I Why all the rejection of superdeterminism?

[ueit]

But the same conclusion holds. It doesn't matter what forces describe subatomic particles. As long as behavior is complex enough to do things like computations, it is not predictable in enough detail to allow a superdeterministic explanation of EPR statistics.

This has nothing to do with complexity. Increasing the number of objects will never lead to deviations from physical laws. If you have more field sources the object moves just as easily in the resultant field (a classical superposition of the fields originating from each source in the case of electric field). It becomes harder to simulate on a computer but I fail to see the relevance of that.

Also, the predictability of the system is irrelevant because objects don't predict anything. The Earth moves towards the instantaneous position of the Sun because it so happens that the gravitational field points there. There is only an appearance of prediction.

The reason the rock cannot "anticipate" the rocket is that the rocket's engines are based on electromagnetism and not on gravity. For GR the rocket behaves like an unmoved mover and uncaused cause. GR does not expect the rocket to accelerate because there is no gravitational field responsible for that.

On the contrary, the human brain and everything else is made up of quantum particles. Nothing behaves as an unmoved mover in respect to them. The "sudden" decisions of a human are just late manifestations of the motion of charged particles in the brain. In EPR everything is like a planet, nothing is like a rocket.

 

[stevendaryl]

This has nothing to do with complexity.

Yes, it does. A complex enough system is unpredictable even if it is completely deterministic.

Look, publish your paper calculating EPR correlations using a superdeterministic theory. Then we can talk about it on Physics Forums.

 

[ueit]

It illustrates why GR is not superdeterministic, just deterministic.

GR is superdeterministic in regards to those systems described by it. If one can explain the behaviour of quantum particles in terms of micro black holes then again, there would be nothing outside of its scope.

It makes no sense to use a theory to describe a system outside its scope. That would amount to a falsification of the theory.

 

[ueit]

Yes, it does. A complex enough system is unpredictable even if it is completely deterministic.

Look, publish your paper calculating EPR correlations using a superdeterministic theory. Then we can talk about it on Physics Forums.

I have presented some papers. They are not written by me but since when is there such a requirement?

 

[stevendaryl]

I have presented some papers. They are not written by me but since when is there such a requirement?

Physics Forums is for the discussion of mainstream physics and refereed papers.

 

[ueit]

Physics Forums is for the discussion of mainstream physics and refereed papers.

OK, and I have presented such a paper:

Stochastic electrodynamics as a foundation for quantum mechanics
Physics Letters A - Volume 56, Issue 4, 5 April 1976, Pages 253-254

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0375960176902978

It presents a theory along the lines I am arguing. Is Physics Letters A not good enough for you?

I also don't see the mainstream papers supporting your stance.

 

[stevendaryl]

OK, and I have presented such a paper:

Stochastic electrodynamics as a foundation for quantum mechanics
Physics Letters A - Volume 56, Issue 4, 5 April 1976, Pages 253-254

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0375960176902978

It presents a theory along the lines I am arguing. Is Physics Letters A not good enough for you?

I can't read it without paying. It doesn't sound relevant, because you're talking about deterministic theories, while "stochastic" implies nondeterminism.

I also don't see the mainstream papers supporting your stance.

Bell is pretty mainstream.

 

[ueit]

I can't read it without paying. It doesn't sound relevant, because you're talking about deterministic theories, while "stochastic" implies nondeterminism.

The word stochastic is no important here. The theory is just classical electrodynamics with a primordial field added. This field plays the role of the vibrating oil bath in Couder's experiments. The field is described by Maxwell's theory so the theory is deterministic.

I have also presented a link to a book describing an updated version of the theory:

The Emerging Quantum
https://loloattractor.files.wordpre..._marc3ada_cetto_andrea_valdc3a9bookzz-org.pdf

This is not peer-reviewd although it is based on published articles and it is free. It has a whole chapter on entanglement.

Bell is pretty mainstream.

I don't remember Bell claiming that the appearance of correlations in a system described by a field theory requires the system to be simple enough to be computable or predictable or something of that sort. This seems to be your main argument against superdeterminism, and I am not convinced it is mainstream.

Also, in a continuous universe like ours you need infinite precision so even simple systems are not exactly computable.

 

[stevendaryl]

The word stochastic is no important here. The theory is just classical electrodynamics with a primordial field added. This field plays the role of the vibrating oil bath in Couder's experiments. The field is described by Maxwell's theory so the theory is deterministic.

I have also presented a link to a book describing an updated version of the theory:

The Emerging Quantum
https://loloattractor.files.wordpre..._marc3ada_cetto_andrea_valdc3a9bookzz-org.pdf

The issue being discussed is whether a deterministic local theory can reproduce the predictions of QM for the EPR experiment. That is not done in that paper. I don't see the relevance of that paper to this thread about superdeterminism.

 

[ueit]

The issue being discussed is whether a deterministic local theory can reproduce the predictions of QM for the EPR experiment. That is not done in that paper. I don't see the relevance of that paper to this thread about superdeterminism.

If a superdeterministic theory is shown to give the QM formalism (which is the claim of the paper) it will reproduce all predictions of QM, including EPR.

 

[stevendaryl]

If a superdeterministic theory is shown to give the QM formalism (which is the claim of the paper) it will reproduce all predictions of QM, including EPR.

It depends on what you mean by "giving the QM formalism". The standard "recipe" for QM has the following parts:

1. The system is described by a wave function, which is a square-integrable function on configuration space.
2. The system evolves according to Schrodinger's equation.
3. When a measurement is performed, the result is always an eigenvalue of the operator corresponding to the quantity being measured.
4. The probability of getting a particular eigenvalue is given by the square of the projection of the wave function onto the corresponding eigenstate.

The results of EPR don't follow just from Schrodinger's equation alone, but also the interpretation of measurements given by 3 & 4.

It's 3&4 that are not easily described by a deterministic local realistic theory. (Some would say it is impossible to describe them that way---as a matter of fact, there is a theorem to that effect.)

 

[stevendaryl]

It depends on what you mean by "giving the QM formalism". The standard "recipe" for QM has the following parts:

1. The system is described by a wave function, which is a square-integrable function on configuration space.
2. The system evolves according to Schrodinger's equation.
3. When a measurement is performed, the result is always an eigenvalue of the operator corresponding to the quantity being measured.
4. The probability of getting a particular eigenvalue is given by the square of the projection of the wave function onto the corresponding eigenstate

There is a little complication in rigorously discussing the EPR in these terms, because a couple of aspects of the experiment---no FTL interactions, the use of particle spin and/or photons--goes beyond nonrelativistic quantum mechanics.

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation.

Edit: Thread will remain closed.