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.
  • #386
ThomasT said:
So, ok, if you assume that that parameter is determining coincidental detection, then that might account for the incorrect conclusion that the correlation between θ and rate of coincidental detection is linear.
Where do I ever say in my now 10 steps that the parameter that determines the rate of individual detection must be the same as the parameter that determines the rate of coincidental detection? Remember, my 10-step argument is about the idealized setup, in which the data consists of individual detection results and the mismatches in this data.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #387
lugita15 said:
Where do I ever say in my now 10 steps that the parameter that determines the rate of individual detection must be the same as the parameter that determines the rate of coincidental detection? Remember, my 10-step argument is about the idealized setup, in which the data consists of individual detection results and the mismatches in this data.
"individual detection results and the mismatches"

Mismatches are combined results. A different observational context than individual measurement.

It seems clear enough to me that what you're saying is that the underlying parameter that determines individual detection is the same underlying parameter that determines coincidental detection.

But how can this be if, wrt coincidental detection, the underlying parameter that determines individual detection can be anything and coincidental detection only varies as a function of θ?
 
  • #388
ThomasT said:
"individual detection results and the mismatches"

Mismatches are combined results. A different observational context than individual measurement.
Argh. I could try arguing with you yet again that a mismatch between two individual detection results is entirely determined BY those two individual detection results, but we've gone in circles around this numerous times.

So instead, let me ask you this: do you agree with the logic from step 5 to step 6 in my new 10 step proof? If you disagree with it, what's the problem you see with getting step 6? Because that is the closest thing I see to an assumption about coincidental detection and individual detection being connected. To me, step 6 seems obvious, but YMMV.
 
  • #389
lugita15 said:
Argh. I could try arguing with you yet again that a mismatch between two individual detection results is entirely determined BY those two individual detection results ...
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.

lugita15 said:
... do you agree with the logic from step 5 to step 6 in my new 10 step proof? If you disagree with it, what's the problem you see with getting step 6? Because that is the closest thing I see to an assumption about coincidental detection and individual detection being connected. To me, step 6 seems obvious, but YMMV.

lugita15 said:
5. Let R(θ1,θ2) denote the percentage of mismatches (situations where one photon goes through and the other does not) if polarizer 1 is set to angle θ1 and polarizer 2 is set to angle θ2.
6. Using the definition of P in step 4, R(θ1,θ2) is the probability that P(θ1)≠P(θ2) for a randomly selected entangled pair.
If the relevant underlying parameters, P(θ1) and P(θ2), determining whether the incident photons are transmitted or not by the polarizers is determined by a common function, then would the probability that P(θ1)≠P(θ2) be 0? Maybe not. But if we allow that that function isn't determining the rate of coincidental detection, then the probability of A≠B wouldn't be dependent on the values of P(θ1), P(θ2), or P(θ), would it?

What does YMMV mean?
 
Last edited:
  • #390
ThomasT said:
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.
If computers are composed of circuits, then whatever determines the behavior of the circuits must determine the behavior of the computer. If molecules are composed of atoms, then whatever determines the behavior of atoms must determine the behavior of computers. Coincidental detection result data is (for my idealized setup) composed of individual detection result data, so whatever determines individual detection results must determine the coincidental detection results. It seems obvious to me, but in any case I don't think I used this fact in my proof.
ThomasT said:
If the relevant underlying parameters, P(θ1) and P(θ2), determining whether the incident photons are transmitted or not by the polarizers is determined by a common function, then would the probability that P(θ1)≠P(θ2) be 0?
We're talking about the probability that P(θ1)≠P(θ2) for a randomly selected entangled pair, so there's no reason why it should be zero.

And by the way, you may notice in my latest proof that I've abandoned the terminology of the two particles consulting the common function P(θ), to minimize confusion about whether I'm restricting the kind of hidden variable the particles can have. Instead, how I now express it is that the particles choose in advance what angles they should go through or not, and P(θ) is just our way of describing what angles they have selected to go through and what angles not to.
ThomasT said:
But if we allow that that function isn't determining the rate of coincidental detection, then the probability of A≠B wouldn't be dependent on the values of P(θ1), P(θ2), or P(θ), would it?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. What are A and B?
ThomasT said:
What does YMMV mean?
It's short for "your mileage may vary", meaning I experience this but you may experience something else.
 
  • #391
lugita15 said:
If computers are composed of circuits, then whatever determines the behavior of the circuits must determine the behavior of the computer. If molecules are composed of atoms, then whatever determines the behavior of atoms must determine the behavior of computers.
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.

A while back I suggested that you consider a visualization that clearly demonstrates that the rate of coincidental detection isn't a function of the variable that determines individual detection.

It's also suggested that you look at Aspect et al. 1981 and 1982, paying particular attention to the associated emission model that describes the production of polarization entangled photons via atomic cascades.

If you do that, then I think the view that the combined polarizers are measuring a relationship that doesn't vary from pair to pair will become clearer to you. It should be obvious that the individual polarizers, considered separately, aren't measuring a relationship, but rather a value of some property relevant to transmission via the polarizers that's varying randomly from pair to pair.

lugita15 said:
What are A and B?
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., λa referring to the value of the hidden variable of the photon incident on a.

lugita15 said:
It's short for "your mileage may vary", meaning I experience this but you may experience something else.
Ok. Well, that seems evident. So far I haven't convinced you that superdeterminism isn't necessary, and you haven't convinced me that it is.

Maybe we should just let it go for the time being and they can lock the thread ... unless somebody else has something to say about it that hasn't already been said.
 
  • #392
ThomasT said:
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., λa 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.
 
  • #393
lugita15 said:
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.

lugita15 said:
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.
 
  • #394
ThomasT said:
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.
ThomasT said:
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.
 
  • #395
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
ThomasT said:
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)
 
  • #396
catellus said:
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.
 
<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