Why is superdeterminism not the universally accepted explanation of nonlocality?

[jadrian]

haha omg

 

[jadrian]

also if these entangled photons no longer exist in the present, how do they affect anything? and if they did have the ability to affect the past, would it not be possible for them to disrupt the experiment and prevent the experiment from happening, negating their own creation? paradox?

 

[jadrian]

Yes, "the Universe cheats" is actually a pretty good description of superdeterminismBell's theorem implies that any local deterministic theory which reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics must be superdeterministic. But you can have a nonlocal deterministic theory like Bohmian mechanics, and that need not be superdeterministic. But you're right that Bell's theorem does not disprove superdeterminism.
Science does not accept all theories until they are rejected by experiments. In science we do not accept claims unless we have good experimental reason to do so. Currently we have a nondeterministic theory, quantum mechanics, which is extremely accurate in its predictions. Thus the burden of proof is on the determinist to demonstrate his thesis, not on the scientific community to disprove it.

define accuracy or precision for that matter. what we may think of as precise may be grossly imprecise compared to absolute predictive ability. 8 decimal places sounds accurate to us compared to our everyday measurements, just as cosmological decades are something our minds are not tuned to percieving.

 

[lugita15]

if you could match experimental settings, which you cant, then you wouldn't have correlations, youu would have the exact same result.

But having the exact same result just means 100% correlation. And what makes you think you can't exactly match polarizer settings?

 

[lugita15]

also with d could have this instantaneous effect on a as i could decide to shoot my self in the head or not depending on the angle, wouldn't this be faster than light info tranfer, violating relativity?

I think I told you earlier that the same theory of quantum mechanics which tells us about the nonlocality of entanglement also tells us that this nonlocality cannot be used by humans to transfer information faster than light. If you have an entangled pair of photons and you send each one through a polarizer oriented at the same angle, then each experimenter cannot find out on his own locally about the effect of the nonlocality. It's only by comparing the results of the two photons that we can see the nonlocal correlation. And one experimenter cannot find out the results the other experimenter found without communicating with him, and presumably that cannot be done faster than the speed of light.

 

[lugita15]

they don't have to interact in a special way, what makes you think that. we've already been through your abcd experiment and I've shown its irrellevant to universal causality leading to determinism without any special initial conditions. there is no conspiracy unless you NEGLECT the histories of the pool balls besides the cue ball and 8 ball as i described above

jadrian, just try to set up a scenario in which pool balls, just through the local interactions of hitting each other and without any special initial conditions, can produce the right kind of nonlocal correlation required to pass a Bell test. If you're successful, you can give Nobel laureate Gerard t'Hooft a run for his money, because all he's trying to do is create a local determinist theory WITH special initial conditions that agrees with QM, and he's finding it really difficult.

 

[lugita15]

just the right way... you make it sound so special... its just causality... determinism does not have to be local, because nonlocality doesn't violate relativity.

OK, if you're willing to have a nonlocal deterministic theory, then you don't need any conspiratorial elements like special initial conditions. You can be a Bohmian like Demystifier. Bohmians believe that there are nonlocal interactions between particles, but this do not violate relativity, because it can proven that these nonlocal interactions cannot be used by humans to transfer information faster than light. And generally Bohmians don't believe in free will, just like you.

 

[lugita15]

i agree.
and demystifyers explanation can simply be explained by causality. if that's not enough ill call it supercausality.

below is the explanation that demystifyer tried to explain supdet vs determinism.

For the record, the explanation of superdeterminism you're quoting is mine, not Demystifier's.

 

[jadrian]

I was trying (unsuccessfully it seems ) to force jadrian to realize that the laser source must be imparting the hidden (it is a conspiracy, so something should be hidden) information to the photon at the time it is created. But that the same laser source only imparts the correct information for perfect correlations to a small subset of photons, just those that some spacelike-separated robotic observer will eventually mark as being in a Bell state (and no others).

So that means the laser source ALSO knows enough about that robotic observer to know which ones will be seen to be entangled (since the robotic observer makes that decision at a later time).

Oh, and the laser source ALSO knows which direction the polarizers for a and d are set in. That, of course, so that the Bell relationship holds. Of course, those polarizers can be set by 2 more robotic observers using let's say, 2 different random algorithms. Which of course the laser source knows this too.

Of course, there are actually 2 separate laser sources which are phase locked together. So both knows what the other is going to do. On the other hand, the photons don't even need to exist at the same time any more than they need to exist in the same location, so that the appearance of entanglement crosses both space and time if we want to set it up that way.

And so, as you say, does the theory continue on without the benefit of Occam...

what is all this "the laser knows" the laser doesn't know anything. reality isn't what is. reality is what occurs. by the way i don't make all these assumptions. you do. my logic of nonlocality being fine within a lightcone seems pretty solid as it doesn't piss of einstein. youre repeated statements that a and d are outside each others lightcones violates relativity if the entanglement has effects on its local environment. occams on my side by a long way fyi.

 

[DrChinese]

if you could clarify what you mean by different futures that would be nice

There are many photons being created by each laser source. Some Alice/Dale pairs will be entangled, but some will not. Now the question is: how does the laser impart this distinction on the correct pairs and not any others? (The distinction being to act entangled and yield Bell state statistics.)

So 2 things need to be explained: a) how does the lasers know which photons to pair up as "acting entangled" (since the entangled state is not real in your book, just an illusion); and how does it mark them when they are otherwise identical to "not acting entangled" photons.

What is the mechanism or rule? A scientist will normally postulate one, and will then try to find ways to support that assumption or to disprove it. So this is what I am asking you to do. And for the Nth time, I don't know if there is free will or not, that is not an important issue for me and certainly doesn't color my perspective in any way.

 

[jadrian]

Actually, there are QM interpretations in which time does not flow in the conventional sense. These are called "block world". I happen to be something of a fan of a particular one of these, called Relational Block World.

Relational Blockworld: A Path Integral Based Interpretation of Quantum Field Theory; W.M. Stuckey, Michael Silberstein, Timothy McDevitt (2009)

Although time does not flow, the future is a component in interactions and it is the total setup that is relevant. Although the authors do not call it a time symmetric model per se, I think it qualifies.

For those that are interested:

The above paper is advanced reading, but it is absolutely fascinating in this sense: It is a QM interpretation that makes predictions that are slightly DIFFERENT than standard QM. Incredibly, those predictions seem to account for experimental evidence in favor of an accelerating expansion of the universe WITHOUT adding otherwise new physics.

Easily the most ambitious program I have seen in the few years. So a tip of the hat to the authors, good luck! If anyone wants to discuss, we can start a new thread on that.

isnt block time like a 100 year old concept btw

 

[jadrian]

Well, golly. Perhaps you can share this with us. What exactly is this law? Can you cite a reference? Does it have anything to do with entropy (which increases to the future, see 2nd law of thermodynamics)?

At any rate, you continue to throw out terms without understanding their meaning. At this point, I, lugita15. Delta Kilo and others have tried to help you with the physics involved. You seem to reject this in favor of speculation which lacks any basic background study or consideration. Your billiard ball example is typical, as it doesn't explain Bell test results and never will.

So good luck, and again I recommend you do some more study in the area.

yeah information is not created or destroyed in a system.

 

[lugita15]

choice has no meaning. but what is this delayed thing you are speaking of

Let me give you a simple example of delayed choice. I assume you're familiar with the double slit experiment. If you don't put detectors at the two slits, then when the light hits the screen it will form an interference pattern, as if it went through both slits. But if you put detectors at the slits to find out which slit the light goes through, then you'll find that the light only goes through one slit, but now it won't display an interference pattern, so it seems like it really went through only one slit. So apparently depending on whether you put detectors at the slits, the light will either go through one slit or both slits.

But you can throw a complication into all of this by not putting the detectors at the slits themselves, but at a significant distance past the slits, so that you find out what slit the light went through after it's already gone through the slits. If you do this, you'll find that the light only goes through one of the slits, and you'll find no interference pattern on the screen. So it's as if the light made up it's mind as to whether it's past history involved going through one slit or both slits, after it has already gone past the slits!

 

[jadrian]

Let's say I decided to run Bell test and choose settings for A based on the address book of Acapulco. For the test to produce the results it does while maintaining local realism, something in the past would have to causally influence both the source of entangled photons in the lab and the early settlers of Acapulco in such a way as to establish a very specific relationship between the two. Just having a causal link is not sufficient, it would have to be a very specific 1-to-1 correspondence. Do you have a theory to explain it?

according to my logic, you answered your own question

 

[jadrian]

This was from post 48, so 140 posts later:

I think jadrian has quite proven me correct about it taking on a religious fervor. And I really didn't need to be clairvoyant to see this coming.

what does religon have to do with this. your the one clinging to free will. if i was religious, would i be telling you youre a chemical reaction held in homeostatc balance by dna? are you butthurt that i told you your not alive? your like a bulldog baiting the bull of free will

 

[jadrian]

I think I told you earlier that the same theory of quantum mechanics which tells us about the nonlocality of entanglement also tells us that this nonlocality cannot be used by humans to transfer information faster than light. If you have an entangled pair of photons and you send each one through a polarizer oriented at the same angle, then each experimenter cannot find out on his own locally about the effect of the nonlocality. It's only by comparing the results of the two photons that we can see the nonlocal correlation. And one experimenter cannot find out the results the other experimenter found without communicating with him, and presumably that cannot be done faster than the speed of light.

doesnt matter, a nonlocal interaction outside a lightcone that changes my decision to shoot or not based on simplify the angle change heads i shoot myself tails i dont. if this instantaneous info transfer doesn't have the ability to affect any event that can cause other events than the information is noncausal, and this thread is a monumental waste of time. otherwise ill have to sacrifice myself like the cat

 

[jadrian]

jadrian, just try to set up a scenario in which pool balls, just through the local interactions of hitting each other and without any special initial conditions, can produce the right kind of nonlocal correlation required to pass a Bell test. If you're successful, you can give Nobel laureate Gerard t'Hooft a run for his money, because all he's trying to do is create a local determinist theory WITH special initial conditions that agrees with QM, and he's finding it really difficult.

bells tests just show the more you know the more you realize how little you kno

 

[jadrian]

OK, if you're willing to have a nonlocal deterministic theory, then you don't need any conspiratorial elements like special initial conditions. You can be a Bohmian like Demystifier. Bohmians believe that there are nonlocal interactions between particles, but this do not violate relativity, because it can proven that these nonlocal interactions cannot be used by humans to transfer information faster than light. And generally Bohmians don't believe in free will, just like you.

if they can't effect humans then they can't effect anything, otherwise it would causally effect us eventually. don't fall into the conciousness is special trap

 

[jadrian]

For the record, the explanation of superdeterminism you're quoting is mine, not Demystifier's.

oh sorry

 

[jadrian]

(since the entangled state is not real in your book, just an illusion);

. And for the Nth time, I don't know if there is free will or not, that is not an important issue for me and certainly doesn't color my perspective in any way.

when did i say entanglement wasnt real. i can't relate to your analogy.

but saying you don't know if there is free will or not, pretty much means you believe in free will which is funny to me.

 

[jadrian]

Let me give you a simple example of delayed choice. I assume you're familiar with the double slit experiment. If you don't put detectors at the two slits, then when the light hits the screen it will form an interference pattern, as if it went through both slits. But if you put detectors at the slits to find out which slit the light goes through, then you'll find that the light only goes through one slit, but now it won't display an interference pattern, so it seems like it really went through only one slit. So apparently depending on whether you put detectors at the slits, the light will either go through one slit or both slits.

But you can throw a complication into all of this by not putting the detectors at the slits themselves, but at a significant distance past the slits, so that you find out what slit the light went through after it's already gone through the slits. If you do this, you'll find that the light only goes through one of the slits, and you'll find no interference pattern on the screen. So it's as if the light made up it's mind as to whether it's past history involved going through one slit or both slits, after it has already gone past the slits!

or the measurement is having a causal affect on the photon. does the distance of the measurement device to the slit matter? or can it be a mile away

 

[Joncon]

but saying you don't know if there is free will or not, pretty much means you believe in free will which is funny to me.

Jadrian, just out of interest, what is your definiton of "free will" which you think doesn't exist?

 

[lugita15]

doesnt matter, a nonlocal interaction outside a lightcone that changes my decision to shoot or not based on simplify the angle change heads i shoot myself tails i dont. if this instantaneous info transfer doesn't have the ability to affect any event that can cause other events than the information is noncausal, and this thread is a monumental waste of time. otherwise ill have to sacrifice myself like the cat

Suppose you have a pair of entangled photons, you separate them by a great distance, and put each of them through a polarizer. Then if an experimenter just looks at whether the photon next to him goes through the polarizer or not, he will find that it has a 50% chance of going through, regardless of the angle at which the polarizer is turned. And the other experimenter will similarly see a 50-50 result regardless of the polarizer angle. So if you choose to shoot yourself based on whether the photon goes through, you will have a 50-50 chance of shooting yourself. However, if the experimenters each record the results, and then compare the results with each other, they will find a surprising result: even though the individual results seemed random when considered in isolation, when the behavior of the two photons are considered together we get a correlation. But of course to bring the results together and compare them, and thus to discover the nonlocal correlations, requires either that one experimenter visits the other one or that the experimenters communicate the results to each other. Presumably, neither of these can happen faster than light.

 

[lugita15]

bells tests just show the more you know the more you realize how little you kno

Whatever you think of Bell tests, do you think you can reproduce the result of a Bell test using billiard balls? How would you do so?

 

[lugita15]

if they can't effect humans then they can't effect anything, otherwise it would causally effect us eventually. don't fall into the conciousness is special trap

The fact that humans cannot use the nonlocal interactions to send information faster than the speed of light does not say anything special about humans, it says something about the interactions. Bohmians believe that there are absolutely undetectable nonlocal interactions between particles, and it is through the use of these hidden interactions that nonlocal correlations occur. It's as if any pair of particles in the universe is on a secret instantaneous telephone connection, and none of the other particles can overhear that connection. (More precisely, Bohmians believe that just like the electromagnetic field and the gravitational field, there is another field called the quantum potential, which extends all over the universe and exerts a force on each particle, making it do the right thing to produce the nonlocal correlation). Thus neither humans, monkeys, robots, random sets of chemicals, or anything else can find out what the entangled particles are saying to each other.

I don't think you should dismiss Bohmian mechanics so casually. This kind of nonlocal determinism may be a better fit for your belief system, rather than having a conspiratorial interpretation in terms of special initial conditions. If you have questions about the Bohmian intepretation, you can ask Demystifier, our resident Bohmian.

 

[lugita15]

or the measurement is having a causal affect on the photon.

But the thing is, how can the measurement have a causal effect on what the photon did before it was measured? Presumably, when the photon reached the slits it made some decision about how to go through. How is it that after it has gone through, placing detectors on the upper and lower paths to find out what path it is on will make it seem as it traveled along only one of the paths and thus shows no interference effects? Of course, you can always make the conspiratorial argument that it determined how to go through the slits based on its knowledge of whether it would be detected later on, but DrChinese's point is that this is highly implausible, especially when you realize that measurement decisions can be controlled by almost anything: the weather in London, the locations of houses in Acapulco, the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election, etc. You have to make the case that the election result was caused by particles interacting in such a way as to insure that two puny photons displayed the right kind of nonlocal correlation in a laboratory in Switzerland. And his other argument is, if there is so much nonlocal correlation between everything, why is it that we only witness this correlation when we do Bell tests? (Apparently Bohmians have a good answer to this question for their theory of nonlocal interactions, but I don't know what it is.)

does the distance of the measurement device to the slit matter? or can it be a mile away

No, you can have the measurement device be any distance, even light years away from the slits. (There are cool proposed experiments of performing a delayed choice experiment in outer space, using light from a quasar which had the option of going in two different paths billions of years ago, and the light is only now reaching the earth; based on what detectors we put in space to catch or measure the light, we will presumably be able to either create an interference pattern or not.) In fact, what you can even do is have the light pass through the slits, and then destroy the whole wall with the slits, and then put a detector to find out which slit the light went through.

 

[lugita15]

So 2 things need to be explained: a) how does the lasers know which photons to pair up as "acting entangled"

Duh, the lasers can see the entire future of the universe and know which photons will later be considered entangled according to QM.

;and how does it mark them when they are otherwise identical to "not acting entangled" photons.

Duh, it changes their undetectable hidden variables, which don't have any effect on the particles until an entanglement experiment is done.

DrChinese, let out your inner conspiracy theorist!

 

[lugita15]

Thanks lugita!

Demystifier, can you answer another question about Bohmian mechanics? DrChinese has been making the critique of superdeterminism that, if everything in the universe is linked because of interactions in their common past light cones, why do we witness this link only when we do quantum entanglement experiments. How would Bohmians answer the analogous criticism? If everything in the universe is interacting nonlocally with everything else through their pilot waves, then why is it that we only observe the nonlocal correlation caused by this nonlocal interaction when we do measurements of entangled particles? Is there something special about entanglement that reveals the nonlocal interactions that are always present?

 

[ThomasT]

@ lugita15,

The exchange between you and I got a little off track. Which was my fault, and I apologize for not taking the time to sort it out properly. Below I'll comment in reference to an exchange between you and zonde, and hopefully any misunderstanding will be clarified.

Linear relationship between θ and correlation level follows directly from that assumption.

You're right, it's a fairly direct route from the assumption that there is perfect correlation at identical polarizer settings to the conclusion that the local realist must believe that the correlation is linear. But ThomasT does not agree with this fairly direct line of reasoning, so I'm trying to convince him that it works.

I think that there's some step or steps in the LR line of reasoning which then lead(s) to the logically necessary conclusion that the correlation between θ and rate of coincidental detection should be linear. But I don't think it's the prediction of perfect correlation at θ = 0°. After all, QM predicts the same thing as LR at θ = 0°, but wrt all θ the QM and LR correlations are different. So it seems that we can't attribute that difference to the prediction of perfect correlation at θ = 0°.

Local realistic theory can not reproduce all predictions of QM.

If I could persuade ThomasT of this, I'd be done.

I already agree with this, and have said so many times in this thread. But you're not then done. This is where the assessment of the necessity of a local superdeterministic model of quantum entanglement begins.

But local realistic theory can try to reproduce QM predictions in domain where they are experimentally verified. And that domain does not include (something close to) perfect correlations for matching measurement settings.

But that just has to do with practical experimental limitations. The point I'm arguing with him about is whether someone can believe that all the predictions of quantum mechanics are correct and still believe in (non-superdeterministic) local realism. I'm trying to show that the answer is no ...

I agree that the answer is no.

... because one experimental prediction of QM is perfect correlations at identical polarizer settings, from which the local realist is forced to believe in a linear correlation relationship ...

Ok, now I disagree.

This is the basis of both the QM and LR treatments, but I would argue that, given this perfect correlation (ideally) at θ = 0°, one is not then forced to believe in a linear correlation wrt all values of θ. After all, the QM treatment leads to a nonlinear correlation wrt all θ.

So, given what we do agree on, wouldn't the first step in assessing the applicability of the concept of superdeterminism wrt generating the simplest and clearest possible understanding of why BIs are violated have to do with identifying any and all points in the LR reasoning which lead to the prediction of a linear correlation between θ and rate of coincidental detection?

What I think ThomasT is disputing is that given Malus law it is very unreasonable conclusion that there is linear relationship between θ and correlation level.

I agree that this is the point of contention, but keep in mind that he thinks a local realist can believe in the nonlinear correlation given by Malus' law, while at the same time also believing that there is perfect correlation at identical settings.

Ok, I think I see one source of our misunderstanding. I'm not a local realist. That is, I don't think that a viable LR model of quantum entanglement is possible.

But I am a local determinist. I think that both of these assumptions, locality and determinism, are supported by ample empirical evidence. They seem to be the basis of our everyday navigations through our shared reality. And they seem to be the basis for doing physical (essentially mechanistic) science. As far as I can tell, the assumptions of nonlocality and indeterminism arise, more or less ad hoc, from our inability to make viable LR models of quantum entanglement and our inability to predict certain quantum experimental phenomena.

I'm going to stop here, but will pick up, eventually, where I left off, with a brief exposition of the local deterministic approach to understanding quantum entanglement, and then tying it into the thread question. The focus will eventually be on identifying the precise elements in the standard LR formulation (line of reasoning) which are at odds with what's presumably (according to a local deterministic view) occurring in the underlying reality, and how the encoding of certain elements contrary to that view into an LR formalism, and a Bell inequality, necessarily entails the violation of BIs.

Then the question will be: what, exactly, has been proven, and does our understanding of BI violations necessarily warrant the assumption of superdeterminism in order to maintain a local deterministic view of our universe?

Note: It's important to keep in mind that the formal requirement, local realism, is not equivalent to the philosophical orientation, local determinism. The former having to do with what's required to render a model of quantum entanglement explicitly local or explicitly realistic (without any ad hoc associated nonlocal mechanisms or assumptions), or, as with Bell's formulation, both -- and the latter having to do with assumptions about the way our world is, based on extant empirical observations.

 

[jadrian]

Jadrian, just out of interest, what is your definiton of "free will" which you think doesn't exist?

the one where a person thinks his cns isn't governed by causality.

 

[jadrian]

Suppose you have a pair of entangled photons, you separate them by a great distance, and put each of them through a polarizer. Then if an experimenter just looks at whether the photon next to him goes through the polarizer or not, he will find that it has a 50% chance of going through, regardless of the angle at which the polarizer is turned. And the other experimenter will similarly see a 50-50 result regardless of the polarizer angle. So if you choose to shoot yourself based on whether the photon goes through, you will have a 50-50 chance of shooting yourself. However, if the experimenters each record the results, and then compare the results with each other, they will find a surprising result: even though the individual results seemed random when considered in isolation, when the behavior of the two photons are considered together we get a correlation. But of course to bring the results together and compare them, and thus to discover the nonlocal correlations, requires either that one experimenter visits the other one or that the experimenters communicate the results to each other. Presumably, neither of these can happen faster than light.

youre pretty much proving my point. the info is essentially static until reconciled by the experiment, which will always occur slower than c.

 

[jadrian]

The fact that humans cannot use the nonlocal interactions to send information faster than the speed of light does not say anything special about humans, it says something about the interactions. Bohmians believe that there are absolutely undetectable nonlocal interactions between particles, and it is through the use of these hidden interactions that nonlocal correlations occur. It's as if any pair of particles in the universe is on a secret instantaneous telephone connection, and none of the other particles can overhear that connection. (More precisely, Bohmians believe that just like the electromagnetic field and the gravitational field, there is another field called the quantum potential, which extends all over the universe and exerts a force on each particle, making it do the right thing to produce the nonlocal correlation). Thus neither humans, monkeys, robots, random sets of chemicals, or anything else can find out what the entangled particles are saying to each other.

I don't think you should dismiss Bohmian mechanics so casually. This kind of nonlocal determinism may be a better fit for your belief system, rather than having a conspiratorial interpretation in terms of special initial conditions. If you have questions about the Bohmian intepretation, you can ask Demystifier, our resident Bohmian.

i don't dislike bohmian mechanics, and what you are saying is in concert with my position that reality/existence, is not what is, but what HAPPENS. if the nonlocal stuff cannot have ftl effects on its surroundings then it can be regarded as not existing.

 

[jadrian]

@ lugita15,

The exchange between you and I got a little off track. Which was my fault, and I apologize for not taking the time to sort it out properly. Below I'll comment in reference to an exchange between you and zonde, and hopefully any misunderstanding will be clarified.


I think that there's some step or steps in the LR line of reasoning which then lead(s) to the logically necessary conclusion that the correlation between θ and rate of coincidental detection should be linear. But I don't think it's the prediction of perfect correlation at θ = 0°. After all, QM predicts the same thing as LR at θ = 0°, but wrt all θ the QM and LR correlations are different. So it seems that we can't attribute that difference to the prediction of perfect correlation at θ = 0°.



I already agree with this, and have said so many times in this thread. But you're not then done. This is where the assessment of the necessity of a local superdeterministic model of quantum entanglement begins.


I agree that the answer is no.

Ok, now I disagree.

This is the basis of both the QM and LR treatments, but I would argue that, given this perfect correlation (ideally) at θ = 0°, one is not then forced to believe in a linear correlation wrt all values of θ. After all, the QM treatment leads to a nonlinear correlation wrt all θ.

So, given what we do agree on, wouldn't the first step in assessing the applicability of the concept of superdeterminism wrt generating the simplest and clearest possible understanding of why BIs are violated have to do with identifying any and all points in the LR reasoning which lead to the prediction of a linear correlation between θ and rate of coincidental detection?


Ok, I think I see one source of our misunderstanding. I'm not a local realist. That is, I don't think that a viable LR model of quantum entanglement is possible.

But I am a local determinist. I think that both of these assumptions, locality and determinism, are supported by ample empirical evidence. They seem to be the basis of our everyday navigations through our shared reality. And they seem to be the basis for doing physical (essentially mechanistic) science. As far as I can tell, the assumptions of nonlocality and indeterminism arise, more or less ad hoc, from our inability to make viable LR models of quantum entanglement and our inability to predict certain quantum experimental phenomena.

I'm going to stop here, but will pick up, eventually, where I left off, with a brief exposition of the local deterministic approach to understanding quantum entanglement, and then tying it into the thread question. The focus will eventually be on identifying the precise elements in the standard LR formulation (line of reasoning) which are at odds with what's presumably (according to a local deterministic view) occurring in the underlying reality, and how the encoding of certain elements contrary to that view into an LR formalism, and a Bell inequality, necessarily entails the violation of BIs.

Then the question will be: what, exactly, has been proven, and does our understanding of BI violations necessarily warrant the assumption of superdeterminism in order to maintain a local deterministic view of our universe?

Note: It's important to keep in mind that the formal requirement, local realism, is not equivalent to the philosophical orientation, local determinism. The former having to do with what's required to render a model of quantum entanglement explicitly local or explicitly realistic (without any ad hoc associated nonlocal mechanisms or assumptions), or, as with Bell's formulation, both -- and the latter having to do with assumptions about the way our world is, based on extant empirical observations.

i really like ur posts, and you obviously have one hell of a bat upstairs, which is good to know there's some 150s and 160s leaning towards determinism.

 

[jadrian]

i really like ur posts, and you obviously have one hell of a bat upstairs, which is good to know there's some 150s and 160s leaning towards determinism.

maybe 170s. there's enough people in the world that its probable u will have people with einstein comparable iq/intuition

 

[ThomasT]

i really like ur posts, and you obviously have one hell of a bat upstairs, which is good to know there's some 150s and 160s leaning towards determinism.

You mean like "bats in the belfry"? Hopefully, we can see this through to at least a somewhat satisfying conclusion for everybody. Like, maybe we'll actually clarify something.

EDIT: I should add that there are some quite knowledgeable people who contribute to these sorts of threads. Not the least of which is DrChinese. His website is a great resource.

Also, by the way, I noticed in passing some references to 'free will'. I don't think it has anything to do with any of this. There are subtle considerations, but free will isn't one of them, imho. It's one of those things, like superdeterminism, that can muddy up the real issues.

 

[jadrian]

@ lugita15,

The exchange between you and I got a little off track. Which was my fault, and I apologize for not taking the time to sort it out properly. Below I'll comment in reference to an exchange between you and zonde, and hopefully any misunderstanding will be clarified.


I think that there's some step or steps in the LR line of reasoning which then lead(s) to the logically necessary conclusion that the correlation between θ and rate of coincidental detection should be linear. But I don't think it's the prediction of perfect correlation at θ = 0°. After all, QM predicts the same thing as LR at θ = 0°, but wrt all θ the QM and LR correlations are different. So it seems that we can't attribute that difference to the prediction of perfect correlation at θ = 0°.



I already agree with this, and have said so many times in this thread. But you're not then done. This is where the assessment of the necessity of a local superdeterministic model of quantum entanglement begins.


I agree that the answer is no.

Ok, now I disagree.

This is the basis of both the QM and LR treatments, but I would argue that, given this perfect correlation (ideally) at θ = 0°, one is not then forced to believe in a linear correlation wrt all values of θ. After all, the QM treatment leads to a nonlinear correlation wrt all θ.

So, given what we do agree on, wouldn't the first step in assessing the applicability of the concept of superdeterminism wrt generating the simplest and clearest possible understanding of why BIs are violated have to do with identifying any and all points in the LR reasoning which lead to the prediction of a linear correlation between θ and rate of coincidental detection?


Ok, I think I see one source of our misunderstanding. I'm not a local realist. That is, I don't think that a viable LR model of quantum entanglement is possible.

But I am a local determinist. I think that both of these assumptions, locality and determinism, are supported by ample empirical evidence. They seem to be the basis of our everyday navigations through our shared reality. And they seem to be the basis for doing physical (essentially mechanistic) science. As far as I can tell, the assumptions of nonlocality and indeterminism arise, more or less ad hoc, from our inability to make viable LR models of quantum entanglement and our inability to predict certain quantum experimental phenomena.

I'm going to stop here, but will pick up, eventually, where I left off, with a brief exposition of the local deterministic approach to understanding quantum entanglement, and then tying it into the thread question. The focus will eventually be on identifying the precise elements in the standard LR formulation (line of reasoning) which are at odds with what's presumably (according to a local deterministic view) occurring in the underlying reality, and how the encoding of certain elements contrary to that view into an LR formalism, and a Bell inequality, necessarily entails the violation of BIs.

Then the question will be: what, exactly, has been proven, and does our understanding of BI violations necessarily warrant the assumption of superdeterminism in order to maintain a local deterministic view of our universe?

Note: It's important to keep in mind that the formal requirement, local realism, is not equivalent to the philosophical orientation, local determinism. The former having to do with what's required to render a model of quantum entanglement explicitly local or explicitly realistic (without any ad hoc associated nonlocal mechanisms or assumptions), or, as with Bell's formulation, both -- and the latter having to do with assumptions about the way our world is, based on extant empirical observations.

also want to say i don't think local realism is a necessary platform for determinism.

 

[ThomasT]

also want to say i don't think local realism is a necessary platform for determinism.

Then we agree on that. I'd even go a bit further and say that local realism isn't a necessary platform for local determinism. One is a set of formal requirements (restrictions on formalism), the other is a philosophical orientation based on our experience.

 

[jadrian]

Then we agree on that. I'd even go a bit further and say that local realism isn't a necessary platform for local determinism. One is a set of formal requirements (restrictions on formalism), the other is a philosophical orientation based on our experience.

also as nonlocal interactions will be considered predetermined, i think this is the best way for relativity to reconcile with qm

 

[ThomasT]

also as nonlocal interactions will be considered predetermined, i think this is the best way for relativity to reconcile with qm

This is a bit vague. And I think that QM and SR have already been reconciled in the form of quantum field theory. Which I'm not fluent in.

By the way, I appreciate your posts, but try to stay on topic.

I'm going to go back and read the preceding several pages because it seems that you've had a lot to say. Give me at least 30 minutes. And if there's any point that you'd like to make that you think is important to the thread topic that you haven't already made, then let's hear it.

EDIT: jadrian, my apologies. I recall now that you're the original poster (the OP, which can refer to original poster, or original post).

Well then, perhaps you might synopsize your assessment of the thread thus far ... and we'll take it from there.

 

[jadrian]

Whatever you think of Bell tests, do you think you can reproduce the result of a Bell test using billiard balls? How would you do so?

u can't rule out the possibility of a model that could

 

[jadrian]

This is a bit vague. And I think that QM and SR have already been reconciled in the form of quantum field theory. Which I'm not fluent in.

By the way, I appreciate your posts, but try to stay on topic.

I'm going to go back and read the preceding several pages because it seems that you've had a lot to say. Give me at least 30 minutes. And if there's any point that you'd like to make that you think is important to the thread topic that you haven't already made, then let's hear it.

EDIT: jadrian, my apologies. I recall now that you're the original poster (the OP, which can refer to original poster, or original post).

Well then, perhaps you might synopsize your assessment of the thread thus far ... and we'll take it from there.

wear a poncho its a bit of a ****storm. i learned a lot along the way but its hard for me to blindly accept assertations from someone who thinks he is alive in the traditional sense and believes he chooses his future as if isolated from very basic laws of physics and the universe itself

 

[ThomasT]

wear a poncho its a bit of a storm. i learned a lot along the way but its hard for me to blindly accept assertations from someone who thinks he is alive in the traditional sense and believes he chooses his future as if isolated from very basic laws of physics and the universe itself

Not sure what this means or what it's in response to.

 

[ThomasT]

Whatever you think of Bell tests, do you think you can reproduce the result of a Bell test using billiard balls? How would you do so?

u can't rule out the possibility of a model that could

If you used billiard balls, then it wouldn't be a Bell test. You could model any billiard ball test using classical mechanics.

 

[jadrian]

Not sure what this means or what it's in response to.

dr chineses assertions

 

[ThomasT]

dr chineses assertions

Ah. Ok, still not sure about it. But that's ok. A bit off-topic. Of course it's your topic, so I guess you can swerve a bit now and then, so to speak. Not sure about the rules on that.

Anyway, yeah, I agree that it's generally not a good idea to blindly accept assertions from anybody, though, in my experience, DrC's assertions are generally pretty good. But nevertheless check them out.

 

[jadrian]

Ah. Ok, still not sure about it. But that's ok. A bit off-topic. Of course it's your topic, so I guess you can swerve a bit now and then, so to speak. Not sure about the rules on that.

Anyway, yeah, I agree that it's generally not a good idea to blindly accept assertions from anybody, though, in my experience, DrC's assertions are generally pretty good. But nevertheless check them out.

yeah i didnt understand the part 2 of superdeterminism when i made this thread. i should have just said determinism

 

[metacristi]

from my thinking nonlocality and entanglement are never a problem because in a totally determinstic universe, the information about what is going to be instantaneously tranferred from a to b is already known to the universe. we may not be in block time but the universe acts as if it were. this is the first thing I've come across that agrees with my resolution of instantaneous info transfer.

even tho i personally believe that entanglement is basicly a zero sum static, and it is essentually noneffectual on the universe, just something we have to live with, but does not violate relativity because the information does not have any effect on anything anywhere. why is this not mainstream? do most people want to live in an undetermined future, thinking its closer to free will?

The idea that Nature conspire somehow to produce the results observed in Aspect, Gisin, Zeilinger and so on type of experiments (which do not necessarily involve strong determinism but only the existence of some pre-determinism at Planck level, no counterfactual definiteness in the experiments) is still a solution to the problem no doubt. And it is by no means above science. Unfortunately at this time this program is far from being even remotely close to the alternative programs which accept counterfactual definiteness in the experiments.

But this does not mean that it cannot become progressive in the future. We must remain open to this. In my view this is the best decision at this moment in time, inventing another 'no-go theorem' in this case (extremely shaky anyway) is at least counter-productive (and which could even prove to be an error far worse than von Neumann's 'proof' that hidden variables are impossible). Happily some leading scientists take it seriously, among them t'Hooft:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0104219
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212095
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0105105

 

[lugita15]

@ lugita15,

The exchange between you and I got a little off track. Which was my fault, and I apologize for not taking the time to sort it out properly. Below I'll comment in reference to an exchange between you and zonde, and hopefully any misunderstanding will be clarified.

OK, and I think one thing that leads to misunderstanding is a terminology issue. You're using local determinism to refer to a philosophical stance, while you're using local realism to refer to a particular formal model which tries to implement this philosophical stance. I'm using both local realism and local determinism, pretty much interchangably, to refer to the philosophical stance, not to any formal model or formal constraint. So just keep that in mind when reading my posts.

I think that there's some step or steps in the LR line of reasoning which then lead(s) to the logically necessary conclusion that the correlation between θ and rate of coincidental detection should be linear. But I don't think it's the prediction of perfect correlation at θ = 0°. After all, QM predicts the same thing as LR at θ = 0°, but wrt all θ the QM and LR correlations are different. So it seems that we can't attribute that difference to the prediction of perfect correlation at θ = 0°.

OK, let me try once more to show you how the logic of Bell's theorem forces any local determinist to disagree with at least some of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

1. Pretend you are a local determinist who believes that all the experimental predictions of quantum mechanics is correct.
2. One of these experimental predictions is that entangled photons are perfectly correlated when sent through polarizers oriented at the same angle.
3. From this you conclude that both photons are consulting the same function P(θ). If P(θ)=1, then the photon goes through the polarizer, and if it equals zero the photon does not go through.
4. Another experimental prediction of quantum mechanics is that if the polarizers are set at different angles, the mismatch (i.e. the lack of correlation) between the two photons is a function R(θ) of the relative angle between the polarizers.
5. From this you conclude that the probability that P(-30)≠P(0) is R(30), the probability that P(0)≠P(30) is R(30), and the probability that P(-30)≠P(30) is R(60).
6. It is a mathematical fact that if you have two events A and B, then the probability that at least one of these events occurs (in other words the probability that A or B occurs) is less than or equal to the probability that A occurs plus the probability that B occurs.
7. From this you conclude that the probability that P(-30)≠P(30) is less than or equal to the probability that that P(-30)≠P(0) plus the probability that P(0)≠P(30), or in other words R(60)≤R(30)+R(30)=2R(30).

Which of these steps do you disagree with and why?

I already agree with this, and have said so many times in this thread. But you're not then done. This is where the assessment of the necessity of a local superdeterministic model of quantum entanglement begins.

But you're only agreeing that some particular formal model does not agree with the predictions of QM. In my 7-step argument above, I am trying to prove that ANY believer in local determinism MUST disagree with some of the predictions of QM.

Ok, now I disagree.

This is the basis of both the QM and LR treatments, but I would argue that, given this perfect correlation (ideally) at θ = 0°, one is not then forced to believe in a linear correlation wrt all values of θ. After all, the QM treatment leads to a nonlinear correlation wrt all θ.

The reason that quantum mechanics is able to have both perfect correlation at identical angles and nonlinear correlations as a function of angle is that QM does not say that the decision about whether the photon goes through the polarizer or not is predetermined by a function P(θ). In particular, if one polarizer is turned to -30 degrees and the other polarizer is turned to 30 degrees, quantum mechanics doesn't believe that the photons have a definite polarization at 0 degrees, and thus QM does not believe in P(0) which is essential for the proof above.

Then the question will be: what, exactly, has been proven, and does our understanding of BI violations necessarily warrant the assumption of superdeterminism in order to maintain a local deterministic view of our universe?

Yes, it does. The proof above decisively shows that in any local determinist universe, we must have R(60)≤2R(30). But the way superdeterminism gets around this is by saying that it is impossible to get accurate measurements of R(30) and R(60), because the experiment is rigged: since whatever is controlling the measurement decision interacted in the past with the (ancestors of) the entangled photons, the experimenters are selecting the angles just right (because the particles controlling them know the exact details of the function P(θ) for the entangled pair of photons) so that it appears that R(60)>2R(30).

That's why I said the following to you earlier in this thread:

"So here's another way to put it: An ordinary local realist theory just assumes that particles which are considered entangled according to QM must have had local interactions in the past which is determining their EPR-type nonlocal correlations today. But a local superdeterminist theory assumes that a particle must have interacted in the past with not only those that are entangled with it according to quantum mechanics, but also other particles which quantum mechanics would say have no connection with it. This is how a local superdeterministic theory would be able to produce Bell-type nonlocal correlations."

And again, remember that when I say local realism I mean the philosophical stance you call local determinism.

 

[lugita15]

youre pretty much proving my point. the info is essentially static until reconciled by the experiment, which will always occur slower than c.

Yes, the local information will always show boring 50-50 results, and it's only when you make a slower-than-light comparison of the data that you are able to see the nonlocal correlation.

 

[lugita15]

if the nonlocal stuff cannot have ftl effects on its surroundings then it can be regarded as not existing.

Well, it depends on your terminology. It's as if the faster-than-light stuff has effects, but those effects cannot be discovered until you do slower-than-light communication or travel.