Understanding Barandes' microscopic theory of causality

[pines-demon]

In this video, at 1:04:00, Dustin Lazarovici asks Barandes if his principle of "causal locality" corresponds to what is usually called non-signaling, and Barandes answers affirmatively, pointing out that the proof of his principle of causal locality is very similar to that of the non-communication theorem, but that the difference lies in the fact that, in his formalism/interpretation, non-communication does not apply only to measurements, but to any physical system, at any time, according to the assumed ontology.

Lucas.

Sure but we already know quantum mechanics, in any of its interpretation does not violate non-signaling so if by causal locality he means that then it is pointless definition.

 

[pines-demon]

Following on from what I mentioned in the previous post, these are two different concepts. In the case of QM, we know that it is causally local, according to Barandes' stochastic-quantum theorem, but it is not locally causal, according to Bell's theorem.

Lucas.

Again showing this is a play on words and definitions and not really explaining anything.

 

[javisot]

Again showing this is a play on words and definitions and not really explaining anything.

I don't know what to say... based on Barandés's words, I'd say his interpretation doesn't correspond to the textbook. Since its correspondence excludes any result that, in a standard way, implies non-locality.

In the terms you used, Pines Demon, local causality is not causally local.

It seems that for Barandés, the violation of Bell's inequality does not demonstrate "spooky action at a distance" in a relativistic causal sense, but rather the failure of a classical conception of causality applied to quantum phenomena.

 

[pines-demon]

I don't know what to say... based on Barandés's words, I'd say his interpretation doesn't correspond to the textbook. Since its correspondence excludes any result that, in a standard way, implies non-locality.

In the terms you used, Pines Demon, local causality is not causally local.

It seems that for Barandés, the violation of Bell's inequality does not demonstrate "spooky action at a distance" in a relativistic causal sense, but rather the failure of a classical conception of causality applied to quantum phenomena.

As you say, he is saying that there is nothing "spooky" (I disagree). He is trying to focus the conversation on his redefinition of causality. My problem is that all that he has shown is already known. I don't get what is interesting of his causal locality. The real deal is Bell theorem, which discusses Bell's local causality and that has not necessarily to be broken (super-determinism and many-worlds try to get away by dropping other assumptions). If Barandes is just dropping Bell's local causality then his interpretation is not necessarily interesting to understand entanglement specifically (and thus for me it is still "spooky").

 

[PeterDonis]

It seems that for Barandés, the violation of Bell's inequality does not demonstrate "spooky action at a distance" in a relativistic causal sense, but rather the failure of a classical conception of causality applied to quantum phenomena.

But he doesn't give any new "conception of causality" to replace the classical one. Perhaps he thinks that isn't required. But that doesn't help at all if one thinks (as many do) that that is required.

 

[javisot]

As you say, he is saying that there is nothing "spooky" (I disagree). He is trying to focus the conversation on his redefinition of causality. My problem is that all that he has shown is already known. I don't get what is interesting of his causal locality. The real deal is Bell theorem, which discusses Bell's local causality and that has not necessarily to be broken (super-determinism and many-worlds try to get away by dropping other assumptions). If Barandes is just dropping Bell's local causality then his interpretation is not necessarily interesting to understand entanglement specifically (and thus for me it is still "spooky").

But he doesn't give any new "conception of causality" to replace the classical one. Perhaps he thinks that isn't required. But that doesn't help at all if one thinks (as many do) that that is required.

Completely agree with both.

 

[Fra]

But at least he attempts to give us a new handle: this is where i see a progressed stance, althogh without full solutions.

IMO the missing link to make his new conception of causal microphysical law (transition probabilities) is their construction/origin/emergence(*). IF one consider them global constraints (that are effecitvely inferred from QM, hilberspace and hamiltionians) via the stochastic correspondence, then yes it really has not explain anything.

The new thing is that instead of having to explain hamiltonians and hilber spaces, we can try to explain the configuration spaces and the transition probabilities of the stochastic process.

If one finds the new handle adding no new intuition, then I understand the critique. But I see it does add intuition that mates my thinking better than the causal notion from system dynamics. Barandes replaces it with microcausal transition probabilites. Ie changing global constraints to local rules. The only problem with Barandes exposition is that the local rules are not explained yet by first principles, they are only shown to follow from correspondence.

(*) This is I think a much harder problem, on par with explaning the structure the phenomenology of the standard model - without fine tuning.

/Fredrik

 

[iste]

I don't get what is interesting of his causal locality

Its informative in one rather niche sense that he views his theory as a hidden-variable interpretation. The two major hiden variable theories I am aware of, Bohmian mechanics and the easily confused stochastic mechanics both violate his causal locality, or perhaps some close analog, so it is noteworthy from that standpoint, especially when compared to stochastic mechanics which is in some sense a competitor against his as a stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics.