera'.
 
Last edited:
  • #90
ThomasT said:
Ok, thanks. Give me a few minutes to consider this.

EDIT: Ok, I've considered it. A local superdeterministic theory is a local deterministic theory in which the behavior of particles display entanglement correlations due to interaction with each other, or a common origin, or an identical torque applied to both.

This is just determinism. There's nothing, as far as I can tell, super about it.
An ordinary local realist theory can only produce EPR-type nonlocal correlations, but in order to produce Bell-type nonlocal correlations you require a local superdeterministic theory. Referring to Nick Herbert's explanation here [PLAIN]http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html,[/PLAIN] [Broken] the fact that entangled photons do the same thing when going through polarizers oriented at 0 degrees is an example of an EPR-type nonlocal correlation; a local realist can easily explain it by saying that the photons agreed in advance whether they should go through or not go through a 0 degree polarizer. An example of a Bell-type nonlocal correlation is the fact that the mismatch at 60 degrees is more than twice the mismatch at 30 degrees.

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)

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 EPR-type 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 Bell-type nonlocal correlations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #91
ThomasT said:
Thanks for the reply. But you're doing it also. I really don't know what you guys mean by superdeterminism.

The superdeterminism part is simple: it is the new particle properties and physical interactions which need to be added to explain Bell test results. This cannot be done with known currently physical processes within a local realistic setting.
 
  • #92
jadrian said:
By the way i think you should be focusing more on simply c and d which i presume are next to the measurement devices and thus are far apart so they are the "conspirators", because they causally effect the outcome of the measurements by bumping the measurement device into whatever angle. either way a and d or c and d doesn't matter which you consider to be conspiring. There should be nothing conspiratorial about particle d being able to affect particle c and therefore effect a because in the history of the universe, the 10^10^MILLION (who can say how many?) interactions that have taken place, through causality and info exchange, HAVE PREDETERMINED that particle d was going to effect c and therefore a. you say a and d seemingly have nothing to do with each other. THEY HAVE EVERYTHING TO DO WITH EACHOTHER! Simple logical determinism would lead you to the conclusion that d had causal effects on perhaps everything in the universe which ultimately led to the causal outcome of the measurement of a. Not only that but particle d,d1,d2,d3 d infinity not only via cause-effect cause-effect cause-effect...eventually caused c to affect the measurement device for a, but d, d1, d2... caused the experimenters to make the experiment take place in the first place.
Actually, we find experimentally that A has a nonlocal correlation with D, but C does not have any correlation with D. So what you're saying doesn't make much sense.
i don't believe faster than light info transfer will be an issue here as it is not an issue with normal entanglement, because info transferred at the speed of light will always beat instantaneous info transfer to the punch. Sending light in opposite directions i suspect would be solvable by relativity to give the same conclusion.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Obviously the speed of light is finite, so if there were such a thing as instantaneous information transfer then light wouldn't be able to beat it.
dont think of it not particles all knowing about each other, think of it as historical interactions in the universe as spreading a virus to every particle in the entire universe.

its not that every particle knows everything about every other particle. it only knows what has happened to it in the past. but the addition of all current states of particles which are in their current state because of their continuous past history traced back in time will give you the full information in the universe, and having this information, you would be able to predict it. and if you could predict it, that would mean it must be deterministic as a whole. so although we cannot predict the future, and the future isn't predictable, que sera' sera'.
I've told you this several times already, but the conspiratorial part is NOT the mere fact that all the particles in the universe (or their ancestors) interacted in some way or another with each other at some point in the past. The conspiratorial part is that they used the information derived from this interaction to set their initial states in just the right way so as to produce a Bell-type nonlocal correlation. There's lots of possible interactions particles can have; how did they have just the right kind of interaction so that they would get the right kind of initial states? That's what a superdeterministic theory would have to explain if it didn't want to be considered ad hoc.
 
  • #93
jadrian said:
...its not that every particle knows everything about every other particle. it only knows what has happened to it in the past. but the addition of all current states of particles which are in their current state because of their continuous past history traced back in time will give you the full information in the universe, and having this information, you would be able to predict it. ...

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.

:smile:
 
  • #94
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.
 
  • #95
DrChinese said:
Obviously, if I choose to entangle particles that no longer exist, then I am changing the past (which I am in quantum terms).
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.
 
  • #96
kith said:
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.
Entanglement seems to be a relatively rare phenomenon (does it occur in nature at all, except with some nonlinear crystals?), so how important could nonlocal correlations be to life?
 
  • #97
lugita15 said:
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.

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.
 
  • #98
kith said:
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.

The reason this is not possible is: there are NO initial conditions that lead to these results! That is the point, you must add new and otherwise hidden physical laws to account for the results. And they can't just be hidden variables, as Bell showed.

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.

So as I devise new and more devious Bell test setups (all perfectly viable), you have to invent new physics.

As to the possibility that all the particles in the universe are correlated or entangled: that is perfectly reasonable. In fact, I would venture a wild guess that the total spin of the universe is precisely zero. That would make everything entangled in some small way. However, that piece of information is worthless when looking at any particular subset of particles, which could have any total spin value. So the point is that the initial condition of zero total spin (or any other value) does NOT in any way explain correlations between particular pairs of particles.

So I wouldn't recommend initial conditions as an explanation of Bell test results, you need particular physics too.
 
  • #99
lugita15 said:
Entanglement seems to be a relatively rare phenomenon (does it occur in nature at all, except with some nonlinear crystals?)
Entanglement as such is not rare. Most decay processes yield entangled particles. In principle, all fermionic states are entangled (because of their antisymmetry). Also most open systems are entangled with their environment. As DrC points out, it seems more like entanglement is the standard thing.

The reason that it is rarely present in experiments, is that we either don't want to keep track of it (because we are interested in analyzing the properties of single particles), or that we are not able to keep track of it (because we don't have direct access to the other particles). So most experiments are simply missing Bob.

lugita15 said:
so how important could nonlocal correlations be to life?
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.
 
  • #100
DrChinese said:
The reason this is not possible is: there are NO initial conditions that lead to these results!
If superdeterminism is a valid point of view, then initial conditions determine everything. Of course, they can be initial conditions of some unknown superdeterministic laws and need not have to be initial conditions of orthodox quantum mechanics.

My criticism was the wording "conspirational", which seems to refer to the following situation: in the beginning of the universe, all degrees of freedom (of our possibly superdeterministic laws) have conspired to make future experimenters make choices in such a way that the universe looks nonlocal to them, while in truth it isn't. If the initial conditions had been less improbable ("non-conspirational"), the universe would be classical.

So if people use this argument to criticize superdeterminsm, one can reply by the anthropic principle: in these non-conspirational, classical universes, atoms would be unstable and life would not exist.

DrChinese said:
That is the point, you must add new and otherwise hidden physical laws to account for the results. And they can't just be hidden variables, as Bell showed.
Didn't Bell himself say the contrary in his famous superdeterminism quote? His theorem shows that no local realistic theory can reproduce all predictions of quantum mechanics under the assumption of free choice of the observables to be measured (please object if you think this is wrong).
 
  • #101
kith said:
Didn't Bell himself say the contrary in his famous superdeterminism quote? His theorem shows that no local realistic theory can reproduce all predictions of quantum mechanics under the assumption of free choice of the observables to be measured (please object if you think this is wrong).

Sure, he did. I don't take that very seriously though, and I doubt he did either (I think of it as a joke). As I have said, you can also say that God intervenes to make it look like Bell test results reflect reality. My point being that it takes a candidate theory to have anything meaningful to discuss. There aren't any.

And as to your comments about initial conditions: I repeat that this does NOT produce an answer for Bell test results. You need completely new physics of a type never seen before. Please do not wave your hands on this point. If you want to explain Bell test results outside QM, you need to explain the mechanism or otherwise give me something to bite my teeth into. So okay, what is it? (Because anything you throw I will falsify experimentally.)
 
  • #102
lugita15 said:
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.
Yes, here it is for the case someone is interested:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=402497
Pay particular attention to posts #1 and #21.
 
Last edited:
  • #103
ThomasT said:
Thanks for the reply. But you're doing it also. I really don't know what you guys mean by superdeterminism.
OK, here is a simple example of superdeterminism which does not involve quantum mechanics.

Assume that John runs a lottery business. And assume that his son Bob wins the main prize every time.

How to explain that? Well, the most obvious explanation is that John cheats, in order to make his son pick up the big money. This is what most people believe, including police. Confronted with the police accusations, he argues with police as follows:

John: No, I don't cheat. It is not my guilt that my son Bob wins every time.
Police: Then how do you explain that your son wins every time?
John: I don't now, maybe he is just lucky.
Police: Come on, nobody can be that lucky to win every fu****g time.
John: Maybe God wants him to win every time. So it's God, it has nothing to do with me.
Police: God cannot have anything to do with it. That's because lottery is a deterministic process, i.e., the winning numbers are determined by the details of initial conditions. God cannot change the initial conditions.
John: OK, I admit that lottery is deterministic, but maybe it's not only that. Maybe lottery is not only deterministic, but superdeterministic.
Police: What do you mean by "superdeterministic"?
John: Well, God wants my son to win every time. And yet, He wants to obey his own deterministic laws. So what does He do? He chooses the initial conditions in a very special way to make sure that my son will win every time. That's superdeterminism; deterministic laws plus very special initial conditions chosen by God to create one additional rule that otherwise could not be explained by the deterministic laws alone. In this case, the additional rule is: my son will win every time.
Police: So, is that supposed to prove that you are innocent?
John: Of course. I certainly don't have this power to fine tune all the initial conditions in the Universe. Only God can do that.

---------

So, would you buy this superdeterminism argument and reject the idea that John is cheating? Likewise, would you buy superdeterminism as explanation of quantum correlations and reject the idea that nature is nonlocal?
 
Last edited:
  • #104
Demystifier, I don't see how your analogy is valid at all. No one mentioned anything about 'God'. How would superdeterminism be like rejecting the idea that John cheats? If anything, it means accepting that he cheats, and acknowledging that maybe the Universe cheats all the time and this is the natural order of things.

There are certain facts we have to accept. One fact is that the Universe certainly seems to be non-local. Thus, any deterministic theory that attempted to model the Universe accurately would have to be superdeterministic. This is one of the implications of Bell's theorem. That's it. Bell's theorem is not a proof that superdeterminism is false, any more than the EPR paradox is proof that hidden variables must exist, or the twin paradox is proof that relativity is impossible, or Schrodinger's cat is proof that wavefunction collapse does not apply to macroscale objects.

Everyone in this thread should acknowledge that there is, at this point in time, no scientific reason to reject superdeterminism. It's all just speculation and intuition, and we all know how well that goes. As I said in my first reply, first we need to develop a set of superdeterministic theories (there are currently none), then test them against experiment, and compare them with non-deterministic theories. Until then, any thoughts on the matter are premature.
 
  • #105
IttyBittyBit said:
Everyone in this thread should acknowledge that there is, at this point in time, no scientific reason to reject superdeterminism. It's all just speculation and intuition, and we all know how well that goes. As I said in my first reply, first we need to develop a set of superdeterministic theories (there are currently none), then test them against experiment, and compare them with non-deterministic theories. Until then, any thoughts on the matter are premature.

Determinism and variants are clearly in contrast with scientific method. Let's leave determinism and variants for philosophers.
 
<h2>1. Why is superdeterminism not the universally accepted explanation of nonlocality?</h2><p>Superdeterminism is not the universally accepted explanation of nonlocality because it goes against the widely accepted principle of free will. Superdeterminism suggests that all events, including human decisions, are predetermined and therefore there is no true randomness or free will in the universe. This goes against our understanding of human agency and the ability to make choices.</p><h2>2. What evidence supports the rejection of superdeterminism as an explanation for nonlocality?</h2><p>One of the main pieces of evidence against superdeterminism is the violation of Bell's inequality, which suggests that there is a limit to how much information can be hidden from an observer. If superdeterminism were true, this limit would not exist and the observed correlations in nonlocal systems would not be possible.</p><h2>3. Are there alternative explanations for nonlocality other than superdeterminism?</h2><p>Yes, there are alternative explanations for nonlocality that do not rely on the concept of superdeterminism. Some theories suggest that there are hidden variables or hidden information that can explain the observed correlations in nonlocal systems without resorting to predetermined events.</p><h2>4. What implications would accepting superdeterminism have on our understanding of the universe?</h2><p>If superdeterminism were to be accepted as the explanation for nonlocality, it would have significant implications on our understanding of the universe. It would mean that all events, including our thoughts and actions, are predetermined and there is no true randomness or free will. This would challenge our understanding of causality and the role of human agency in shaping our reality.</p><h2>5. Is there ongoing research and debate surrounding the concept of superdeterminism and its relation to nonlocality?</h2><p>Yes, there is ongoing research and debate surrounding the concept of superdeterminism and its relation to nonlocality. Scientists continue to explore alternative explanations for nonlocality and gather evidence to support or refute the concept of superdeterminism. This is an active area of study in the field of quantum mechanics and there is no consensus yet on the ultimate explanation for nonlocality.</p>

1. Why is superdeterminism not the universally accepted explanation of nonlocality?

Superdeterminism is not the universally accepted explanation of nonlocality because it goes against the widely accepted principle of free will. Superdeterminism suggests that all events, including human decisions, are predetermined and therefore there is no true randomness or free will in the universe. This goes against our understanding of human agency and the ability to make choices.

2. What evidence supports the rejection of superdeterminism as an explanation for nonlocality?

One of the main pieces of evidence against superdeterminism is the violation of Bell's inequality, which suggests that there is a limit to how much information can be hidden from an observer. If superdeterminism were true, this limit would not exist and the observed correlations in nonlocal systems would not be possible.

3. Are there alternative explanations for nonlocality other than superdeterminism?

Yes, there are alternative explanations for nonlocality that do not rely on the concept of superdeterminism. Some theories suggest that there are hidden variables or hidden information that can explain the observed correlations in nonlocal systems without resorting to predetermined events.

4. What implications would accepting superdeterminism have on our understanding of the universe?

If superdeterminism were to be accepted as the explanation for nonlocality, it would have significant implications on our understanding of the universe. It would mean that all events, including our thoughts and actions, are predetermined and there is no true randomness or free will. This would challenge our understanding of causality and the role of human agency in shaping our reality.

5. Is there ongoing research and debate surrounding the concept of superdeterminism and its relation to nonlocality?

Yes, there is ongoing research and debate surrounding the concept of superdeterminism and its relation to nonlocality. Scientists continue to explore alternative explanations for nonlocality and gather evidence to support or refute the concept of superdeterminism. This is an active area of study in the field of quantum mechanics and there is no consensus yet on the ultimate explanation for nonlocality.

Similar threads

Replies
75
Views
8K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
924
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
8
Views
431
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
69
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top