- #1
- 216
- 7
- Summary:
- Bell's superdetermimism seems to imply that there is a hidden variable.
Bell's superdetermimism seems to imply that there is a hidden variable. Please correct me if I am wrong but that seems like classical physics.
Bell's? When he did embrace superdeterminism?Bell's superdetermimism....
Of course - that's why it was invented. Superdeterminism is one way (the only way when the other "loopholes" are closing) of reconciling classical physics with the experimentally observed violations of Bell's inequality..... that seems like classical physics.
Suppose I design a clever automated device with a polarizing filter and a chamber into which we can insert a billet of uranium; the device sets its orientation for each measurement according to the pattern of random radioactive decay in that uranium billet. I make two copies my design blueprints; one goes into storage on earth and the other goes into something like the Voyager spacecraft. A few tens of millennia later the spacecraft reaches an inhabited planet, and these alien physicists build the machine according to the blueprint I sent them, including locating an ore deposit and mining and refining some uranium. Meanwhile my remote descendants are doing the same thing with the blueprints left back on earth. After a decade or so exchanging radio messages to confirm that both sides have set up their devices, some entangled photon pairs are generated and sent to both detectors (another few years) and then the results are shared by radio (even more years).... and it is seen that Bell’s inequality has been violated.What are those wildly implausible requirements?
Bell's? When he did embrace superdeterminism?Of course - that's why it was invented. Superdeterminism is one way (the only way when the other "loopholes" are closing) of reconciling classical physics with the experimentally observed violations of Bell's inequality.
Summary:: Bell's superdetermimism seems to imply that there is a hidden variable.
Bell's superdetermimism seems to imply that there is a hidden variable. Please correct me if I am wrong but that seems like classical physics.
That has nothing to do with superdeterminism.All time/CPT symmetric formulations (with boundary conditions in past and future), like the least action principle, or Feynman ensembles of paths/diagrams/histories of the universe are superdeterministic.
For example scattering matrix uses boundary conditions in past and future ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-matrix#Interaction_picture ):
##S_{fi} = \lim_{t_2\to +\infty} \lim_{t_1\to-\infty} \langle \Phi_f|U(t_2,t_1)|\Phi_i\rangle ##
So you essentially propose to give up causality as a guiding principle. Without anything in exchange. Ok, here you will probably object, given that you propose to use the "principle fashion" instead. But, sorry, nothing prevents the use of principle explanations together with causal explanations. There is no either or between principle explanations and causal explanations. So, the principle explanations are not at all a replacement, a gain we obtain by throwing away causal explanations. And so your proposal means to give up causal explanations without gaining anything.But, as I pointed out in this ScienceX News article regarding Bell states, that’s because there is no hidden reality. Reality is not fundamentally governed by causal mechanisms, but by principles.
Could you elaborate?What is the situation for Bell's theorem? It is far away from this. We have causal explanations for the observed violations of the Bell inequalities, namely all the realist causal interpretations of QT (de Broglie-Bohm, Nelsonian stochastics, Caticha's)
So, the search for a constructive account of Bell state entanglement is starting to sound a lot like the aether as a causal mechanism for SR.The interpretive work that must be done is less in coming up with a constructive theory and thereby explaining puzzling quantum phenomena, but more in explaining why the interpretation counts as explanatory at all given that it must sacrifice some key aspect of the traditional understanding of causal-mechanical explanation.
Your link refers to some variant of the theorem which starts with the assumption of counterfactual existence. This is not less, but more than what Bell uses because the first part of the proof (in the paper itself a first few lines with a verbal reference to EPR before the first formula, ignored by many readers, only later he has recognized this and emphasized this part in more detail as a very essential part) is the proof that from Einstein causality and the EPR criterion of locality it counterfactual existence follows.Derivation of this inequality doesn't use locality assumption, only existence of joint probability distribution and Kolmogorov axioms ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_axioms ) - could you briefly say how these interpretations can explain its violation?
The first one. It is assuming that the "measurement" results are predefined, that measuring A for the first copy does not change A, B or C for the second one. In the Bell tests, one hopes to reach this by making both measurements spacelike separated, so that if Einstein causality holds, both measurements cannot causally influence the other measurements or their results. But in the realistic interpretations, such influence explicitly exists. If Alice measures A, and gains 1, then an immediate causal influence guarantees that after this Bob measuring A will give 1 too.1) There exists joint probability distribution Pr(ABC) ##(\sum_{ABC} Pr(ABC) =1)##,
2) Kolmogorov axioms,
So at least one of the two above assumptions is not satisfied by physics - which one?
Ok. Even if there is yet a difference between a principle and the empirical facts supporting that principle, such principles are indeed quite close to the empirical facts, and, therefore, unable to explain them. A "principle" based on observational facts cannot be an explanation of these observational facts.Keep in mind that principle explanation is simply the mathematical consequence of some empirical fact. So, whatever constructive counterpart you want to propose will have to be in accord with the principle explanation unless you are refuting the mathematical consequence, which in this case has been tested to 8 sigma.
The point being? That discussing interpretations of quantum theory is now allowed here, while discussing interpretations of relativity is yet anathema?"Principle theories, constructive theories, and explanation in modern physics." Wesley Van Camp. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 42(1), 23-31 (2011):
So, the search for a constructive account of Bell state entanglement is starting to sound a lot like the aether as a causal mechanism for SR.The interpretive work that must be done is less in coming up with a constructive theory and thereby explaining puzzling quantum phenomena, but more in explaining why the interpretation counts as explanatory at all given that it must sacrifice some key aspect of the traditional understanding of causal-mechanical explanation.
Both have constructive counterparts.The point is, we have one and the same principle explanation for the mysteries of SR and QM while both are still without consensus constructive counterparts after 115 and 85 years, respectively. This is my response to ‘t Hooft’s motivation for superdeterminism.
in the realistic interpretations, such influence explicitly exists. If Alice measures A, and gains 1, then an immediate causal influence guarantees that after this Bob measuring A will give 1 too.