Recent content by MrRobotoToo

𝐀𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐦: Further restrictions have to be placed on the alphas and betas in order for them to correctly describe any anisotropies in the speed of light that may be due to the motion of O and O′ through some medium, namely: 0 < ɑ(û) < 1, where ɑ(-û) = 1 - ɑ(û) and β(û) > 0, where β(-û) = β(û)...

I recently watched this video by Veritasium on the Einstein synchronization convention and its implication for the one-way speed of light and it got me wondering if it in any way undermines the results of special relativity. I think the following argument shows that it doesn't, but any...

If you were to make it relativistic, then arguably yes!

That's right: a superdeterministic model would be completely deterministic in the classical sense. However, no one knows how to construct a deterministic, causally local hidden variable model that is able to generate the non-local correlations observed in Bell experiments without resorting to...

I'd have to think more about it, although Matthew Pusey--the 'P' in 'PBR theorem'--seems to believe that retrocausality offers a loophole to the theorem.

Is this related to the fact that retrocausality violates the PBR theorem's assumption that it's possible to prepare systems independently of each other, thus nullifying it's conclusion that any hidden variable model must incorporate an ontic ##\Psi##? Does the relationality of the wave function...

But isn’t that interpretation-dependent? Although it may be the case that the experimental data are underdetermined with respect to the various realist interpretations of QM, that doesn't mean that there is no reality behind them--just that our access to it may forever be withheld. In the...

But isn't it straightforward to construct a retrocausal hidden variable theory that reproduces the quantum predictions of delayed-choice entanglement swapping? In this framework, the hidden variables depend not only on past events but also on future measurement choices—namely, those of Victor...

Price and Wharton have written a paper about these experiments as well. In the appendix they provide a (statistical) collider analysis where they describe retrocausal influences acting across the 'W zig-zags' created by the past light cones of the experiment's components.

“I would argue that retrocausality is such a big hack that it destroys the whole Bell proof if accepted.” Most of the major interpretations break the proof in one way or another: Copenhagen saves locality by sacrificing reality; Bohm does the opposite by sacrificing the former to save the...

I suppose that retrocausal interpretations somewhat counterintuitively sacrifice the causality option, in the sense that the value of the hidden variable isn't entirely determined by what lies in its past light cone. This is in contrast to superdeterminism, which also rejects the statistical...

I recently came across this paper by philosopher of science Huw Price where he gives an elegantly simple argument for why any realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics which doesn’t incorporate an ontic wave function (which he refers to as ‘Discreteness’) and which is also time-symmetric...

Dr. Smethurst summarizes the latest results of the DESI collaboration. What I found especially interesting is that the current value of the Hubble constant that they obtained from baryon acoustic oscillations is in good agreement with the value obtained from Lamda-CDM using Planck data.

Dr. Becky Smethurst provides a summary of the latest analysis of JWST data by Freedman et al., indicating that there's no statistically significant discrepancy between the value of the Hubble constant thus obtained and the value obtained from Lambda-CDM using Planck data.

I goofed on the upper limit: I quoted the old one--the new one is actually an order of magnitude smaller (by 'smaller' I mean that it's approximately one-tenth the value that I quoted). You can find it in the linked paper. For some reason I'm not able to edit my original post. Also, if I...