B Quantum Entanglement: Explaining the Logic Behind It

[zonde]

2. I don't get the comparison to retrocausality. I would agree that a retrocausal theory is not causal, but that is hardly more than a personal preference on your part. True, some retrocausal theories (Wheeler's or Cramer's Absorber Theory) barely are more than a framework for an interpretation. But there are acausal theories (Relational BlockWorld being one) that are being well developed and are quite serious. The difference is that these seek to explain orthodox QM at some level. They do not propose that QM is actually wrong.

Retrocausality and global constraint of RBW is the same superdeterminism when analyzed by observer who experiences time ordered events.
It's a bit paradoxical that you have such a strong position against superdeterminism but at the same time claim that global constraint of RBW is "quite serious".

 

[DrChinese]

Retrocausality and global constraint of RBW is the same superdeterminism when analyzed by observer who experiences time ordered events.

I have no idea what you are talking about. There is no similarity in RBW - a theory with published papers and a book on it - and superdeterminism (something which defies any meaningful description whatsoever).

1. What "global constraint" are you referring to in RBW?

2. And time ordering in RBW is simply a small slice which precisely corresponds to a quantum context. That should hardly be controversial, since that context is part of the orthodox quantum prediction (since QM is contextual).

 

[zonde]

1. What "global constraint" are you referring to in RBW?

How do you think RBW explains EPR-type correlations? According to RBW past, present and future co-determine each other via "adynamical global constraints", that's how it explains them. (See description of the book "Beyond the Dynamical Universe: Unifying Block Universe Physics and Time as Experienced")

 

[DrChinese]

According to RBW past, present and future co-determine each other via "adynamical global constraints", that's how it explains them. (See description of the book "Beyond the Dynamical Universe: Unifying Block Universe Physics and Time as Experienced")

Good book.

Yes, that is the set that makes up a block. It would include the entangled particle source, and Alice and Bob's measurement choices. That is the exact same context you have in orthodox QM, and because they are in "contact" (as part of the block) they can explain the EPR correlations. Of course, causality is sacrificed, which is why it is described as "adynamical".

What does any of that have to do with superdeterminism? Where there is no book to reference? It is just made up, not even worthy of a napkin that I have seen.

 

[DarMM]

Yes, that is the set that makes up a block. It would include the entangled particle source, and Alice and Bob's measurement choices. That is the exact same context you have in orthodox QM, and because they are in "contact" (as part of the block) they can explain the EPR correlations. Of course, causality is sacrificed, which is why it is described as "adynamical".

I assume by EPR correlations you mean CSHS correlations or similar as the EPR correlations have a local classical model.

Anyway what I really mean to ask is how does replicating nonclassical correlations work in RBW? I've heard the interpretation has ontological emergence, what does this mean?

Sorry to ask, the only proper source seems to be the new book, which I don't have yet. Also it was superdetermined that I would ask.

 

[zonde]

Of course, causality is sacrificed, which is why it is described as "adynamical".

Causality is not dismissed. It is just reinterpreted. Otherwise RBW would have to dump all the classical physics and start from scratch.

What does any of that have to do with superdeterminism?

It's the same approach. Measurement results (future) restrict initial conditions (past). That's superdeterminism as it is described in this thread.

Where there is no book to reference?

Please do not identify the idea with the name. The idea of future restricting past going under the name of "superdeterminism" has received dismissive criticism from some people closer to experimental side of Bell inequalities. Wikipedia editors have dug up some references for that (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism for references of Bell and Zeilinger).
But the same idea under different names is more popular among people closer to theoretical side.

 

[DrChinese]

1. Causality is not dismissed. It is just reinterpreted. Otherwise RBW would have to dump all the classical physics and start from scratch.

2. It's the same approach. Measurement results (future) restrict initial conditions (past). That's superdeterminism as it is described in this thread.

3. Please do not identify the idea with the name. The idea of future restricting past going under the name of "superdeterminism" has received dismissive criticism from some people closer to experimental side of Bell inequalities. Wikipedia editors have dug up some references for that (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism for references of Bell and Zeilinger).
But the same idea under different names is more popular among people closer to theoretical side.

1. RBW describes quantum physics, and from that the classical world evolves. The present does not "cause" the past, and so the theory is acausal and adynamical. There is no causality as it is currently defined.

2. This is not superdeterminism. I can't give a precise definition since it changes as it encounters new problems. But the basic idea is: initial conditions conspire to give us the illusion that our Bell test samples are representative, when they are not. This explains how the local realistic limit is exceeded, even though we live in a local realistic world.

I say any such explanation is not science. No different than a religion.

3. Sorry, I think you made my point for me. There is no actual (scientific) reference here. Just a few quotes/anecdotes from scientists who don't consider this as a valid issue:

"Although [Bell] acknowledged the loophole, he also argued that it was implausible."

 

[zonde]

RBW describes quantum physics, and from that the classical world evolves.

Idea that model of classical physics can be derived from QM is at best controversial and at worst just wrong.

2. This is not superdeterminism. I can't give a precise definition since it changes as it encounters new problems. But the basic idea is: initial conditions conspire to give us the illusion that our Bell test samples are representative, when they are not. This explains how the local realistic limit is exceeded, even though we live in a local realistic world.

I say any such explanation is not science. No different than a religion.

I completely agree that superdeterminism is not scientific. What I say is that retrocausality and "adynamical global constraints" of RBW are no better than superdeterminism, i.e. they are based on philosophy that is inconsistent with scientific approach.

3. Sorry, I think you made my point for me. There is no actual (scientific) reference here. Just a few quotes/anecdotes from scientists who don't consider this as a valid issue:

"Although [Bell] acknowledged the loophole, he also argued that it was implausible."

I would take even stronger statement:
Abner Shimony, Michael Horne and John Clauser made a similar comment in replying to John Bell in their discussions in the Epistemological Letters: "In any scientific experiment in which two or more variables are supposed to be randomly selected, one can always conjecture that some factor in the overlap of the backward light cones has controlled the presumably random choices. But, we maintain, skepticism of this sort will essentially dismiss all results of scientific experimentation. Unless we proceed under the assumption that hidden conspiracies of this sort do not occur, we have abandoned in advance the whole enterprise of discovering the laws of nature by experimentation."

So I suppose we agree on that.

 

[forcefield]

Abner Shimony, Michael Horne and John Clauser made a similar comment in replying to John Bell in their discussions in the Epistemological Letters: "In any scientific experiment in which two or more variables are supposed to be randomly selected, one can always conjecture that some factor in the overlap of the backward light cones has controlled the presumably random choices. But, we maintain, skepticism of this sort will essentially dismiss all results of scientific experimentation. Unless we proceed under the assumption that hidden conspiracies of this sort do not occur, we have abandoned in advance the whole enterprise of discovering the laws of nature by experimentation."

I don't get how they go from supposedly randomly selected variables to dismissing all results of scientific experimentation.

 

[zonde]

I don't get how they go from supposedly randomly selected variables to dismissing all results of scientific experimentation.

In all experiments there are errors. Random errors can be estimated by statistically analyzing many repetitions of the same experiment based on assumption that random factors leading to random errors are ... well, random. If they are not, the errors are systematic and they can't be estimated with statistical analysis.
I suppose it's something like that. As I'm not experimentalist I don't dare to go deeper.

 

[forcefield]

In all experiments there are errors. Random errors can be estimated by statistically analyzing many repetitions of the same experiment based on assumption that random factors leading to random errors are ... well, random. If they are not, the errors are systematic and they can't be estimated with statistical analysis.
I suppose it's something like that. As I'm not experimentalist I don't dare to go deeper.

But if the errors are not significant, then I don't see a reason to dismiss the results.

 

[zonde]

But if the errors are not significant, then I don't see a reason to dismiss the results.

But there is no ready method how to estimate systematic error. That's the problem. You can not know if there is or there isn't significant systematic error just by looking at number of results.

 

[forcefield]

But there is no ready method how to estimate systematic error. That's the problem. You can not know if there is or there isn't significant systematic error just by looking at number of results.

Why does it always matter whether a small error is systematic or not?

 

[zonde]

Why does it always matter whether a small error is systematic or not?

If you want an example of how nasty systematic errors can be you can look at the case where OPERA experiment reported neutrinos traveling faster than light.