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.
  • #106
IttyBittyBit said:
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.
Thomas asked us to explain what do we mean by superdeterminism, and I have explained what do I (and not only I) mean by that. Obviously you mean something else by this term, so it would be nice if you could give your explanation as well. In particular, you should explain the difference between determinism and superdeterminism.

Of course, it was not necessary to use God in my explanation, but the concept of "God" in some very general sense seems suitable to talk about the cause of initial conditions. For what else might be the cause of initial conditions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
Demystifier said:
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.
Thanks, Demystifier. And while I have your attention, do you have any thoughts on the Zurek paper I referenced earlier in this thread? Here it is again:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0405161
If decoherence is sufficient to derive the Born rule, why can't this derivation be carried over into Bohmian mechanics?
 
  • #108
Demystifier said:
Of course, it was not necessary to use God in my explanation, but the concept of "God" in some very general sense seems suitable to talk about the cause of initial conditions. For what else might be the cause of initial conditions?
To be fair, a superdeterminist need not believe that the special initial conditions that give rise to conspiratorial behavior are due to supernatural agency or chance. Instead, you can have a theory where at some time in the past all the particles in the universe (or their ancestors) interacted with each other in such a way that they gave each other the right initial conditions. In other words, they literally met and "agreed" on the conspiracy. So then superdeterminists would have to invent some form of local particle interaction which gives the particles the special initial states necessary to produce nonlocal correlation later on. And that seems like a really hard task.
 
  • #109
IttyBittyBit said:
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.
Yes, "the Universe cheats" is actually a pretty good description of superdeterminism
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.
Bell's theorem implies that any local deterministic theory which reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics must be superdeterministic. But you can have a nonlocal deterministic theory like Bohmian mechanics, and that need not be superdeterministic. But you're right that Bell's theorem does not disprove superdeterminism.
Everyone in this thread should acknowledge that there is, at this point in time, no scientific reason to reject superdeterminism.
Science does not accept all theories until they are rejected by experiments. In science we do not accept claims unless we have good experimental reason to do so. Currently we have a nondeterministic theory, quantum mechanics, which is extremely accurate in its predictions. Thus the burden of proof is on the determinist to demonstrate his thesis, not on the scientific community to disprove it.
 
  • #110
lugita15 said:
Bell's theorem implies that any local deterministic theory which reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics...

Yes that's why I said models our own Universe.

lugita15 said:
Science does not accept all theories until they are rejected by experiments.

Actually, science does not accept anything. Theories are never proven; only rejected based on evidence.

(Some might go further and even dispute that, saying that the best we can do is assign likelihoods to theories.)

lugita15 said:
Thus the burden of proof is on the determinist to demonstrate his thesis, not on the scientific community to disprove it.

This viewpoint is often thrown around and represents a confusion between proving the existence of something (which is the subject of logic and mathematics, not science - though logic and mathematics are tools that are often used in science), and evaluating the likeliness of a hypothesis (which is the subject of science).

Quite contrary to your statement, in science all theories (all falsifiable theories, that is) are given equal consideration until evidence comes along that disproves any number of them. This evidence might be direct or indirect. Science resembles a courtroom more than anything.

That being said, I repeat that superdeterminism by itself is not a scientific theory, because it is unfalsifiable. However, there are strong indications that it might be possible to construct a valid theory of the Universe that is superdeterministic in nature.
 
  • #111
DrChinese said:
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.
You really have a biting reflex, when it comes to Bell's theorem, don't you? ;-) Just to be clear: I don't question its validity. We are simply talking about different aspects of the discussion. Amongst others, the following two arguments against superdeterminism occurred during the discussion.

First, that there is no local realistic superdeterministic (LRSD) model (yet). This is what you are talking about.

Second, people object to LRSD theories in general, because they have to be conspirational. That is they have to look nonlocal to (predeterminded) experimenters, in spite of their real laws beeing local. By choosing the wording "conspiracy", it is suggested that such theories are absurd or very unlikely to be true.

My point was to question this view by noting, that all non-conspirational LRSD theories would be incompatible with quantum mechanics, so the anthropic principle could be used to explain the unlikely "conspiracy" (see my last posts).

So my bottom line is: the "conspiracy" part alone is not an argument against LRSD theories, if one acknowledges the anthropic principle (as many people do in cosmology). This is indepent of the construction of actual superdeterministic theories, which of course has to be done in order to discuss superdeterminism in a more scientific way.
DrChinese said:
And as to your comments about initial conditions: I repeat that this does NOT produce an answer for Bell test results.
This part of your posts I still don't get. Do you agree with Demystifier's definition of superdeterminism as determinism+special initial conditions in post #9? And do you agree with Bell himself that his theorem relies on the assumption that the experimenters can choose the observables they measure? Given the deterministic laws, what else can determine the outcome of Bell tests if not the special initial conditions?
 
  • #112
IttyBittyBit said:
Yes that's why I said models our own Universe.
What I was quibbling with was your assertion that any deterministic theory must be superdeterministic. But all Bell says is any LOCAL deterministic theory must be superdeterministic.
Actually, science does not accept anything. Theories are never proven; only rejected based on evidence.

(Some might go further and even dispute that, saying that the best we can do is assign likelihoods to theories.)



This viewpoint is often thrown around and represents a confusion between proving the existence of something (which is the subject of logic and mathematics, not science - though logic and mathematics are tools that are often used in science), and evaluating the likeliness of a hypothesis (which is the subject of science).

Quite contrary to your statement, in science all theories (all falsifiable theories, that is) are given equal consideration until evidence comes along that disproves any number of them. This evidence might be direct or indirect. Science resembles a courtroom more than anything.
OK, I guess we just have a difference of opinion about the philosophy of science.
 
  • #113
My point was to question this view by noting, that all non-conspirational LRSD theories would be incompatible with quantum mechanics, so the anthropic principle could be used to explain the unlikely "conspiracy" (see my last posts).
Let's get some terminology straight. By definition, a superdeterministic theory is a deterministic theory which is conspiratorial. So "non-conspiratorial LRSD" doesn't make any sense. I think what you mean to say is "all local deterministic theories which are not superdeterministic are would be incompatible wiht quantum mechanics".
 
  • #114
lugita15 said:
Let's get some terminology straight. By definition, a superdeterministic theory is a deterministic theory which is conspiratorial. So "non-conspiratorial LRSD" doesn't make any sense. I think what you mean to say is "all local deterministic theories which are not superdeterministic are would be incompatible wiht quantum mechanics".
Yes, you can also put it like that.

Personally, I prefer a broader definition which includes the classical case. There has already been much philosophical debate before quantum mechanics and Bell's position (as expressed in the BBC quote) is hard to distinguish from Laplacian determinism.
 
  • #115
lugita15 said:
OK, I guess we just have a difference of opinion about the philosophy of science.

Then you have a difference of opinion with what is usually taken to be the definition of science.

Take a good long read of this page: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b14

This is just basic stuff really.

(In particular, on that page see 'MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas' and 'MISCONCEPTION: The job of a scientist is to find support for his or her hypotheses'. In regard to: 'MISCONCEPTION: Science can only disprove ideas' that is what I was referring to by stating that some would say that the best we can do is assign likelihoods to hypotheses.)
 
Last edited:
  • #116
kith said:
... Bell's position (as expressed in the BBC quote) is hard to distinguish from Laplacian determinism.

And just to be clear, Laplacian determinism is NOTHING like superdeterminism.
 
  • #117
kith said:
1. You really have a biting reflex, when it comes to Bell's theorem, don't you? ;-)

2. First, that there is no local realistic superdeterministic (LRSD) model (yet). This is what you are talking about.

3.Do you agree with Demystifier's definition of superdeterminism as determinism+special initial conditions in post #9? And do you agree with Bell himself that his theorem relies on the assumption that the experimenters can choose the observables they measure? Given the deterministic laws, what else can determine the outcome of Bell tests if not the special initial conditions?

1. You got me. :smile:

2. Yes, I agree.

3. No, and I am not necessarily disagreeing with Demystifier on this. Superdeterminism requires both specific initial conditions AND new laws of physics. This is necessary for the kind of cheating that Demystifier mentions. The reason is that there are no known initial conditions that can lead to Bell test results. As I have said many times, there just isn't enough information carried locally to support this. So there must be something additional, and it must be of a type of physics not currently contemplated.

Just stating that initial conditions does it is not sufficient by a long shot. (You may as well assert that the true speed of light is 1 kph too, but initial conditions cause every test made to yield c as the answer.)
 
  • #118
DrChinese said:
And just to be clear, Laplacian determinism is NOTHING like superdeterminism.
On a conceptual level, Laplacian determinism (LD) and conspirational superdeterminism (CSD) are not very different.

The philosophical question which steered the debate about determinism is the question of free will. If the laws are deterministic, does the experimenter still have the freedom to choose initial conditions in an experiment or are they predetermined by the past? I find it only reasonable to have an umbrella term for theories, which have deterministic laws and deny this freedom. Since these theories are "more" deterministic than theories which leave the question open, the wording "super"-deterministic seems adequate. Bell's BBC quote suggests that this is what led him to coin the wording.

So in this sense, both LD and CSD are superdeterministic. And another theory which needs to fit under the umbrella is Bohmian mechanics. So instead of calling these theories "Laplacian determinism", "superdeterminism" and "Bohmian mechanics without free choice of initial conditions" and not having an umbrella term, I think it is more logical (and also in the spirit of Bell) to call the umbrella "superdeterminism" and refer to local realistic hidden variable theories by something like "conspirational superdeterminism".

The main difference between LD and CSD is of course, that CSD is only a hypothetical theory and no one knows how its laws would look like. With your second post, I mostly agree. The question is whether one wants to discuss general philosophical implications or hard science. Since there is no CSD theory available, the second one is quite futile.
 
Last edited:
  • #119
kith said:
The philosophical question which steered the debate about determinism is the question of free will. If the laws are deterministic, does the experimenter still have the freedom to choose initial conditions in an experiment or are they predetermined by the past? I find it only reasonable to have an umbrella term for theories, which have deterministic laws and deny this freedom. Since these theories are "more" deterministic than theories which leave the question open, the wording "super"-deterministic seems adequate. Bell's BBC quote suggests that this is what led him to coin the wording.
What you call by the term "superdeterminism" is what everybody else just calls determinism. If you think the experimenter has free will, then obviously you're not a determinist. As I think you already know, what you call "conspiratorial superdeterminism" everyone else just calls superdeterminism. It's important for everyone to use the same terms; otherwise you have situations like ThomasT thinking there is no difference between determinism and superdeterminism as they are conventionally used.
 
  • #120
DrChinese said:
The reason is that there are no known initial conditions that can lead to Bell test results. As I have said many times, there just isn't enough information carried locally to support this. So there must be something additional, and it must be of a type of physics not currently contemplated.
I think this assertion's a bit too strong. You can obviously have a conspiracy where all the particles in the universe carry literally all information about all other particles in the universe, and use this information to do exactly what they need to do to make Bell's inequality appear violated, and never use this information except when dealing with quantum entanglement. That's why it's called ad hoc.
 
  • #121
lugita15 said:
What you call by the term "superdeterminism" is what everybody else just calls determinism. If you think the experimenter has free will, then obviously you're not a determinist. As I think you already know, what you call "conspiratorial superdeterminism" everyone else just calls superdeterminism. It's important for everyone to use the same terms; otherwise you have situations like ThomasT thinking there is no difference between determinism and superdeterminism as they are conventionally used.
Yes, you are probably right. But I think a big part of the confusion comes from inadequately naming things.
 
  • #122
Ok, thanks for the replies, I understand what's meant by superdeterminism now.

Paraphrasing lugita15 (from post #81), the assumption of superdeterminism can be used to construct a scenario in which violation of BI's makes it seem "as if local determinism is false even though it is really true".

However, imho, the reason that BIs are violated has to do with constraints encoded in clearly explicitly local realistic models of quantum entanglement. These constraints, necessary for a model to be identified as local or local realistic, have the net effect wrt simplistic models (such as that described by Herbert) of requiring light to behave in an uncharacteristic way. That is, instead of expecting the correlation between angular difference and coincidental detection to be linear, the correlation would more reasonably be expected to approximate the nonlinear correlation that QM predicts.

Wrt more sophisticated LR models (still clearly local or local realistic models -- ie., Bell-type formulations), which predict a nonlinear correlation, the QM-predicted angular dependency is more closely approximated, but the range predicted by those LR models is reduced, and the data points skewed.

From this, and consideration of the way light would reasonably be expected to behave in a local deterministic universe, it seems to me that there might be a simpler solution to the problem than to invoke superdeterminism.

That is, I don't believe that either locality or nonlocality have been definitively shown to be false, and I think it's quite possible that violation of BIs might be making it seem "as if local determinism is false" even if it's true, and that this is due to constraints encoded in the LR formalism, and that violations of inequalities based on those constraints don't inform as to whether locality or nonlocality is the case.

Entanglement stats result from measuring, via global measurement parameters, relationships between entangled entities. Experimental preparations are designed to produce these relationships via local transmissions and interactions. So, on the face of it, there's nothing particularly mysterious about entanglement correlations except for the fact that explicit Bell-type LR models are a bit off. Hence, imo, no need for superdeterministic theories.

And I agree with what DrC (et al.) said about the problem(s) with superdeterminism.
 
  • #123
ThomasT, let me just tell you that Bell's theorem rigorously proves that it is IMPOSSIBLE for any local deterministic theory to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics without being superdeterministic, so you are badly mistaken if you think a more "sophisticated" local realist model which is not superdeterministic can succeed. It is not an arbitrary "assumption" or "constraint" that correlations must be linear, in the sense that the mismatch at 60 cannot be greater than twice the mismatch at 30. It is a conclusion of an argument, not an assumption, and that argument is given in Herbert's article. Here is my detailed outline of the argument from another thread:
lugita15 said:
1. If you have an unpolarized photon, and you put it through a detector, it will have a 50-50 chance of going through, regardless of the angle it's oriented at.
2. A local realist would say that the photon doesn't just randomly go through or not go through the detector oriented at an angle θ; he would say that each unpolarized photon has its own function P(θ) which is guiding it's behavior: it goes through if P(θ)=1 and it doesn't go through it P(θ)=0.
3. Unfortunately, for any given unpolarized photon we can only find out one value of P(θ), because after we send it through a detector and it successfully goes through, it will now be polarized in the direction of the detector and it will "forget" the function P(θ).
4. If you have a pair of entangled photons and you put one of them through a detector, it will have a 50-50 chance of going through, regardless of the angle it's oriented at, just like an unpolarized photon.
5. Just as above, the local realist would say that the photon is acting according to some function P(θ) which tells it what to do.
6. If you have a pair of entangled photons and you put both of them through detectors that are turned to the same angle, then they will either both go through or both not go through.
7. Since the local realist does not believe that the two photons can coordinate their behavior by communicating instantaneously, he concludes the reason they're doing the same thing at the same angle is that they're both using the same function P(θ).
8. He is in a better position than he was before, because now he can find out the values of the function P(θ) at two different angles, by putting one photon through one angle and the other photon through a different angle.
9. If the entangled photons are put through detectors 30° apart, they have 25% chance of not matching.
10. The local realist concludes that for any angle θ, the probability that P(θ±30°)≠P(θ) is 25%, or to put it another way the probability that P(θ±30°)=P(θ) is 75%.
11. So 75% of the time, P(-30)=P(0), and 75% of the time P(0)=P(30), so there's no way that P(-30)≠P(30) 75% of the time.
12. Yet when the entangled photons are put through detector 60°, they have a 75% chance of not matching, so the local realist is very confused.

The only way around this, and it's a somewhat far-fetched way, is to assume a conspiracy involving the particles under observation and the (unrelated) particles controlling the measurement decisions, i.e. superdeterminism.
 
  • #124
lugita15 said:
ThomasT, let me just tell you that Bell's theorem rigorously proves that it is IMPOSSIBLE for any local deterministic theory to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics without being superdeterministic, so you are badly mistaken if you think a more "sophisticated" local realist model which is not superdeterministic can succeed.
I agree with you. In fact, I think I said as much. I don't think I said anything indicating that I believe that a clearly LR (ie., Bell-type) model of quantum entanglement could ever be viable. So I don't know why you might think that I might think that any clearly LR model which is not superdeterministic might succeed.

lugita15 said:
It is not an arbitrary "assumption" or "constraint" that correlations must be linear, in the sense that the mismatch at 60 cannot be greater than twice the mismatch at 30.
I didn't say the constaints encoded in LR models are arbitrary. It seems clear enough to me that Bell put a lot of thought into his work on this. He made the reasons for his formulation quite clear. And that formulation stands unrefuted as far as I know.

But it also seems clear to me that, given what's known about the behavior of light, it's not reasonable to expect the correlation between angular difference and coincidental detection to be a linear one.

lugita15 said:
It is a conclusion of an argument, not an assumption, and that argument is given in Herbert's article.
I didn't say it (a linear correlation) was an assumption. Just that, even assuming a local deterministic world, we wouldn't expect the correlation to be linear.

So, the problem for the local realist's was to either come up with Bell-type (ie., clearly local realistic) formulations that described a nonlinear correlation (which has been done, but with apparently insurmountable limitations on the range and distribution of data point predictions wrt those models), or to come up with non-Bell-type formulations (which has also been done, but which are generally disregarded because they're just not clearly local realistic).

lugita15 said:
The only way around this, and it's a somewhat far-fetched way, is to assume a conspiracy involving the particles under observation and the (unrelated) particles controlling the measurement decisions, i.e. superdeterminism.
I don't see this as a solution. In fact, I think it detracts from what I think should be the main focus which has to do with what makes an LR formulation, and associated inequality, clearly local realistic ... and why, given those constraints, a viable LR model of quantum entanglement is impossible -- even if our universe is local deterministic.
 
  • #125
ThomasT said:
But it also seems clear to me that, given what's known about the behavior of light, it's not reasonable to expect the correlation between angular difference and coincidental detection to be a linear one.
And what is the conclusion to draw from that? It is that if the universe is not superdeterministic, it cannot be local deterministic. This is what was rigorously proved by Bell. Do you disagree with this conclusion?
I didn't say it (a linear correlation) was an assumption. Just that, even assuming a local deterministic world, we wouldn't expect the correlation to be linear.
Bell proved that in a local deterministic world which is not superdeterministic, the correlation MUST be linear, in the sense that the mismatch at 2θ cannot be greater than the mismatch at θ.
So, the problem for the local realist's was to either come up with Bell-type (ie., clearly local realistic) formulations that described a nonlinear correlation (which has been done, but with apparently insurmountable limitations on the range and distribution of data point predictions wrt those models), or to come up with non-Bell-type formulations (which has also been done, but which are generally disregarded because they're just not clearly local realistic).
I have no idea what you mean by Bell-type formulation and non-Bell-type formulation.
I don't see this as a solution. In fact, I think it detracts from what I think should be the main focus which has to do with what makes an LR formulation, and associated inequality, clearly local realistic ... and why, given those constraints, a viable LR model of quantum entanglement is impossible -- even if our universe is local deterministic.
If our universe was local deterministic and not superdeterministic, then Bell's inequality would be satisfied, a viable LR model would be possible, Bell's inequality would be confirmed by experiment, and quantum mechanics would be disproven. All of that follows from the argument I quoted.
 
  • #126
lugita15 said:
Thanks, Demystifier. And while I have your attention, do you have any thoughts on the Zurek paper I referenced earlier in this thread? Here it is again:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0405161
If decoherence is sufficient to derive the Born rule, why can't this derivation be carried over into Bohmian mechanics?
Well, I wouldn't say decoherence is sufficient. The actual derivation in this paper contains some additional assumptions. Besides, even though this paper is well known in the decoherence community, it is not generally accepted in this community that this paper definitely solves the problem of the origin of Born rule.
 
  • #127
lugita15 said:
Bell's theorem implies that any local deterministic theory which reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics must be superdeterministic.
I wouldn't say so, because superdeterminism is not the only way to make the quantum world local:
https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3622 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #128
lugita15 said:
And what is the conclusion to draw from that?
That maybe the standard LR formalism and BI violations don't inform wrt the reality underlying instrumental behavior. That maybe there is something about the Bell-type LR formal constraints that makes viable Bell-type LR models of entanglement impossible -- even if nature is local deterministic.

That is, there's a couple of hundred years of optics detailing the characteristic behavior of light in experimental situations similar to Bell test setups (eg., polariscopic setups), and what the simplest realization of Bell's theorem (eg., Herbert's popularization) suggests is that, in a local deterministic universe, light should be expected to behave contrary to that.

This makes sense if you assume that Bell-type LR constraints and BI violations inform wrt the reality underlying instrumental behavior. But, afaik, there's no reason to assume that.

lugita15 said:
It is that if the universe is not superdeterministic, it cannot be local deterministic.
Both are just assumptions that, afaik, can't be falsified. There are, afaik, some good reasons to assume that the universe is evolving determinstically, but no good reasons to assume superdeterminism.

lugita15 said:
This is what was rigorously proved by Bell. Do you disagree with this conclusion?
Yes, I disagree with that conclusion. What, imo, was rigorously proved by Bell was that, wrt quantum entanglement setups, the supplementation of QM formalism with certain "local realistic hidden variable" constraints produced expectation values which were incompatible with the predictions of standard QM, and as was eventually shown, incompatible with experimental results. No more, no less.

lugita15 said:
Bell proved that in a local deterministic world which is not superdeterministic, the correlation MUST be linear, in the sense that the mismatch at 2θ cannot be greater than the mismatch at θ.
No, he didn't prove that. He proved that, wrt a certain entanglement setup, the predictions of standard QM are incompatible with the predictions of a certain local realistic hidden variable supplementation of standard QM.

As mentioned before, the fact that the correlation between angular difference and coincidental detection is predicted by the achetypal LR model to be linear raises a red flag wrt the applicability of the model to the experimental situation -- unless one assumes that the model is informing, precisely, wrt the underlying reality. But that's a, maybe, unwarranted assumption wrt which there's no definitive test.

And, if there's any possibility of a simpler explanation for the violation of BIs via the formalism and the experimental setup, then that's the preferred approach, imho -- not the over the top assumption of superdeterminism.

lugita15 said:
I have no idea what you mean by Bell-type formulation and non-Bell-type formulation.
The salient characteristic of an essentially Bell-type formulation, and associated BI, is the encoding of an explicit locality condition. If a formulation is clearly, explicitly local, then it's also, necessarily, realistic.

Examples of non-Bell-type, purported LR models of quantum entanglement have been proposed by Christian* and Unikrishnan among others. But these have been generally disregarded because, although they reproduce the standard QM predictions, they're not clearly LR models.

lugita15 said:
If our universe was local deterministic and not superdeterministic, then Bell's inequality would be satisfied, a viable LR model would be possible, Bell's inequality would be confirmed by experiment, and quantum mechanics would be disproven. All of that follows from the argument I quoted.
And if the Queen had ***** she'd be the King. The superdeterministic argument isn't compelling, imho. And I think it's the wrong approach to take to understanding why BIs are violated.

Whether nature is local or nonlocal is still an open question, imho.
-----------------------

* Wrt Christian, I recall that a while back, before I understood some stuff which I've subsequently learned, I made the comment to DrChinese that he just didn't understand Christian's LR offerings. On getting more into it I found that I really didn't understand them either, and, it seems to be the case that most people don't understand them. So, I apologize to DrC for that comment -- and, by the way, DrC has demonstrated a much deeper knowledge of this stuff than I previously gave him credit for. So, I must defer to whatever he (and also Demystifier, who has demystified some stuff for me) have to say about it.

Anyway, Christian has a slew of papers at arxiv.org purportedly refuting Bell's theorem and offering a viable LR model. The problem with Christian's LR thing is that his offerings aren't clearly LR models, and he has never explained them in a way that sufficiently clarifies his claim. But if you're a mathematician with some interest in natural philosophy, you might find them interesting.
 
Last edited:
  • #129
That is, there's a couple of hundred years of optics detailing the characteristic behavior of light in experimental situations similar to Bell test setups (eg., polariscopic setups), and what the simplest realization of Bell's theorem (eg., Herbert's popularization) suggests is that, in a local deterministic universe, light should be expected to behave contrary to that.

I don't normally get involved in these discussions, because ultimately I don't think they are very interesting.
However, I thought I'd add my (usual) comment about experimental QM.

Whereas nearly all "conceptual" (and many practical) experiments are done using light, there are lots of examples of QM experiments that do NOT involve light, angular momentum, polarization, photon detectors etc.

People have performed experiments that are formally exactly analogues to the early (optical) tests of Bell's inequalities. We will probably see the first demonstrations in my own field pretty soon (solid-state QIP, which has nothing to do with optics but the QM formalism is obviously the same)
Hence, any attempt to explain away Bell type experiments by saying that that results are due to the fact we do not understand a specific technical detail of Aspect's original experiments is ultimately futile.

Moreover, note also that we are nowadays often -in practical- terms more concerned about OTHER inequalities that for one reason or another are better to test experimentally. A good example are tests of Legget-type inequalities which can used to test whether or not QM is local.
 
  • #130
f95toli said:
I don't normally get involved in these discussions, because ultimately I don't think they are very interesting.
However, I thought I'd add my (usual) comment about experimental QM.

Whereas nearly all "conceptual" (and many practical) experiments are done using light, there are lots of examples of QM experiments that do NOT involve light, angular momentum, polarization, photon detectors etc.

People have performed experiments that are formally exactly analogues to the early (optical) tests of Bell's inequalities. We will probably see the first demonstrations in my own field pretty soon (solid-state QIP, which has nothing to do with optics but the QM formalism is obviously the same)
Hence, any attempt to explain away Bell type experiments by saying that that results are due to the fact we do not understand a specific technical detail of Aspect's original experiments is ultimately futile.

Moreover, note also that we are nowadays often -in practical- terms more concerned about OTHER inequalities that for one reason or another are better to test experimentally. A good example are tests of Legget-type inequalities which can used to test whether or not QM is local.
What's the more reasonable expectation, based on historical observations of the characteristic behavior of light, wrt archetypal optical Bell tests, a linear or a nonlinear correlation between angular difference and coincidental detection?
 
  • #131
lugita15 said:
You can obviously have a conspiracy where all the particles in the universe carry literally all information about all other particles in the universe, and use this information to do exactly what they need to do to make Bell's inequality appear violated, and never use this information except when dealing with quantum entanglement. That's why it's called ad hoc.

Oh, I quite agree. My point was that within the known properties of particles, there is not enough information. Further, there are no known mechanisms for transferring that sufficient information to make Bell tests work out. So simply making a statement that "all particles have previously been in causal contact" (were that true) would not be enough to have the conditions for superdeterminism. Ditto for the statement that the experimenter does not have free will to choose. That doesn't get you to Bell test results either.

I think we both agree, you need something radically more - something, well, super. :smile:

I would say that superdeterminism is as meaningful for explaining Bell tests as it is for explaining special relativity. Or general relativity. Or the charge of the electron. Etc. (Which is to say, not meaningful at all, sorry that this conclusion seems to offend people. But the original question was a "why" question and this is in fact the answer.)
 
  • #132
ThomasT said:
* Wrt Christian, I recall that a while back, before I understood some stuff which I've subsequently learned, I made the comment to DrChinese that he just didn't understand Christian's LR offerings. On getting more into it I found that I really didn't understand them either, and, it seems to be the case that most people don't understand them. So, I apologize to DrC for that comment -- and, by the way, DrC has demonstrated a much deeper knowledge of this stuff than I previously gave him credit for. So, I must defer to whatever he (and also Demystifier, who has demystified some stuff for me) have to say about it.

Anyway, Christian has a slew of papers at arxiv.org purportedly refuting Bell's theorem and offering a viable LR model. The problem with Christian's LR thing is that his offerings aren't clearly LR models, and he has never explained them in a way that sufficiently clarifies his claim. But if you're a mathematician, you might find them interesting.

I don't follow Christian, it's true, I think this is common to his work.

I instead push the "DrChinese challenge" when it comes to a candidate local realistic theory: give me a dataset with values for simultaneous polarization outcomes at 0, 120 and 240 degrees. Then show me how your model gets to a 25% correlation rate from that. If someone cannot do that, then I conclude their model is worthless and there is no reason to try to find their error. Saves me a lot of effort in trying to demonstrate that the model is not realistic, which is the usual flaw.
 
  • #133
DrChinese said:
I don't follow Christian, it's true, I think this is common to his work.
I instead push the "DrChinese challenge" when it comes to a candidate local realistic theory: give me a dataset with values for simultaneous polarization outcomes at 0, 120 and 240 degrees. Then show me how your model gets to a 25% correlation rate from that. If someone cannot do that, then I conclude their model is worthless and there is no reason to try to find their error. Saves me a lot of effort in trying to demonstrate that the model is not realistic, which is the usual flaw.
Bah! I had hoped you will have seen problem the so called "DrChinese challenge" by now. You keep saying:

- give me a dataset with values for simultaneous polarization outcomes at 0, 120 and 240 degrees.

Don't you yet understand that "dataset with simultaneous outcomes" implies an experiment is being performed. Previously I asked you to describe the experiment and I will give you the dataset but you never described the experiment because you can not and nobody can because THERE CAN NEVER BE AN EXPERIMENT WHICH SIMULTANEOUSLY MEASURES TWO PHOTONS AT 3 ANGLES (yes I'm shouting this time).

Therefore failure of anybody to provide your purported dataset is not due to anything other than the fact that the request is nonsensical.

On Joy Christian, he is working on a book chapter http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1201.0775 FQXi which goes into details about his theory. He also recently posted a rebuttal of some of the recent claims about his theory http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1110.5876

To the opening poster, my answer as to why superdeterminism is not universally accepted as an explanation for nonlocality will simply be that nonlocality is not universally accepted as true. It's like asking why the flying pig is not universally accepted as an explanation for the unicorn.
 
  • #134
billschnieder said:
Don't you yet understand that "dataset with simultaneous outcomes" implies an experiment is being performed. Previously I asked you to describe the experiment and I will give you the dataset but you never described the experiment because you can not and nobody can because THERE CAN NEVER BE AN EXPERIMENT WHICH SIMULTANEOUSLY MEASURES TWO PHOTONS AT 3 ANGLES (yes I'm shouting this time).
Your bolded statement is certainly true, but even if we cannot measure the polarizations at all three angles, presumably if you're a local realist you still believe that definite polarizations at all three angles EXIST. Thus you should be able to give a possible set of values the polarizations at the three angles can have.
 
  • #135
billschnieder said:
Bah! I had hoped you will have seen problem the so called "DrChinese challenge" by now. You keep saying:

- give me a dataset with values for simultaneous polarization outcomes at 0, 120 and 240 degrees.

Don't you yet understand that "dataset with simultaneous outcomes" implies an experiment is being performed. Previously I asked you to describe the experiment and I will give you the dataset but you never described the experiment because you can not and nobody can because THERE CAN NEVER BE AN EXPERIMENT WHICH SIMULTANEOUSLY MEASURES TWO PHOTONS AT 3 ANGLES (yes I'm shouting this time).
billschnieder ... nice to see you're still around and thinking about the Bell stuff. Not that I agree that there's anything wrong with Bell's stuff. But as you know I do disagree with interpretations of Bell's stuff that say it has anything to do with nature.

billschnieder said:
Therefore failure of anybody to provide your purported dataset is not due to anything other than the fact that the request is nonsensical.
Let's parse this objectively. Apparently DrC is assuming that Bell-type LR formulations and associated inequalities are general. Not an unreasonable assumption, imho. So, wrt that assumption, then his 'DrC Challenge' seems to me to be a very sensible and reasonable way to cut through the BS.

Of course, that assumption might not be correct. I think it probably is, but I don't know. But apparently you don't think that Bell's formulation and associated BIs are general. Is that the case?

billschnieder said:
On Joy Christian, he is working on a book chapter http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1201.0775 FQXi which goes into details about his theory. He also recently posted a rebuttal of some of the recent claims about his theory http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1110.5876
Thanks for the info. It might be interesting to see how this plays out.

billschnieder said:
To the opening poster, my answer as to why superdeterminism is not universally accepted as an explanation for nonlocality will simply be that nonlocality is not universally accepted as true. It's like asking why the flying pig is not universally accepted as an explanation for the unicorn.
Interesting, and perhaps provocative, way of putting it. Anyway, the first sentence is certainly true, I think.
 
  • #136
lugita15 said:
Your bolded statement is certainly true, but even if we cannot measure the polarizations at all three angles, presumably if you're a local realist you still believe that definite polarizations at all three angles EXIST. Thus you should be able to give a possible set of values the polarizations at the three angles can have.

A polarization is an outcome of a physical measurement. It can not EXIST when the measurement has not been made. Realists, do not believe the outcomes of measurements exist when no measurement has been made. Three simultaneous polarization values are impossible so no realist believes it makes sense to ever contemplate three possible simultaneous polarization values, even hypothetically. In simple terms you can not measure an impossibility and it makes no sense to hypothesize an impossibility either.

see: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3344159&postcount=193
 
  • #137
lugita15 said:
Your bolded statement is certainly true, but even if we cannot measure the polarizations at all three angles, presumably if you're a local realist you still believe that definite polarizations at all three angles EXIST. Thus you should be able to give a possible set of values the polarizations at the three angles can have.

Ditto to the above. bill's comments are typical of a new breed of local realist who conveniently skirt the issue, claiming this is some kind of "naive realism" as if that means it can be dismissed. Guess it's great to assert something ("realism") that by their definition actually has no specific meaning.

Anyway, my apologies to everyone for responding to ThomasT's comment and accidently steering the discussion away from the topic at hand. If we need to continue, we can start a new thread.
 
  • #138
ThomasT said:
billschnieder ... nice to see you're still around and thinking about the Bell stuff. Not that I agree that there's anything wrong with Bell's stuff. But as you know I do disagree with interpretations of Bell's stuff that say it has anything to do with nature.
Thanks TT, nice to see you around too. To me there is not just one way of characterizing "Bell stuff" and it is definitely possible to carve out some aspects of it that are valid and correct. However, some may say the interpretation is also "Bell stuff" and criticize everything together, which may come off as implying they think those more narrow aspects are individually wrong, which they don't -- get my drift?

Let's parse this objectively. Apparently DrC is assuming that Bell-type LR formulations and associated inequalities are general. Not an unreasonable assumption, imho. So, wrt that assumption, then his 'DrC Challenge' seems to me to be a very sensible and reasonable way to cut through the BS.
Not sure I understand what it means for Bell-type LR to be "general", all I can see is a logical contradiction in the "DrC Challenge" which I've pointed out many times. It is simply the fact that it is impossible to produce a dataset from an impossible experiment. And failure to do so says nothing about the validity or lack there-of of any Bell-type or realist arguments. Now this is not an unreasonable critique of the DrC challenge, is it?
 
  • #139
billschnieder said:
Thanks TT, nice to see you around too. To me there is not just one way of characterizing "Bell stuff" and it is definitely possible to carve out some aspects of it that are valid and correct. However, some may say the interpretation is also "Bell stuff" and criticize everything together, which may come off as implying they think those more narrow aspects are individually wrong, which they don't -- get my drift? Not sure I understand what it means for Bell-type LR to be "general", all I can see is a logical contradiction in the "DrC Challenge" which I've pointed out many times. It is simply the fact that it is impossible to produce a dataset from an impossible experiment. And failure to do so says nothing about the validity or lack there-of of any Bell-type or realist arguments. Now this is not an unreasonable critique of the DrC challenge, is it?
Following DrC's suggestion, it might be better if this were introduced as a new thread in the philosophy forum if you want to pursue it. Including any and all posts that motivated you to post in this thread. Or maybe the QM forum, where you might get some more knowledgeable contributors, but I think it's more of a philosophical consideration.

This thread is about superdeterminsism, and why it isn't universally accepted as an explanation for nonlocality?
Any thoughts on that?
 
Last edited:
  • #140
ThomasT said:
That maybe the standard LR formalism and BI violations don't inform wrt the reality underlying instrumental behavior.
I'm not sure what this means.
\No, he didn't prove that. He proved that, wrt a certain entanglement setup, the predictions of standard QM are incompatible with the predictions of a certain local realistic hidden variable supplementation of standard QM.
No, Bell did not just prove that a particular local realist model failed to match the predictions of QM. He proved that any possible local deterministic universe which is not superdeterministic must satisfy the Bell inequality. If you disagree with this, look at the 12-step outline of Bell's argument I gave in a previous post and tell me what step does not apply to ALL local deterministic universes which are not superdeterministic.
 
<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
936
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
23
Views
654
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
69
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top