Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Has this approach to non-locality been explored?

  1. Sep 27, 2013 #1
    Non-locality is based on the assumption that the act of observing causes an effect instantaniously elsewhere.

    It occurred to me that we can't be certain that one thing(observing) is causing the other(non-local wave function collapse).

    Another solution might be that both events are determined by a common cause in the past?
    i.e the prexisteng conditions that make the non-local outcome also make sure an observation is made.

    Has anyone heard of any theories that have explored this?
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 27, 2013 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes. Google around for "superdeterminism", and search this forum for that term.
  4. Sep 27, 2013 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There are also time-symmetric and retrocausal interpretations as well. In those, the answer to "where are the hidden variables" is: they are in the future.
  5. Sep 28, 2013 #4
    Thanks guys.

    By the way, is QM time invariant?

    If so, could the common cause which necessitates the non-local events coinciding, actually be a future effect which is caused by the interaction of both events(as causes become effects and effects become causes when looking at time backwards)?

    An analogy might be your existence is a caused by the the decisions of both your father and your mother. However looking at time backwards your spermatazoon actually causes them to meet eachother. Hence the non-local events in quantum mechanics cause a common effect in the future which only possible by their coinciding.
  6. Sep 28, 2013 #5


    Staff: Mentor

    Exactly - nice way of putting it.

  7. Sep 28, 2013 #6


    Staff: Mentor

    Well we have the Many Worlds Interpretation where everything happens deterministically and the wavefunction of the entire universe simply evolves and the law governing that doesn't change.

    So the answer to that is its interpretation dependent - the actual axioms are silent on it.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook