Why is superdeterminism not the universally accepted explanation of nonlocality?

[ThomasT]

If computers are composed of circuits, then whatever determines the behavior of the circuits must determine the behavior of the computer. If molecules are composed of atoms, then whatever determines the behavior of atoms must determine the behavior of computers.

Not necessarily. At least not wrt effective causes. Emergent systems. Scale and observational specific organizing principles. See R. B. Laughlin et al., The Theory of Everything, and The Middle Way ... both published in 2000 I think.

A while back I suggested that you consider a visualization that clearly demonstrates that the rate of coincidental detection isn't a function of the variable that determines individual detection.

It's also suggested that you look at Aspect et al. 1981 and 1982, paying particular attention to the associated emission model that describes the production of polarization entangled photons via atomic cascades.

If you do that, then I think the view that the combined polarizers are measuring a relationship that doesn't vary from pair to pair will become clearer to you. It should be obvious that the individual polarizers, considered separately, aren't measuring a relationship, but rather a value of some property relevant to transmission via the polarizers that's varying randomly from pair to pair.

What are A and B?

They refer to the detection results at the separated detectors A and B. Eg., you might write P(A, a) to denote the probability of detection at A for polarizer setting a, or just P(A). So, P(A,B) can refer to the probability or normalized rate of identical detection attributes (1,1)'s and (0,0)'s, and P(A≠B) can refer to the probability or normalized rate of mismatches (nonidentical detection attributes), (1,0)'s and (0,1)'s. It's just an easier notation to understand than the P(θ) notation you're using, because θ usually represents the angular difference between the polarizers. Also λ is traditionally used to refer to the hidden variable, with, eg., λ_a referring to the value of the hidden variable of the photon incident on a.

It's short for "your mileage may vary", meaning I experience this but you may experience something else.

Ok. Well, that seems evident. So far I haven't convinced you that superdeterminism isn't necessary, and you haven't convinced me that it is.

Maybe we should just let it go for the time being and they can lock the thread ... unless somebody else has something to say about it that hasn't already been said.

 

[lugita15]

Not necessarily. At least not wrt effective causes. Emergent systems. Scale and observational specific organizing principles. See R. B. Laughlin et al., The Theory of Everything, and The Middle Way ... both published in 2000 I think.

Forget effective and emergent properties. I'm concerned about fundamental properties.

They refer to the detection results at the separated detectors A and B. Eg., you might write P(A, a) to denote the probability of detection at A for polarizer setting a, or just P(A). So, P(A,B) can refer to the probability or normalized rate of identical detection attributes (1,1)'s and (0,0)'s, and P(A≠B) can refer to the probability or normalized rate of mismatches (nonidentical detection attributes), (1,0)'s and (0,1)'s. It's just an easier notation to understand than the P(θ) notation you're using, because θ usually represents the angular difference between the polarizers. Also λ is traditionally used to refer to the hidden variable, with, eg., λ_a referring to the value of the hidden variable of the photon incident on a.

OK, but that's just notational differences. Do you or do you not agree with my logic in going from step 5 to step 6? If you don't, I can lay out that logic in greater detail.

 

[ThomasT]

Forget effective and emergent properties.

If we were to do that, then it seems that we wouldn't be able to explain or understand much of anything.

OK, but that's just notational differences. Do you or do you not agree with my logic in going from step 5 to step 6? If you don't, I can lay out that logic in greater detail.

Rewrite it using the conventional notation. Or, you can refer to some other LR proofs (Bell, Herbert, etc.) and we can talk about why they don't prove that nature is nonlocal, while still ruling out a certain class of LR models of quantum entanglement.

 

[lugita15]

If we were to do that, then it seems that we wouldn't be able to explain or understand much of anything.

Whether we can practically understand everything at the fundamental level, the important point is that there EXISTS an explanation at a fundamental level. So if coincidental detection data is composed of individual detection data, then at a fundamental level the former must br explainable in terms of the later, even if such an explanation is complicated or hard to find out.

Rewrite it using the conventional notation. Or, you can refer to some other LR proofs (Bell, Herbert, etc.) and we can talk about why they don't prove that nature is nonlocal, while still ruling out a certain class of LR models of quantum entanglement.

Well my steps are just an attempt to state Herbert's proof more precisely. If you don't understand anything in my notation, I'll be more than happy to explain it.

 

[catellus]

ThomasT,

This thread has been inactive for a bit, but I hadn't been following it at the time and wanted to make a observation.

From your post #389

I'm not arguing that the combined results aren't composed of individual results. Obviously, mismatches or coincidental detections are composed of individual results. But you still don't get that the randomly varying underlying parameter that determines individual results can't be what's determining the combined results.

Under an LR theory, isn't it impossible for particle B (say) to tell whether the detection that's happening is individual or coincidental? If that's right, then you can't have different parameters or relationships controlling what happens in individual vs. coincidental detections. Certainly it might be combination of factors, but it has to be the same combination every time.

(edited to correct a small typo)

 

[billschnieder]

ThomasT,

This thread has been inactive for a bit, but I hadn't been following it at the time and wanted to make a observation.

From your post #389


Under an LR theory, isn't it impossible for particle B (say) to tell whether the detection that's happening is individual or coincidental? If that's right, then you can't have different parameters or relationships controlling what happens in individual vs. coincidental detections. Certainly it might be combination of factors, but it has to be the same combination every time.

(edited to correct a small typo)

What you and lugita are not understanding is that the answers to the following questions are different:

(1) what is the probability of a hit at station A
(2) what is the probability of a hit at station A given that a hit was registered at station B

The reason the answers are different is not because the second one involves any non-local influence but because in (2), the fact that a hit has been registered at B, severly limits the domain within which the probability of A should now be calculated. In other words a logical dependence between the the two stations is introduced simply because you chose to consider them together as coincidental results.