Is this popular description of entanglement correct?

[AndreiB]

You use the word 'cause' is a strange way. For me, C might cause both A and B, or A might cause B, but to say that A and B cause each other seems to be meaningless.

Right, my formulation is not correct. I intended to say that non-locality implies that either A causes B or B causes A. Indeed, it doesn't make sense to say that they both cause each other.

Another confusion in your language for me is that you talk about 'the A measurement', but don't distinguish between the measurement outcome and the mere fact that a measurement with some specific settings gets performed. Do you mean that the "the A measurement outcome is causing the B measurement outcome"?

I mean that the A measurement outcome causes the B measurement outcome.

 

[PeterDonis]

If there is an interaction you cannot assume that distant equipments are independent

You can if the interaction is limited to the speed of light and the measurements are spacelike separated. That is precisely the case that Bell was interested in.

if you only ask for a minimum requirement so that the theory passes Bell's theorem

A theory which makes correct predictions about experimental results will violate the Bell inequalities, not satisfy them.

How do you know that?

Because ordinary gravitational and electromagnetic interactions (i.e., the kind we can describe with the classical theories of those interactions) cannot produce violations of the Bell inequalities.

By non-locality I mean the statement that space-like events cause each other.

Which is meaningless unless you can give an operational definition of "cause", i.e., some way to test whether there is a causal connection between two events. That's why I very carefully defined "non-locality" to be something that we know is testable: violation of the Bell inequalities.

The argument is really simple.

Only because your argument includes a number of unstated premises. Some of which QM is known to violate.

QM/QFT can be local if they are statistical approximations to a hidden-variable theory.

No local hidden variable theory can produce violations of the Bell inequalities. That's what Bell's theorem proved. We do have at least one example of a hidden variable theory that does produce Bell inequality violations--the Bohmian interpretation of standard QM--but that theory is explicitly non-local.

 

[AndreiB]

You can if the interaction is limited to the speed of light and the measurements are spacelike separated. That is precisely the case that Bell was interested in.

In classical electromagnetism the interactions are limited by the speed of light.

A theory which makes correct predictions about experimental results will violate the Bell inequalities, not satisfy them.

I didn't say anything about "satisfying the inequalities". I said a theory should pass (not be ruled out) by Bell's theorem.

Because ordinary gravitational and electromagnetic interactions (i.e., the kind we can describe with the classical theories of those interactions) cannot produce violations of the Bell inequalities.

Or so you claim. Where is the proof for this assertion?

Which is meaningless unless you can give an operational definition of "cause", i.e., some way to test whether there is a causal connection between two events.

In the argument I presented one either assumes or rejects a causal connection, each choice implying some consequences. So, there is no need to perform any test.

That's why I very carefully defined "non-locality" to be something that we know is testable: violation of the Bell inequalities.

The theory of relativity forbids space-like events being causally related. Any theory that denies that is in contradiction with SR, so this is the definition of locality which is relevant here.

Only because your argument includes a number of unstated premises. Some of which QM is known to violate.

Please state those premises then!

No local hidden variable theory can produce violations of the Bell inequalities.

...except for the case when the statistical independence assumption is denied. This is the case I am arguing for.

 

[Sunil]

...except for the case when the statistical independence assumption is denied. This is the case I am arguing for.

To give up the assumption that decisions of experimenters what to measure can be made independent of the initial state means the end of experiments in science. Because without this assumption experiments are useless, they cannot be used to show anything nontrivial. Every observed correlation allows an explanation - it is a consequence of the special choices of the experimenters.

 

[Sunil]

It seems to me that microcausality is a weaker condition than locality.

It is indeed weaker. It is essentially only about the impossibility to send signals FTL, but allows violations of Bell inequalities. Bell locality forbids violations of the Bell inequalities.

 

[AndreiB]

It is indeed weaker. It is essentially only about the impossibility to send signals FTL, but allows violations of Bell inequalities. Bell locality forbids violations of the Bell inequalities.

Exactly my point. Relativity does not distinguish between events that can be used to send signals and events that cannot be used to send signals. So, showing that in QFT you cannot send signals it's not enough to guarantee compatibility with SR.

 

[AndreiB]

To give up the assumption that decisions of experimenters what to measure can be made independent of the initial state means the end of experiments in science.

I think there are situations where the initial state is indeed independent of the experimenters' decisions and other situations where it's not. One has to analyze the physics of the situation and decide one way or another. More exactly, if the experiment involves long-range interactions between the experimenter and the system, the state of the system would be perturbed by the experimenter. For example, if our experimenter wants to study some delicate gravitational interaction between two small objects he should not move around that place. If he does so, the mass of his body would change the state of the system. This does not mean "the end of experiments in science".

Every observed correlation allows an explanation - it is a consequence of the special choices of the experimenters.

Such an explanation only works if the influence of the experimenter on the system can be established, based on the physics of the situation. One should not make unjustified assumptions, one way or another.

 

[Sunil]

I think there are situations where the initial state is indeed independent of the experimenters' decisions and other situations where it's not.

Of course, given that one cannot exclude that the experimenter decides to have such a dependence on the given initial data, or that this happens by bad design, the mere possibility of such a dependence exists. But there are ways to make sure that there are no such dependencies, and such ways have been used in Bell tests. Simply make the local measurements dependent on local random numbers, or input coming from the opposite direction by light from far galaxies, or combinations of several such things.

More exactly, if the experiment involves long-range interactions between the experimenter and the system, the state of the system would be perturbed by the experimenter. For example, if our experimenter wants to study some delicate gravitational interaction between two small objects he should not move around that place. If he does so, the mass of his body would change the state of the system.

And, of course, the two experiments are event which are space-like separated to exclude any physical influences by whatever. According to GR gravity has the limiting speed c too.

This does not mean "the end of experiments in science".

It does if a.) you insist on such dependencies even if extraordinary means have been used to exclude such influences, like in the Bell experiments, and b.) behave after this consistently, thus, don't use the independence assumption anywhere else, instead of ignoring what you think about BI violations.

Such an explanation only works if the influence of the experimenter on the system can be established, based on the physics of the situation. One should not make unjustified assumptions, one way or another.

The independence assumption is the default, the zero hypothesis. That means, you can make it even if you have no knowledge about this. (That's so in objective Bayesian probability.)

 

[AndreiB]

Of course, given that one cannot exclude that the experimenter decides to have such a dependence on the given initial data, or that this happens by bad design, the mere possibility of such a dependence exists.

Great.

But there are ways to make sure that there are no such dependencies, and such ways have been used in Bell tests.

I disagree. There is nothing you can do so that an electron/nucleus stops interacting electromagnetically and gravitationally with other electrons/nuclei. it's a direct consequence of mass/energy and charge conservation.

Simply make the local measurements dependent on local random numbers, or input coming from the opposite direction by light from far galaxies, or combinations of several such things.

As long as the equipment is made out of atoms, it does not really matter. The equipment interacts with the source electromagnetically and gravitationally, the state of the source and the state of the detector+whatever you use to set the detector are still not independent. They are solutions to the N-body problem, where N is the total number of charged/massive particles in the experiment.

And, of course, the two experiments are event which are space-like separated to exclude any physical influences by whatever. According to GR gravity has the limiting speed c too.

The instantaneous positions of the Earth and the Sun are not independent, even if GR is local. The correlations are a result of their past gravitational interaction. The same is true for electromagnetic systems. So, space-like separation does not give you independence.

It does if a.) you insist on such dependencies even if extraordinary means have been used to exclude such influences, like in the Bell experiments

As explained above, those "extraordinary means" are ineffective here. An N body system remains an N body system regardless of the specific arrangement of those bodies.

, and b.) behave after this consistently, thus, don't use the independence assumption anywhere else, instead of ignoring what you think about BI violations.

I am consistent. The EM interaction between objects that are neutral on average (same number of positive and negative charges) is not going to influence average properties, like the position and momentum of their center of mass, their temperature, chemical composition and so on because the EM interactions cancel at the statistical level. So, you can use the independence assumption in Newtonian mechanics, chemistry, biology and so on.

In a Bell test you are not interested in average quantities. The hidden variables (say photons' polarisations) depend on the specific arrangement of charged particles and EM fields at the locus and time of the emission. And those properties do depend on the state of the detectors.

The independence assumption is the default, the zero hypothesis. That means, you can make it even if you have no knowledge about this. (That's so in objective Bayesian probability.)

But we have knowledge about this. We know that massive/charged particles interact and we know that the experiment depends on a specific charge/fields distributions. So, we need to reject the independence assumption hypothesis.

 

[Sunil]

I disagree. There is nothing you can do so that an electron/nucleus stops interacting electromagnetically and gravitationally with other electrons/nuclei. it's a direct consequence of mass/energy and charge conservation.

So what? Some influence does not necessarily lead to dependence. Say, the parameter you want to control is $0 \le A \le 1$. To compute A, take the fractional part of several different ways to generate random numbers, each of which has an approximately even distribution over $[0,1]$. Then, if some parts of this sum are somehow influenced by B, it does not matter. The resulting A will be nonetheless independent of B.

As long as the equipment is made out of atoms, it does not really matter. The equipment interacts with the source electromagnetically and gravitationally, the state of the source and the state of the detector+whatever you use to set the detector are still not independent. They are solutions to the N-body problem, where N is the total number of charged/massive particles in the experiment.

Ok, let's start with an angle of the detector which depends completely on the source. Then turn it by $2\pi A$. The resulting angle will be independent on the influence of the source.

The instantaneous positions of the Earth and the Sun are not independent, even if GR is local. The correlations are a result of their past gravitational interaction. The same is true for electromagnetic systems. So, space-like separation does not give you independence.

My random number generator initialized with the time when I had decided to restart my computer last time may be also dependent on the location of the Sun. For example, I don't restart computers if I sleep and my sleeping mode is somewhat correlated with the position of the Sun as visible from my window. The influence on the parts of the second of the time, which is what is given as the seed to the pseudorandom number generator, will be already minimal.

In a Bell test you are not interested in average quantities. The hidden variables (say photons' polarisations) depend on the specific arrangement of charged particles and EM fields at the locus and time of the emission. And those properties do depend on the state of the detectors.

But choosing the final configuration of the detector using random numbers obtained and computed only after the initial emission makes the imaginable influence of the detectors before the final preparation on the emission irrelevant. Same for influences of the emission device on the detectors. That would be simply adding yet another error to the already used random rotation.

But we have knowledge about this. We know that massive/charged particles interact and we know that the experiment depends on a specific charge/fields distributions. So, we need to reject the independence assumption hypothesis.

As my consideration shows, these interactions do not destroy statistical independence if a sufficiently safe design is used.

 

[AndreiB]

So what? Some influence does not necessarily lead to dependence. Say, the parameter you want to control is $0 \le A \le 1$. To compute A, take the fractional part of several different ways to generate random numbers, each of which has an approximately even distribution over $[0,1]$. Then, if some parts of this sum are somehow influenced by B, it does not matter. The resulting A will be nonetheless independent of B.

I think you misunderstood my point. Yes, you can do whatever you want with the detectors, but:

1. Whatever you do is encoded in the past state, as we are speaking about deterministic theories.
2. This past state is part of a solution to the N-body problem that also includes the particles in the source.

When you change your past state (say, by using a different seed for your random number generator) you "jump" to a different solution of the N-body problem, and the part of that solution which is relevant to the source is also different. It doesn't really matter how intricate is your algorithm for choosing the settings.

Ok, let's start with an angle of the detector which depends completely on the source. Then turn it by $2\pi A$. The resulting angle will be independent on the influence of the source.

In order to be able to perform that turn you need to have a suitable initial state that necessarily determines you to perform that turn. This again gives you a different initial state for the N-body system, with a different solution for the hidden variables.

My random number generator initialized with the time when I had decided to restart my computer last time may be also dependent on the location of the Sun. For example, I don't restart computers if I sleep and my sleeping mode is somewhat correlated with the position of the Sun as visible from my window. The influence on the parts of the second of the time, which is what is given as the seed to the pseudorandom number generator, will be already minimal.

Again, it does not matter how minimal the influence of a different initial state appears to you. The only thing that matters is that a changed initial state would give you a different solution to the N-body problem. And this implies a change of the hidden variable.

But choosing the final configuration of the detector using random numbers obtained and computed only after the initial emission makes the imaginable influence of the detectors before the final preparation on the emission irrelevant.

Not so, if you just look at the physics of the situation. You don't "choose" the final configuration, the final configuration is determined, together with the hidden variables, by the initial state of the experiment (position/momenta of charges, electric/magnetic fields). Each such initial state evolves uniquely into the final measurement settings AND the hidden variables. In another run of the experiment the initial state is different, you get another set of measurement settings AND hidden variables. And so on for every run of the experiment. Unless you don't solve those 6N equations or so there is no way to know how likely a certain value of the hidden variable is, given a certain detector setting.

 

[Sunil]

I think you misunderstood my point. Yes, you can do whatever you want with the detectors, but:

1. Whatever you do is encoded in the past state, as we are speaking about deterministic theories.
2. This past state is part of a solution to the N-body problem that also includes the particles in the source.

When you change your past state (say, by using a different seed for your random number generator) you "jump" to a different solution of the N-body problem, and the part of that solution which is relevant to the source is also different. It doesn't really matter how intricate is your algorithm for choosing the settings.

First, no, it matters. If the algorithm is complicate enough, there will be no correlation.

Correlations do not appear out of nothing. Instead, they have causal explanations. If, by modifying the seed for my random number generator, I modify the angles of my devices, but by whatever way also influence the emitter, this will not lead to a correlation.

If you think it leads to a correlation, and, moreover, even think that doing this in many different ways will not destroy this correlation (else, it could influence only one experiment, but not consistently distort many experiments in the same way, namely toward a violation of the Bell inequality), you follow a universe-wide conspiracy theory of universal control of everything. This ultimate conspiracy theory is named superdeterminism, and those who believe it ... ok, self-censored.

But in this case I have to repeat the objection that you have to give up science in general. And you cannot invent a situation where the independence assumption would be justified, thus, no scientific experiment can prove anything.

 

[PeterDonis]

In classical electromagnetism

This is the quantum interpretations forum, not the classical physics forum. In any case, classical electromagnetism cannot produce Bell inequality violations on measurements of entangled particles, so it is clearly a non-starter as far as the subject of this thread is concerned.

I said a theory should pass (not be ruled out) by Bell's theorem.

Bell's theorem is not the final arbiter of what theories get "ruled out". Experiment is. Experiment has clearly shown that in the real world, the Bell inequalities are violated. So any theory that cannot produce violations of the Bell inequalities is ruled out by experiment. Whether you want to call that also being ruled out by Bell's theorem is a matter of words, not physics.

Or so you claim. Where is the proof for this assertion?

The burden of proof is on you, not me, since you are the one who is claiming that a classical theory like classical EM or classical gravity can account for Bell inequality violations on measurements of entangled particles, a claim which, as far as I know, no physicist has made in the literature. At this point you are the one who needs to either back up this claim with references, or drop it, or be banned from further posting in this thread.

The theory of relativity forbids space-like events being causally related.

The classical theory of relativity says this. But we are not talking about the classical theory of relativity. Quantum field theory, which is the quantum theory of relativity, does not say this. All it says is that spacelike separated measurements must commute. It takes no position on whether this precludes such measurements being "causally related", since there is no testable criterion in QFT for "causally related", whereas testing whether spacelike separated measurements commute is simple.

except for the case when the statistical independence assumption is denied. This is the case I am arguing for.

Please give a reference for the specific kind of model you are referring to.

 

[AndreiB]

First, no, it matters. If the algorithm is complicate enough, there will be no correlation.

OK, let's make this more clear:

let S0 be the microscopic state (position/momenta of charge particles+electric/magnetic fields) of the source at a certain (initial) time before the experiment. Let D10 and D20 be the corresponding microscopic states of the detectors. Since all charged particles interact, the hidden variable, lambda (the polarisations of the emitted EM waves at some later time) would be given by a very complicated function like:

lambda = f(S0,D10,D20).

So, lambda cannot be independent of either D10 or D20, it's a function of them.

Since the theory is deterministic, the final state of the detectors, at the moment of measurement (D1f, D2f) will also be a function of their initial states (D10 and D20), so lambda cannot be independent of D1f and D2f. In other words, the hidden variable is not independent on the measurement settings.

Correlations do not appear out of nothing. Instead, they have causal explanations. If, by modifying the seed for my random number generator, I modify the angles of my devices, but by whatever way also influence the emitter, this will not lead to a correlation.

If you modify the seed, you modify D10 to D10'. In this case you will have:

lambda'=f(f(S0,D10',D20).

There is no reason to assume that lambda' = lambda, as the argument of the function is different, so a change of the seed implies a change of the hidden variable. Again, the independence assumption fails.

If you think it leads to a correlation, and, moreover, even think that doing this in many different ways will not destroy this correlation...

I have no idea what correlations, if any, can be generated in this way. I have no intuitive grasp on how the solution to those 10^26 equations looks like. What I know is that the hidden variables and detector settings can't be independent, so Bell's theorem can't rule out any theory with long-range interactions. I do not claim that such theories can reproduce QM (maybe they can't), but the opposite claim, that they cannot reproduce QM, is also lacking any evidence. We just don't know.

This ultimate conspiracy theory is named superdeterminism, and those who believe it ... ok, self-censored.

There is no need to posit any conspiracy. Interacting objects are not independent, this is the only point I am trying to make. Since one premise of Bell's theorem is not fulfilled, the conclusion does not follow. The conclusion might still be true, but not necessarily so.

But in this case I have to repeat the objection that you have to give up science in general.

As explained, the above argument applies only to interacting systems. Even in a Bell test, the macroscopic settings of the detectors are independent parameters (since the interaction between their constituent particles cannot determine a macroscopic rotation of the device). So, you can assume independence in all experiments where the microscopic arrangement is not relevant, which includes almost everything except Bell tests and a few other quantum experiments.

I also think that the importance of the independence assumption is greatly exaggerated. Most experiments do not depend on it.

And you cannot invent a situation where the independence assumption would be justified, thus, no scientific experiment can prove anything.

It's not about inventing anything. You analyze the situation and determine, based on what we know, what is independent and what is not. It's a scientific, objective criteria.

 

[AndreiB]

This is the quantum interpretations forum, not the classical physics forum.

I don't see how one can talk about Bell's theorem without mentioning hidden variables. My arguments do not depend specifically about electromagnetism, they hold for any theory with long-range interactions.

In any case, classical electromagnetism cannot produce Bell inequality violations on measurements of entangled particles

Can you provide a reference to back up this assertion? And again, this is not only about EM, it's about a class of theories with long-range interactions. EM is just a member of this class.

Bell's theorem is not the final arbiter of what theories get "ruled out". Experiment is.

I agree.

Experiment has clearly shown that in the real world, the Bell inequalities are violated.

Agreed.

So any theory that cannot produce violations of the Bell inequalities is ruled out by experiment.

Agreed.

The burden of proof is on you, not me, since you are the one who is claiming that a classical theory like classical EM or classical gravity can account for Bell inequality violations on measurements of entangled particles...

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. I did not claim that EM violates the inequalities, I claimed that one cannot prove, based on Bell's theorem that EM cannot violate them, an important distinction.

You, on the other hand, claimed that EM cannot violate the inequality, the burden of proof is on you to justify this claim.

The classical theory of relativity says this.

There is no other theory of relativity.

Quantum field theory, which is the quantum theory of relativity, does not say this. All it says is that spacelike separated measurements must commute. It takes no position on whether this precludes such measurements being "causally related", since there is no testable criterion in QFT for "causally related", whereas testing whether spacelike separated measurements commute is simple.

OK, let's assume for the sake of the argument that A caused B. In this case you need to specify an absolute reference frame, to show that A happened first. Since QFT does not specify this frame, it's predictions would be inconsistent (different observers would disagree on how the same experiment happened).

 

[PeterDonis]

I don't see how one can talk about Bell's theorem without mentioning hidden variables.

Bell's theorem of course explicitly includes an assumption about hidden variables, so yes, if you want to talk specifically about Bell's theorem, you're going to be talking about hidden variables. (I'll give an explicit example of such talk below.)

However, Bell's theorem, in itself, says nothing whatever about either quantum mechanics, or the results of actual experiments. Of course Bell knew that QM predicts violations of the Bell inequalities (that's why he went to the trouble of publishing his theorem), and we now know that experiments confirm those predictions of QM. But you can talk about QM and experimental results without talking about hidden variables at all. Hidden variable models are not the only possible models. You can even talk about the fact that QM/experimental results violate the Bell inequalities without talking about hidden variable models.

I claimed that one cannot prove, based on Bell's theorem that EM cannot violate them

If you are really unable to see the obvious proof, consider: EM is a local hidden variable model in the sense that Bell's theorem uses that term. (So is classical General Relativity.) Therefore, by Bell's theorem, its predictions must satisfy the Bell inequalities.

There is no other theory of relativity.

If you define "theory of relativity" to only include classical relativity, then you have excluded quantum field theory. In which case your definition of "theory of relativity" is irrelevant to this discussion.

let's assume for the sake of the argument that A caused B.

No, let's define what "A caused B" means in terms of testable predictions. Otherwise it's just meaningless noise as far as physics is concerned. Can you do that?

 

[Nullstein]

If you are really unable to see the obvious proof, consider: EM is a local hidden variable model in the sense that Bell's theorem uses that term. (So is classical General Relativity.) Therefore, by Bell's theorem, its predictions must satisfy the Bell inequalities.

Andrei is right about the fact that classical EM can in principle violate Bell's inequality. One just has to fine-tune the initial conditions of the full system accordingly. It's very difficult to write down, but as Bell pointed out in his paper "La nouvelle cuisine," local realism can in principle be saved through freedom of choice loophole, i.e. by violating a certain statistical independence assumption. The debate is not really about whether this is possible, but whether the required amount of fine-tuning is realistic.

 

[PeterDonis]

One just has to fine-tune the initial conditions of the full system accordingly.

Ah, yes, I had forgotten about superdeterminism.

 

[gentzen]

Andrei is right about the fact that classical EM can in principle violate Bell's inequality. One just has to fine-tune the initial conditions of the full system accordingly.

Ah, yes, I had forgotten about superdeterminism.

Andrei doesn't argue well enough that it would "help" if he defended superdeterminism. Sabine Hossenfelder argues much more subtle, and got many more things right. But even she has trouble to make people see her point(s). Gerard 't Hooft also doesn't argue very convincingly. Tim Palmer seems to argue fine, but he is less "active/vocal/aggressive".

 

[DrChinese]

OK, let's assume for the sake of the argument that A caused B. In this case you need to specify an absolute reference frame, to show that A happened first. Since QFT does not specify this frame, it's predictions would be inconsistent (different observers would disagree on how the same experiment happened).

1. Your conclusion is incorrect. QFT does not specify a cause-effect relationship, and so nothing is inconsistent. The error is asserting A causes B in a Bell test. Everyone knows that the relative ordering of Alice/Bob measurements has no observable effect on the outcome.

2. Earlier, you mentioned long range EM effects (which presumably are bound by c). Bell tests have been performed where the measurement settings are changed midflight so that there is no possibility of EM effects between the angle settings of the detection systems. And it is in fact those settings which determine the statistical outcomes in Bell tests.

3. I hate it when Superdeterminism is brought up. There is NO THEORY/INTERPRETATION OF SUPERDETERMINISM that explains Bell test results.

Superdeterminism a general idea, as specific as using the term "God". You can just as easily say God picks the individual outcomes of Bell tests, and that therefore nature can be local deterministic. You aren't explaining anything. An actual theory of Superdeterminism would necessarily have so much baggage, it would be easier to believe in God by way of Occam's Razor. Neither of which would make much sense for a quantum theory.

 

[gentzen]

3. I hate it when Superdeterminism is brought up. There is NO THEORY/INTERPRETATION OF SUPERDETERMINISM that explains Bell test results.

Careful, there is a difference between reproducing the prediction of QM, and violating Bell's inequality. If you create a model and are not careful to properly respect the independence assumption, then you easily can produce a violation. Maybe you believe that you have found some special loophole in Bell's theorem that nobody has discovered before. And Sabine Hossenfelder correctly points out how such "easily overlooked" mistakes could look like. For example, you could have defined a hidden parameter relative to some of the detector settings ("because it seemed to be more convenient for your calculations").

 

[PeterDonis]

there is a difference between reproducing the prediction of QM, and violating Bell's inequality

@DrChinese was talking about actual experimental results. The experiments in question are deliberately set up to have the measurement settings be independent of the process that produces the particles being measured. Superdeterminism in that context amounts to the claim that it is impossible in principle to set up experiments to actually have those things be independent, no matter how hard you try--even including having the events at which the measurement settings are determined be spacelike separated from the events that produce the particles being measured (as well as the measurement events themselves being spacelike separated). @AndreiB has already said he's okay with that position, but that doesn't make it any less extreme.

 

[gentzen]

@DrChinese was talking about actual experimental results.

Superdeterminism a general idea, as specific as using the term "God". You can just as easily say God picks the individual outcomes of Bell tests, and that therefore nature can be local deterministic. You aren't explaining anything.

To me, that section doesn't sound like talking about actual experimental results.

Superdeterminism in that context amounts to the claim that it is impossible in principle

Well, but superdeterminism is also the name given to a specific class of "loopholes" (or "assumptions") in Bell's theorem. Accidentally producing a model that violates those assumptions has nothing to do with "the claim that it is impossible in principle ..."

That this claim is needed for a "successful" model using superdeterminism is an additional assumption on top of the less controversial role (absence of) superdeterminism plays as a name for a specific assumption in Bell's theorem.

 

[PeterDonis]

To me, that section doesn't sound like talking about actual experimental results.

Um, what? It says right there in what you quoted: "the individual outcomes of Bell tests".

superdeterminism is also the name given to a specific class of "loopholes" (or "assumptions") in Bell's theorem.

They aren't loopholes in the theorem. The theorem is a mathematical theorem. They are proposed models that violate one of the assumptions of the theorem, while still being deterministic in some sense in which the proposer of the model thinks standard QM isn't.

Accidentally producing a model that violates those assumptions has nothing to do with "the claim that it is impossible in principle ..."

I don't see how this is relevant at all to what I said. I was talking about superdeterministic models as they are proposed by those who argue for superdeterminism, not some accidentally produced model that happens to violate one of the assumptions of Bell's theorem.

 

[Nullstein]

3. I hate it when Superdeterminism is brought up. There is NO THEORY/INTERPRETATION OF SUPERDETERMINISM that explains Bell test results.

Well, there is currently no generally satisfactory interpretation of quantum mechanics in the first place. All of them suffer from certain pecularities one way or the other, otherwise we wouldn't have these endless discussions. There has been renewed interest in superdeterminism recently because these discussions were going nowhere. And it's easy in principle to come up with a list of a hundred quadruples $A,\alpha, B,\beta$ that obeys the locality condition, but violates statistical independence.

Superdeterminism a general idea, as specific as using the term "God". You can just as easily say God picks the individual outcomes of Bell tests, and that therefore nature can be local deterministic. You aren't explaining anything. An actual theory of Superdeterminism would necessarily have so much baggage, it would be easier to believe in God by way of Occam's Razor. Neither of which would make much sense for a quantum theory.

I agree that superdeterminism is a peculiar solution to the Bell mystery, but non-locality is no less peculiar. In fact, the knob on Alice's polarizer must, when turned, somehow magically have to capability to modify Bob's particle despite the fact that it was never built specifically to have this capability. Why doesn't it manipulate any other particle in the universe as well? Why doesn't it turn on the TV in the livingroom? What is so specific about Bob's particle that a completely unrelated knob on Alice's device can manipulate its properties? The excess of the speed of light is not even the most peculiar feature in this scenario.

Thus, for me, the lesson of Bell's theorem is not that the world is non-local, but that we need to give up the idea of classical determinism altogether and replace it with something else. Superdeterminism is not the solution either. Maybe we also need to rethink what a causal mechanism is.

 

[PeterDonis]

the knob on Alice's polarizer must, when turned, somehow magically have to capability to modify Bob's particle

This is only true according to certain interpretations of QM.

 

[Nullstein]

This is only true according to certain interpretations of QM.

Agreed, but I was specifically talking about non-local interpretations of QM in that post.

 

[PeterDonis]

I was specifically talking about non-local interpretations of QM in that post.

Which interpretations of QM do you consider "non-local"?

 

[Nullstein]

Which interpretations of QM do you consider "non-local"?

When I wrote that paragraph, I was specifically thinking about Bohmian mechanics, but I guess it applies to all non-local hidden variable theories.

 

[gentzen]

I don't see how this is relevant at all to what I said. I was talking about superdeterminism

You replied to me, and I was talking about how easy it is to accidentally produce a superdeterminsic model. And quoting "the individual outcomes of Bell tests" out of context doesn't make you more right. You simply did not try to understand what I was trying to say.

Bell's theorem is (also) a mathematical theorem, and loading one of its assumptions with connotations can sometimes trigger a mathematician (like me) to protest. What triggered me was the peppering of the connotations with statements like "You can just as easily say God picks the individual outcomes ... You aren't explaining anything."

In the end, I believe nature is non-local in certain ways. So I certainly don't try to fight the conclusions of Bell's theorem. But I do think that Sabine Hossenfelder and Tim Palmer are on a right track to make progress in our understanding of quantum mechanics. Not in the sense of removing counter-intuitive elements of QM, but in the sense of making an additional counter-intuitive element of QM more concrete and "analyzable", just like Bell did with non-locality.

 

[PeterDonis]

I was talking about how easy it is to accidentally produce a superdeterminsic model.

And I was pointing out that that is irrelevant to this discussion, since, first, @DrChinese was not proposing any model, he was talking about the actual experimental results, and second, those who claim that superdeterminism is a valid explanation of those experimental results are not basing such a claim on models produced "accidentally". They aren't basing the claim on any models at all. Nobody has proposed an actual superdeterministic model that explains the actual experimental results we have on measurements of entangled particles. Which is what @DrChinese said.

What people like Hossenfelder should do, if they want to actually argue for superdeterminism as a valid explanation, is not to complain that other people could "accidentally" produce a superdeterministic model; it is to deliberately produce such a model themselves and show how it explains the experimental results. Then we would have an actual model to evaluate.

And quoting "the individual outcomes of Bell tests" out of context doesn't make you more right.

I didn't quote it out of context. I quoted it directly from what you quoted from @DrChinese; you accompanied that quote with the claim that "that section" (what you quoted) "didn't sound like talking about actual experimental results". I don't know what would sound like that to you if the explicit phrase "the individual outcomes of Bell tests" doesn't.

You simply did not try to understand what I was trying to say.

As the saying goes, the fact that I disagree with you does not mean I don't understand your position.

 

[PeterDonis]

loading one of its assumptions with connotations can sometimes trigger a mathematician (like me) to protest.

The fact that you were "triggered" does not automatically make what you are claiming true.

 

[gentzen]

As the saying goes, the fact that I disagree with you does not mean I don't understand your position.

But here again you give me the impression that you don't try to understand me. What I wrote was not related to a position. I replied "Careful, there is a difference ..." to a section that read "I hate it when ... NO THEORY/INTERPRETATION OF SUPERDETERMINISM ...".

The fact that you were "triggered" does not automatically make what you are claiming true.

What do I claim from your point of view? I explain why I replied to DrChinese. If you reply to me indicating that you don't get why I replied, or how my reply is related to what DrChinese wrote, it is only natural that I will try to clarify those points.

 

[Nullstein]

By the way, it's not true that there exist no superdeterministic models for the Bell correlations. A couple of them are cited in the paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.00729 (section 4.2) and the author even argues that they only require a minor violation of statistical independence.

 

[PeterDonis]

What I wrote was not related to a position. I replied "Careful, there is a difference ..." to a section that read "I hate it when ... NO THEORY/INTERPRETATION OF SUPERDETERMINISM ...".

Yes, and your reply had nothing to do with what @DrChinese actually said. Your reply talked about models and how easy it is to "accidentally" produce a model that violates the independence assumption. @DrChinese was talking about actual experimental results and whether any superdeterministic model could explain them.

For an example of what a substantive reply to what @DrChinese actually said would look like, see post #69 by @Nullstein just now.

What do I claim from your point of view?

You appear to me to be claiming that superdeterminism can provide a valid explanation for the actual experimental results we have on measurements of entangled particles.

I explain why I replied to DrChinese.

You explained that you were "triggered", yes. That explains why you replied, but as I pointed out, it doesn't serve as justification for what you said being true. Or having anything to do with what @DrChinese said, for that matter.

If you reply to me indicating that you don't get why I replied, or how my reply is related to what DrChinese wrote, it is only natural that I will try to clarify those points.

I have already explained, several times now, why your reply was not related to what @DrChinese wrote. Nothing in your responses has addressed anything I said about that.