I What is so compelling in the superposition theorem?

[jinto26]

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.

 

[Nugatory]

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.

 

[jinto26]

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!

 

[Demystifier]

issue got solved!

How?

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