Undergrad What is so compelling in the superposition theorem?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the superposition theorem in quantum mechanics and its relationship with determinism. The user questions why determinism, despite being a comprehensive explanation for entanglement experiments, is not the prevailing view among physicists. They present a thought experiment involving a device that utilizes a polarizing filter and uranium decay patterns to explore the implications of superdeterminism. The conversation highlights the tension between deterministic explanations and the 'spooky' nature of quantum superposition, suggesting that while determinism may offer local explanations, it does not account for all phenomena.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, including superposition and entanglement.
  • Familiarity with Bell's theorem and Bell's inequality.
  • Knowledge of superdeterminism and its implications in physics.
  • Basic concepts of quantum measurement and its effects on entangled particles.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Bell's theorem in quantum mechanics.
  • Explore the concept of superdeterminism and its critiques in contemporary physics.
  • Study the role of measurement in quantum mechanics and its impact on entangled states.
  • Investigate the philosophical implications of determinism versus indeterminism in quantum theory.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum mechanics students, and anyone interested in the philosophical debates surrounding determinism and superposition in quantum theory.

jinto26
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
My question is, if the determinism theorem is a good explanation, which covers all holes of the entanglement experiment. why are people still concluding its a 'spooky' superposition which is only determined by a measure and then somehow affects the other measurement.

What am I missing? Why is the more compelling, and more popular opinion not determinism?

It's the missing link in my understanding of this topic.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jinto26 said:
Why is the more compelling, and more popular opinion not determinism?
Determinism is an explanation, but is it a good explanation?

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.

The superdeterminist explanation is that there is a relationship between the decay patterns of two ostensibly independent pieces of uranium mined and refined on different planets light-years apart and the BBO crystal we’re using to generate our entangled photon pairs. It’s possible - all three deterministically evolved from the same cloud of intergalactic schmutz a few billion years ago - but not especially plausible.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes DrClaude, topsquark, DrChinese and 2 others
jinto26 said:
My question is, if the determinism theorem is a good explanation, which covers all holes of the entanglement experiment. why are people still concluding its a 'spooky' superposition which is only determined by a measure and then somehow affects the other measurement.

What am I missing? Why is the more compelling, and more popular opinion not determinism?

It's the missing link in my understanding of this topic.
issue got solved!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jinto26 said:
issue got solved!
How?

BTW, determinism offers a local explanation in some cases, but not all.
 

Thread 'Two equivalent statements of time reversal symmetric Hamiltonian'

Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?
View full post »

Similar threads

Undergrad Is quantum interference an instantaneous consequence of superposition ?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
High School Question about quantum superposition
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Does the bomb experiment do a measurement?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
High School Is quantum superposition involved in the Stern-Gerlach experiment?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad Why don't we bury Schrodinger's Cat?
  • · Replies 143 ·
5
Replies
143
Views
11K
Undergrad Imagining the EPR paradox/quantum entanglement
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School The moment we observe superposition
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Non-technical description of "superposition"
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Superposition and stationary states
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
High School Superposition or just unobserved states?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K