wtf. how is it possible that the particle can communicate ftl with its entangled pair?
that's spooky
wtf. how is it possible that the particle can communicate ftl with its entangled pair? that's spooky
wtf. how is it possible that the particle can communicate ftl with its entangled pair?
that's spooky
this only works for binary outcomes. this theory is not consistent beyond that.
quantum entanglement cannot be explained by classical physics analogies.
the particles didn't have predefined states before being measured at either end. like being green or red.
or if they did, they 'knew' how they would be measured.
the only possible explanations are:
1. einstein's spooky action
2. bell's superdeterminism
3. everett's many worlds
4. ??
no anon, what Gell-Mann writes in that screenshot is the quantum-mechanical interpretation called Consistent Histories. you would notice that if you read the words “branch of history”. clearly that is not a classical notion.
the issue you’re having is that Gell-Mann’s explanation of this is so sensible and not woo-wooish that you don’t even recognize it as a valid interpretation of QM. however, Gell-Mann was one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century and fully understood the quantum mechanical (and quantum field theoretical) stuff so unfortunately it seems you’re the one who isn’t understanding things here
That was written before all the loopholes in Bells were closed in 2010. It's irrelevant now.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00294.pdf
The public continues to completely not understand, arguably including most physicists, anything about any of that. Sufficed to say: LOL no. Reading some of the history behind the real debate and how it has been twisted in the public would help immensely.
>The implication makes me feel icky therefore it has to be wrong
Truly, the best of scientists you are.
>quantum entanglement cannot be explained by classical physics analogies.
The Schroedinger's equation is classical. Schroedinger derived it classically.
https://web.physics.utah.edu/~lebohec/ScaleRelativity/Papers/1966_ENelson_Derivation_of_SchrodEq_from_NewtMech.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/%28SICI%291521-3978%28199811%2946%3A6/8%3C889%3A%3AAID-PROP889%3E3.0.CO%3B2-Z
>Original white paper from 1966
Based, i didn't even finish reading first page and i already see like 10 major points stated and defined. Modern word salad papers literally can't even compete, we should publish white papers only after atleast 50 years passed and it hasn't been debunked yet, it's the absolute filter.
ok.. but that doesn't explain anything. its a generalisation of the copenhagen interpretation
it's just rewording what was already known. namely that once you make a measurement of one particle (ie up spin), the other one is the opposite (down spin).
this thread is about the explanation anon. Consistent histories does not attempt to explain anything.
its just a description
>"the proposition {displaystyle P_{i,1}}P_{{i,1}} is true at time {displaystyle t_{i,1}}t_{{i,1}} and then the proposition {displaystyle P_{i,2}}P_{{i,2}} is true at time {displaystyle t_{i,2}}t_{{i,2}} and then {displaystyle ldots }ldots ".
it doesn't explain why the other particle has down spin regardless of what measuring direction the other observer chose
>its a generalisation of the copenhagen interpretation
this is absolutely a false characterization of Consistent Histories. the original formulation by Hartle and Gell-Mann is absolutely not this and is in many ways closer to Many Worlds. but less woo-woo in significant ways.
the problem i think is that you probably read Wikipedia and you trust them. let me assure you though, and this guy
that the author of the screenshot was Murray Gell-Mann who won the Nobel Prize for the Eightfold Way of hadron physics, postulating the existence the quarks, and had many other contributions including naming the theory “Quantum Chromodynamics”. so read what he says carefully and maybe you will learn something
the spergs who write bad Wikipedia articles butchering the original literature are not authorities here on what Consistent Histories actually is. Gell-Mann is though, and also Hartle. they created it. and if you read what they say it dispels all the woo. if you go and look it up on Wiki though you find second-rate bullshit sources who clearly muddied the waters with this “reformulation of Copenhagen” nonsense which is patently false and anyone who reads the original sources can PLAINLY see it even if you are sub-undergrad educated (which I am not, I have a PhD)
You're fighting the good fight with the same rage I always have. People never go read the original sources or literature, and I am in 100% agreement with you as to the state of wikipedia. Frick those people and frick people who don't fricking read.
You might want to listen to this guy and it is clearly supported by the actual evidence, rather than the wishful thinking the con men give to the media to report for clicks and views.
>it is clearly supported by the actual evidence
It's supported by the musings of pseuds who cannot countanance the fact that the nature of reality is outside your intellectual grasp and cannot be reduced to mathematical abstraction and quantification.
Author is obviously a moron. Bells Theorem showed that there are no hidden variables and hidden variables had been assumed to be the reason behind why entanglement works. No hidden variables means QM works much differently than what we thought.
It should be noted here that there is a difference between how we model QM mathematically and how QM actually works in reality. The author is asserting because the math wasn't changed that it's a nothingburger, but obviously our understanding of QM changed from the point of view that the math wasn't abstracting what we originally thought it was.
His analogy doesn't even work because the sock could be either green or pink before you view it. He's literally spouting the same shit that Bell DISPROVED. The trouser leg covers the sock and he's assuming the sock is ALREADY pink or green behind it but that's not how it works, the sock has no determinate color at all until you see it. The whole point is that it was assumed that there was something that determines the sock color before we see it, but that theory is wrong.
Strong bugman vibes here.
>Bells Theorem showed that there are no hidden variables and hidden variables had been assumed to be the reason behind why entanglement works.
That isn't what Bell showed. Experiment has not shown that either. And now I have to link the same fricking video the wrong anon above linked. Frick sake you people.
>That isn't what Bell showed
It literally is.
>Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely-related results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local hidden-variable theories. The "local" in this case refers to the principle of locality, the idea that a particle can only be influenced by its immediate surroundings, and that interactions mediated by physical fields can only occur at speeds no greater than the speed of light. "Hidden variables" are hypothetical properties possessed by quantum particles, properties that are undetectable but still affect the outcome of experiments.
His analogy is wrong. Also you video talks about "superdeterminism" which is also wrong.
You clearly never watched it. As explained therein, statistical independence can be violated and we already know that it is. The result you get depends on what you are measuring, and what you are measuring requires an interaction that necessarily changes the thing being measured. "No shit sherlock". Bell does not apply here.
>its what you WILL measure. which is what superdeterminism is about if you believe it.
This is simply false, and conflating "superdeterminism" with "determinism" like the people strawmanning it. Like most things in QM it is yet another in a long line of badly coined terms that doesn't mean what people think it means.
As clearly explained in the video, it is merely the fact statistical independence is violated. This is obviously shown to be true in virtually all of these experiments, because measuring a particle requires interacting with it which will in some way change the energy the particle has. You cannot have statistical independence in an experiment when you can only measure the result of an experiment if you've interacted with the thing measured, AND doing so changes what the thing does as a result.
Having an abstract notion of statistical independence does not mean it is true in reality, and that is where hidden variables come in. There is no causality violation going on there, nor is the behavior of what happens the result of what you would've done in future. That's stupid.
>You clearly never watched it
Why would I? Superdeterminism is clearly false. You're like a dumbass flat earther demanding I watch your shit.
You're reifying mathematical abstraction. Classic mistake. Mathematics can only abstract and predict outcomes, it's not a physical description of what is occurring.
No I'm in agreement with experimental evidence that Barton Gellman, noted by the other anon, also explained in plain English. Your ignorance is not my problem.
Fricking thanks autocorrect. Obviously meant Murray Gell-Mann. Not sure how the frick that happened. Frick sake.
Experimental evidence does not prove Superdeterminism you moron. It's an explanatory framework to try and dismiss the ramifactions of Bells Theorem. It doesn't even make sense and is philosophically incoherent. It destroys science as an enterprise.
No counterfactual = no science. Simple as that.
Your ignorance is not some failing of superdeterminism. The evidence never has evidenced anything BUT. That's the problem you idiots have, and why you seethe so hard over it.
We can just say superdeterminism is wrong. No fuss, no muss and it doesn't require us to take incoherent positions that would completely undermine and destroy our fundamental epistemology. The fact that Swedish roastie youtuber doesn't understand epistemology is not a point of evidence in your favor.
Yeah toddlers throw tantrums and lack arguments. Not surprising. Thanks for conceding.
>Hey dude if you accept this position it leads to a logical contradiction that undermines your knowledge
>wtf stop throwing tatrums I'm obviously right reeeee
Yeah I think I know who the toddler is.
>Hey dude if you accept this position it leads to a logical contradiction that undermines your knowledge
Not a contradiction, you're just wrong. Rather than accept this and go learn why, you'd rather continue to show you don't have an argument. You do you I guess, but we'll be laughing at you.
I don't blame you for being obstinate. You were superdetermined to accept such a ridiculous position. Can you provide a better answer than the youtuber who shrugs and dodges the issue by saying that "we're not quantum particles so it doesn't matter". She's being deliberately intellectually disingenuous, particularly when she shows examples of her intellectual superiors citing it as a big problem with the theory.
>Continues to throw philosophy tantrums about a label he doesn't understand.
Your willful ignorance continues to not be my problem anon. I'm sure someone cares but I don't.
>The logical ramifications of my positions don't affect me because...They just don't ok
Bruh. Use your brain.
Your misunderstanding is not a problem for the theory. Feel free to stop being willfully ignorant and go learn instead.
>misunderstanding
I've literally seen nothing but copes about how everything being absolutely determined on the most fundamental level of reality wouldn't affect the freedom of choice of beings constructed from those particles because...reasons.
>destroy our fundamental epistemology.
That's wrong, by the way, but don't let me stop you being so hilariously ignorant.
>nothingburger
Frick off zoomer.
>Bells Theorem showed that there are no hidden variables
No. You are omitting alot. Bells theorem is about causality, free will, and hidden variables. Bells theorem uses the idea that humans have free will to prove that QM phenomena is acausal. There's stuff in there too about hidden variables, but excluding the other two is misrepresenting Bells work. If he were actually able to make a statistical equation that proved the absence of hidden variables that would be cool, but he didn't. It much more existential, philosophical and metaphysical than that
This.
Tired of the copers, and you just know it's all because of free will fears. What is so bad about having no free will? Don't you watch TV and movies n shit all day long? It's the same thing. A first person movie.
And the infuriating part to me is the public is convinced QM is nonsense, cannot be made sense of, because they falsely have been taught it somehow violates logic or causality due to this "acausal" nonsense.
So as explained here
, what the physicists have been fighting against all this time is the far simpler explanation that Einstein was right. It is determined, but not determined in a way we ordinarily see in the macro world after interactions of energy.
The entire field of QM outside people criticizing the "flapdoodle" has had its head up its ass for decades trying to find any solution other than testing the obvious one. So they lie about superdeterminism instead, because they philosophically believe in Bells position that has nothing to fricking do with it.
>QM somehow violates causality
QM canonically violates causality. Read Nature. Literally any issue for the past 20 years, atleast.
Okay, since you don't believe I follow the literature go ahead and post an example. We'll go over it. Post your best example proving QM totally violates causality.
And with the caveat: You cannot do so by an experiment where a prior interaction (as required for entanglement) would make it indistinguishable from a change to the hidden variables due to that interaction. Obviously.
>the hidden variables
there are canonically no hidden variables in QM.
Yeah thought not. Thanks for conceding by showing you have nothing.
>Yeah thought not. Thanks for conceding by showing you have nothing.
you are asking me to do something impossible. you are asking for peer reviewed evidence for hidden variables and causality in QM. There is none. QM is by definition acausal and without hidden variables.
Further showing your failure to read. The problem lies within that definition of that kind of model, due to assuming a false axiom. So replying to me as you have, when I support testing a different set of axioms instead, is pure stupidity.
>when I support testing a different set of axioms instead, is pure stupidity.
I agree. You don't believe in QM. You have your own theory that should never be confused with QM.
You don't get to call a set of paradoxical incomplete assumptions that do not match reality "the only real quantum mechanics". Pure trolling.
>You don't get to call a set of paradoxical incomplete assumptions that do not match reality "the only real quantum mechanics"
no. I don't. But Heisenberg, Bohr, Neumann, Schrodinger, Nature, Science, and Physics does. your beliefs have nothing to do with QM.
Yeah, they do. You don't know how language works. My not sharing your exact definition does not require nor necessitate a different label when it maps to the same domain. You can "want" that, but tough shit.
>My not sharing your exact definition
it's hardly a trivial difference. You are contradicting 50 years of settled science. You believe QM is classical, which it is not.
The explanation given is not strictly classical. Classical interactions do not have bodies whose properties are indeterminate at low energy states. You're just ignoring everything written. Nor is the "science settled". The science is incomplete. Your ignorance of something so basic, of the inductive nature of science, is not my problem.
>The explanation given is not strictly classical.
yes it is. you don't believe in QM. you believe the atom is fundamentally classical. You reject QM and embrace classical physic, despite the mountain of development and evidence for the past 50 years, but you just don't want to admit it.
>Strawmanning continues
Sure bud keep telling me what I think without defining terms, that totally helps your case.
>without defining terms
im not playing semantics with you. You contradict 50 years of established QM. please, stop propagating your stupid beliefs and calling it QM. Science doesn't need your disinfo.
You are playing semantics, just trolling while doing so. Given all I have to do is point that out... kind of a shitty low IQ troll.
Sadly nobody has really argued a case except the side in support of a superdeterminism set of axioms. Absolutely nobody has engaged in that conversation, just people thinking they're getting someone to "fall for" low effort trolling.
>despite the mountain of development and evidence for the past 50 years
Hahaha oh wow, aka nothing with 0 evidence.
The only evidence is math and whatever projecting you're making on the same theory with another theory with another math, it's completely artificial and i hope GOV cuts funding once again to these parasites.
...To be fair a lot of physics experiments have been useful, they just remain entirely without an answer to the broad philosophical position on the interpretation of those experiments. We could not have known this would be the case except in hindsight, so my position is I think a fair one. "It's time to test something else".
Read what actual QUANTUM MECHANICS is dipshit.
Read actual words said by schrodinger or einstein. Wave function was developed from classical theory as easier version to AVERAGE the data because of lacks of PRECISION. All this probability theories were made based on CLASSICAL theories that weren't usable because we don't have enough MEASURING PRECISION, they're made as a way to AVERAGE certain events and predict the most possible outcome.
If we ever solve measurement problem, we can return to actual evident theories because we have enough data to use them on.
All you fricking academia larpers are complete cancer because you base it all off few popsci youtubers that know frick all, then you continue spreading this non sense interpretation on the internet, you give bad reputation to the actual theories fricking morons.
I bet you don't even know where the electron clouds in wave function equation ACTUALLY come from and WHY they are like that you fricking quantum soibois,
Lol damn you have some pent up frustration. You a physics student who has to explain this to his friends every single time? I know those feels.
>Read actual words said by schrodinger or einstein
I have. they don't agree BTW.
Pal you're not actually fooling anyone. We all know you're zero-effort shitposting.
>Pal you're not actually fooling anyone
I'm not the one who thinks Einstein and Schrodinger agreed on anything.
i think what you’re arguing for, without realizing it, is called the “statistical interpretation” of quantum mechanics. it exists and is particularly popular in only one place I know of: PhysicsForums (where nobody actually has a degree lol)
the statistical interpretation definitely has trouble with bell inequalities and usually falls into the pit of other hidden variable theories. but it is kind of a nice interpretation if you ignore that—more or less it says QM is just an approximate theory we got similar to statistical mechanics.
‘t Hooft’s “cellular automata interpretation” is sort of an attempt to revive this, but in light of Bell inequality violation he falls back on superdeterminism
NTA. As the one who was attempting engagement on the superdeterminism topic, I do not think the popularity of attempted alternatives (irrespective of Bell) outside phsyics departments is necessarily a bad thing. The bad thing is the monoculture such departments develop around a philosophical set of assumptions that remain untested, and unchallenged, and persist due to cultural momentum within a given field. Those are very bad for progress, especially when the axioms remain as unsupported as any other set of axioms.
well, if i read you correctly i guess you are saying you appreciate that other ideas like superdeterminism have a following but they seem not to be mainstream in physics departments which you think is bad.
well for one, ‘t Hooft is still certainly in a physics department and is still respected despite his unorthodox views. similarly, Penrose still pushes his various alternate interpretations (“gravity causes collapse” interpretation among other spitballs he’s chucked). granted they are old but they’re not shunned entirely.
i think there is nothing really harmful going on here though. and what i think is going on with why certain interpretations seem to be “dominant” is that certain interpretations are actually useful for thinking about problems whereas others are useless. for example, Consistent Histories was developed by Gell-Mann and Hartle mostly because Hartle was working on quantum cosmology (i.e. applying quantum mechanics to the big bang or the very early universe) where for example Copenhagen is useless. (who was the “observer” taking measurements on the universe when it was 3 nanoseconds old?) a professor I worked with, when i grilled him on it, admitted that he and most people in black hole physics use the Many Worlds interpretation. it at least gives you something to work with. OTOH, copenhagen gives you “shut up and calculate” which is just nothing, and superdeterminism gives you “it is all a carefully planned out script that is beyond comprehension and even your thoughts right now are a part of this script. no use trying to figure me out!” which is just confounding and counter-productive.
so more or less i think the reason certain interpretations are more dominant in physics departments is that they are more useful for use in practice. i think Consistent Histories is easily the most useful but that’s just my opinion, though i think it is clear that “shut up and calculate” is pretty fricking unhelpful
Can you explain consistent histories in a way that makes intuitive sense? It always just seemed like people who don't want to believe in MWI because it's "too weird" or whatever, taking ideas from it and then turning around and saying "well but actually this is just a model for how things work and doesn't actually correspond to anything real", i.e. it's the same cop out as "shut up and calculate". Am I wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories
>In the opinion of others[5] this still does not make a complete theory as no predictions are possible about which set of consistent histories will actually occur. In other words, the rules of consistent histories, the Hilbert space, and the Hamiltonian must be supplemented by a set selection rule. However, Robert B. Griffiths holds the opinion that asking the question of which set of histories will "actually occur" is a misinterpretation of the theory;[6] histories are a tool for description of reality, not separate alternate realities.
So it doesn't actually say anything meaningful about QM then. As conscious agents we experience one history, obviously we should be interested in asking which set of histories actually occur. MWI assumes that they all occur, but this theory just dodges the question by saying it's not applicable, whatever that means.
>It thus becomes possible to demonstrate formally why it is that the properties which J. S. Bell assumed could be combined, cannot.
Because... because they just can't, okay?
I think the problem you're having is believing that there has been, in fact, a definitive evidentiary case for any interpretation. Every interpretation is a sort of cognitive lens or tool, so far, to mentally "make sense" of experiment regarding the nature of a thing we cannot get direct access to (since interacting with it changes the damn thing). Consistent histories is one such cognitive tool, copenhagen is another (rather a collection of from many different authors), etc. It seriously has gotten super lost in all the clickbait and pre-internet media must-sell-papers hype
i think the Wikipedia article on Consistent Histories (CH) is just bad. my understanding of CH is based on the seminal works of Hartle and Gell-Mann. but for some reason, maybe it is that CH got highjacked in the physics literature by other physicists who went in another direction, or maybe more likely the Wikipedia editors just suck, the Wiki article seems to not at all align with my understanding of the original Gell-Mann/Hartle version of CH.
if i had to explain CH to my grandmother, i would use a Gell-Mann example to start. there are certain minerals, i think Agate is the one Murray said, where if you dig a block of it out of the earth, you see spindle-like lines going through it. based on some good research we know that these lines were caused by cosmic rays passing through the Agate. an unstable particle passed through this rock millions of years ago and left a track.
did this track exist in the rock before i dug it up and looked at it? did my looking at it collapse some wave function or split the entire universe?
in CH the answer is much more mundane: the track was made (or not made) at the exact moment the particle passed through the rock. if the particle had a quantum probability of decaying before it met the rock, then that is accounted for in CH by a “branching” of histories that occurs while the particle has a chance of decaying or interacting with the rock. the “quantum” aspect is merely that several branches of history are spawned during those interactions. long after that is said and done, we observers look back at the results and we can see the results of a certain branching. nothing about when we measured the thing is relevant; we were set on a certain branch randomly right when the particles that interacted caused a branching event
My memory on that comports with yours but one minor quibble: I am pretty sure along with many-worlds there is not some serious advancement of instantiation, but rather that is a metaphor of the probability of whether the given one we see would have instantiated.
Am I misremembering? I need to go dig up some of those papers again I suppose.
i don’t understand your question, sorry. could you make it more grandmother-tier for me?
MWI is much more ambiguous in how it describes when different “worlds” form. in fact i think the Everett version is much more focused on subjective perceptions. like this nonsense about “quantum suicide”. CH is much more “naturalistic” in the sense that branching happens at the level of natural particle phenomena and none of this woo “consciousness” shit enters.
i bet there are versions of MWI that are more close to CH but unfortunately MWI has a history of being tied in with a Copenhagen-esque “observer”-centrism which the original CH and my understanding of it renders moot
i think another way to think of this idea is that in CH, decoherence comes during interaction processes objectively and without reference to observers. in MWI it is not clear to what degree decoherence depends on “observation”
>i don’t understand your question, sorry. could you make it more grandmother-tier for me?
Sorry, I was using philosophy jargon. Where instantiation would be "an actual reality", rather than "a potential reality". I seem to recall basically all of these are, like the "idea as tool" thing, originally premised on thought experiment for illustration and not at all a serious proposition "an actual reality thus exists".
It isn't a big deal I really should go back at some point and re-read my collection of some of these seminal books or papers. It's just more than a bit demotivating that nobody seems to care, so I keep putting it off.
In any case thanks for having some conversation. I want more people like you to be able to participate and have genuine dialogue. IQfy especially needs people willing to ignore the trolls and persist. I'm just usually not good at encouraging it due to my identical interest of "hey I have these thoughts I want to explore these thoughts wait why'd you leave". One would think that would get better over time, with advanced age, but it never does.
Hmm, okay. My understanding of MWI, and the formulation of it that I find plausible, doesn't have anything to do with consciousness, in fact it's the exact opposite of that. It's simply the idea that the effects of quantum superposition don't magically disappear at the macro scale. The appearance of wave function collapse (e.g. "events having only one outcome") is an extra concept that has to be added in order to appease our conscious experience and the intuition that there can only be one "true" (whatever "true" means) history. If we disregard consciousness, MWI becomes the simplest explanation. "Worlds" do not have exactly defined boundaries, nor is there an exact moment when a world "splits". It only appears this way to us because whatever mechanism operates consciousness operates on a much larger scale in terms of both space in time such that we only ever experience one blob of wave function amplitude at a time. tl;dr my idea of MWI sounds basically the same as your idea of CH.
>the effects of quantum superposition don't magically disappear at the macro scale. The appearance of wave function collapse (e.g. "events having only one outcome") is an extra concept that has to be added in order to appease our conscious experience and the intuition that there can only be one "true" (whatever "true" means) history.
i fear what you are saying here is going out on poetic license.
the simple fact of being a sane adult is that there is only one (1) real reality. i’m sorry but there isn’t gonna be a situation we agree upon where the Moon was both Full last night and it was also Crescent last night. we won’t agree on that because it could not have been both at once. Full moon and Crescent moon are mutually exclusive and resolving absolute conflicts like that is an unambiguous goal of science
i find it abhorrent, tbh, when people question basic rationality like this. honestly where did you get this shit from?
>the simple fact of being a sane adult is that there is only one (1) real reality
Yes, one real reality which contains both superpositions. How do you feel about relativity? Don't you find it equally strange that if you went really fast, time would flow at a different rate? That violates just about every naive intuition about how reality must work, nevertheless most people are willing to accept it because... why? I think that it's because that's how relativity was historically formulated, and people get taught by authoritative sources that it is objectively real. You don't have people saying "well, time dilation is just a tool that helps us model motion at high speeds, it's not actually something that uh, like, actually, really happens". The historical process seems to have been "well if we do the calculations this way shit matches up" => "hmm that suggests time must flow at a different rate" => "if you could actually experience going really fast (which you can't), you'd actually experience time dilation". Imagine that QM had been the same way: "well if we do the calculations this way shit matches up" => "hmm that suggests multiple configurations of particles must exist on top of one another" => "if you could actually experience interacting with more than one of these configurations (which you can't), you'd be able to experience a situation where the Moon is in multiple states". Is that really so different from the case with relativity? Both cases involve assuming that some weird shit would happen, if you could do something you can't actually do. But in the QM case for some reason people say "well that would be weird, so let's just say it's a model and not actually real". But the reason they say this is mostly historical - it would be much simpler to just say "yeah it's weird, but that's what the numbers suggest so baring any new evidence that's what's probably true".
relativity in no way implies that there is more than 1 (one) real reality. if only says that there are multiple ways that look different depending on frames of reference, in terms of location and lorentz boost, but in fact are equivalent in their description of the one (1) real reality which are equivalent of you account for observer-dependent coordinate frames.
Not that anon, but the MWI-like consistent histories is similar. There is one universal wavefunction and the different frames of reference are nothing other than the different possible decoherent histories.
MWI doesn't imply more than one reality either. There's one deterministic reality, with wave function amplitudes as its fundamental ontological unit. This fabric of reality is able to represent multiple configurations of parameters/particles/whatever, and as conscious entities we're only able to experience a single configurations at any given time. This doesn't mean there's more than one World, it just means our intuition of what constitutes a world ought to be scaled up to include other configurations. I don't really see this as any more or less counter intuitive than the idea that time and space warp and bend around heavy objects, or that the rate of time isn't constant.
>in CH the answer is much more mundane: the track was made (or not made) at the exact moment the particle passed through the rock. if the particle had a quantum probability of decaying before it met the rock, then that is accounted for in CH by a “branching” of histories that occurs while the particle has a chance of decaying or interacting with the rock. the “quantum” aspect is merely that several branches of history are spawned during those interactions. long after that is said and done, we observers look back at the results and we can see the results of a certain branching. nothing about when we measured the thing is relevant; we were set on a certain branch randomly right when the particles that interacted caused a branching event
How is that different than many worlds? It sounds the exact same to me.
I am aware of the variation of interpretations as thinking tools, yes, but there is a greater issue when the public mistakes the paradigm abstractions for "the ontology of the thing". I think we agree more than you might expect, but my interest is not in the agreement inasmuch the problems I believe that I see.
What I am getting at more deeply is that it is entirely possible to satisfy some descriptions of the thing, where the analysis tool could better align with all of the field local interpretations (as you mentioned many-worlds), with superdeterminism. That the state of the wave functions are determined from moment of interaction by the kind of interaction, I think, resolves in each case an explanation that is coherent without logical contradiction and without "shut up and calculate". Not only for the professionals, but for the public.
The single biggest break you have with the public, and with the very few who are thinking more correctly as you appear to be (the ideas as tools or lenses thing), are the paradoxes that purportedly arise with experiments that do not actually show a paradox unless one assumes one of these paradigms. It is the persistent advocacy of those paradigms that require acausality, or that require FTL, and their advocates proclaiming evidence from experiments not evidencing them, that I "take grave issue with".
Instrumentalism aside and on to ontology though, I think there are potential experiments that could indicate such things by negation even if we do not have direct access to that "black box". The problem I have is the total lack of interest in that pursuit because the inductive exercise of negation and exclusion is not going to impress the administrators. This is not some conspiracy I am advancing or anything, merely that the banal facts interpreted in a logically coherent fashion free from paradox is disappointing after all the hype.
And yes I do have my sympathies with Gell-Mann, which is what put me on this road.
Bells Theorem has nothing to do with free will whatsoever. It's pure math
>Bells Theorem has nothing to do with free will whatsoever. It's pure math
Ask me how I now you've never read Bells work. Yes, it does. It's how Bell waives away conditional probability. He assumes the person making the settings transcends all laws of probability. Sabine did an entire video on it for lay morons like you.
What a Bell-end.
No, that anon is completely correct.
> He assumes the person making the settings transcends all laws of probability
There is no such assumption
>There is no such assumption
Yes there is. did you even watch the YouTube video tailored to your IQ level? The reality is that the Bell type experiments are all statistically dependent systems with no causal dependence. To get ride of the pesky conditional probability Bell invokes his "free will" assumption. Bells inequality is predicated on metaphysical, philosophical, theological precepts not just stats and math.
>Bells inequality is predicated on metaphysical, philosophical, theological precepts not just stats and math.
Try making the trolling less obvious next time
>Try making the trolling less obvious next time
How do you categorize Bells "free will assumption?". Is it science or math? Free will isn't a testable hypothesis so it isn't science. It isn't in the domain of numbers so it isn't math. How do you categorize it?
It is the following assumption. If X is the space of hidden variables, D:X -> Y is the detector setting as a function of X, S: X -> H is the particle state as a function of X and P is the probability distribution on X which is averaged over in order to predict the probabilities of the results of the experiment, then D and S are independent variables with respect to the probability distribution P.
You are not making any sense
>D and S are independent variables
Can you prove that without the free will assumption? That's the point, moron. You are just reiterating the issue. You didn't add anything.
Sure if you give me some concrete model which allows me to calculate the functions X and S. It's only assumed because it's reasonable to assume it you absolute brainlet.
*I mean D and S, not X and S. Anyway, talking to you will kill my braincells so frick off.
>Sure if you give me some concrete model which allows me to calculate the functions X and S.
Why not use the model of the experiment Bell came up with? The one with the two polarizers and detectors. BTW, you just admitted you made the assumption of free will on the fly without any real justification.
> It's only assumed because it's reasonable to assume it you absolute brainlet.
No. It's not.
Stop replying, clown. I'm not interested in teaching you Bell's theorem.
>Stop replying, clown. I'm not interested in teaching you Bell's theorem
I already know it, and i know there is no reason to assume statistical independence under the metaphysical presupposition of human free will.
You didn't even know that it could be mathematically formulated and thought it was theological. Lmao. Take your meds, stupid schizo.
>You didn't even know that it could be mathematically formulated
What are you even talking about? Of course math and stats are involved in the derivation for Bell's inequality, but logically his derivation go no where if Bell were to obey bayesian probability. Bell gets around his trouble with conditional probability by declaring statistical independence, but can only justify that assumption with a vague metaphysical argument about the experimenter possessing free will. For the billionth time, did you watch the Sabine YouTube video? It covers everything and gives ample citations.
I'm too intelligent for you, clown.
>I'm too intelligent for you, clown
And why is that? Do you have any insight into human free will that can prove it one way or the other or are you confusing your blind adherence to the Science Narrative with intelligence?
Free will is scientifically proven already. See Bell.
>Free will is scientifically proven already. See Bell.
Exactly how did Bell prove humans have free will?
Is the free will assumption statistic? No. It violates bayesian probability, so it's not statistics.
What a moronic video, of course the most moronic reason is determined, obviously hidden variables btfo etc etc.
It's just photons poralization gets rotated each time it passed through the plate, with hard limit of 90 degrees. I don't care that they don't agree with it, it's the easier explanation and btfos their fairy tales muh quantum phenomenas. Classical all the way.
Common misunderstanding because woo clickbait makes money so journalists have all incentive to keep lying.
If you are sent a letter with two possibilities, red and blue, opening the letter and knowing the color of the other one by inference... is not spooky nor "ftl" in some meaningful way. Sabine uses this example and it's a perfect one.
see
You're simply wrong and need to rewatch your own fricking linked video.
What a quantum particle does depends on what you measure. By definition, measurement requires interaction. That is not weird, that is not "spooky", and you are 100% wrong about a simple fricking english explanation jesus christ
>What a quantum particle does depends on what you measure.
yes, nobody ever said anything on the contrary
you're mistaken.
>depends on what you measure
its what you WILL measure. which is what superdeterminism is about if you believe it.
how does a photon know to not go through both slits, considering that the measuring device is past the slit?
surely the particle must've already made up its mind after having crossed the barrier, which doesn't seem to be the case. it made up its mind before crossing.
Why downplay to avoid the truth:
Every event has already happened. It is that simple.
>Every event has already happened. It is that simple.
It's time to stop being pseud and just go write fantasy books, i'm pretty sure the readers will be fine with your writing this non-sensical argument-less claims that all equal to "Earth is flat, it is that simple." But please leave science because there is no room for that kind of empty talk that only creates confusion and pointless drama. Show me the evidence or walk away. Don't waste everyones time with your or someones "claims"
That isn't me, galaxy brain. It's one of you samegayging like a moronic theist because you don't have any arguments.
Yeah no shit the conversation turned into some autists fighting eachother, almost impossible to read through this BS
Don't be scared, homie. Free will doesn't exist. Give up the fantasy.
maybe matter exists in multiple dimensions, one of which folds to join at entangled particles
but a youtuber can't be wrong bro just listen to the youtuber bro what do you mean that's not how this works
>Hossenfelder
Are people still actually following this pseud? Superdeterminism is not a scientific theory. Bad start when you've got that shill on your side.
>In their paper, Hossenfelder and Palmer dismiss this example as merely classical reasoning that is not applicable to quantum mechanics. It’s not. One can always use the law of total probability to introduce a hidden variable to explain away any correlation, whether it was observed in classical or quantum contexts. Moreover, they claim that while is plausible in classical contexts, it shouldn’t be assumed in quantum contexts. This is laughable. I find it perfectly conceivable that tobacco companies would engage in conspiracies to fake results related to smoking and cancer, but to think that Nature would engage in a conspiracy to fake the results of Bell tests? Come on.
https://mateusaraujo.info/2019/12/17/superdeterminism-is-unscientific/
>Making up a ridiculous strawman
Yeah that does sound stupid. Thankfully nobody believes that. Except apparently you.
>if you believe in superdeterminism then you accept that every [bla bla bla let me tell you what you believe]
Nope don't believe any of that. Not miracles. Want to try again?
It might help if you tried asking people what they think, rather than telling them what they think.
It is, and the video incorrectly explains the experiment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl6DyYqPKME
It's not a strawman. You don't get to pick and choose when statistical independence applies. It either does or doesn't. The issue is Hossenfelder wants to claim that statistical independence doesn't exist on some scales but does on others, but things don't work like that baby.
>The issue is Hossenfelder wants to claim that statistical independence doesn't exist on some scales but does on others, but things don't work like that baby.
That is literally exactly how it works. Things are always interacting and therefore on a macro scale you don't get statistical independence problems you would absent interaction. That same thing is why interaction, changing what was measured because it changed the energy of the system, is the answer.
You declare a thing can't happen that is perfectly explained by the thing you're claiming doesn't explain it. Yes, you are fricking stupid.
>That is literally exactly how it works.
So basically just arbitrarily claim that statistical independence doesn't apply to this specific case and call it a day. Unscientific theory. Case closed.
so your eminent erudition on the philosophy of quantum mechanics boils down to a link to a youtube video?
let me just ask you then how you respond to the idea of superdeterminism, since you seem to be defending it. do you agree that in a super deterministic world that observers named Alice and Bob, who in normal interpretations are assumed to be able to have a “choice” in how to measure things like e.g.entangled particles , actually in the superdeterministic framework are predetermined in what choices they make, and only hold a mental illusion of free will in their measurement choices?
this cuts to the heart of superdeterminism. and if you agree our choices are predetermined then a whole avalanche of “everything science thought was true is just the dictate of the superdeterministic power” ensues fyi
>let me just ask you then how you respond to the idea of superdeterminism, since you seem to be defending it. do you agree that in a super deterministic world that observers named Alice and Bob, who in normal interpretations are assumed to be able to have a “choice” in how to measure things like e.g.entangled particles , actually in the superdeterministic framework are predetermined in what choices they make, and only hold a mental illusion of free will in their measurement choices?
No. The only thing violated is statistical independence, which is violated by the fact measuring energy at that scale inherently must change the energy. It is by interaction only. That stupid thought experiment has nothing to do with anything based on a truly insane misunderstanding of EPRB. See also
.
You need to get this straight: The measurement **does not** cause another particle to **after the fact** change. Absurd thought experiments you bring up about Alice and Bob are built on a misunderstanding about entanglement based in fantasy, not fact.
It really is as simple as "Knowing one color allows inference to the other". Everything else has been a game of chinese telephone. There is no "ftl signal" or any other nonsense your hypothetical supposedly attempts to solve. "Superdeterminism" does not have anything to do with some ontology of determinism except in that the hidden variables are local and deterministic based on those hidden variables. Which are only hidden because you can only discover what the color of that other sick is once you measure one of the socks.
>You need to get this straight: The measurement **does not** cause another particle to **after the fact** change
Bells Theorem says pretty clearly it does. No hidden variables mean they're in superposition and it's only after measurement they collapse into a determinate state. You're trying to get around proven science by piecing together ad hoc claims about how statistical independence works here but not here because you want it to be the case. That's pseudoscience.
>Bells Theorem says pretty clearly it does.
And superdeterminism is an exception to Bell's theorem where it doesn't have to. Durrrrrrrr almost like I keep telling you morons to stop assuming things you don't know. Almost like you've got a strawman idea of what things are that don't match what they actually are, and keep making asses of yourselves.
>And superdeterminism is an exception to Bell's theorem
No it isn't. It asks for an exception of statistical independence for specific cases, which is special pleading. It's not an actual valid theory.
>It really is as simple as "Knowing one color allows inference to the other"
This is wrong. Say you have two people who each carry a different colored sock in the box. You know there is a green sock and a blue sock, but don't know which one is in your box. You travel to another country and open your box. Yours is green and you instantly know the other is blue.
Right? That's your scenario. But that's not how QM works. You're saying there's something that predetermines the color of the sock in your box and it's just a matter of you not knowing until you observe the sock. This is wrong. Both socks are completely indeterminate until observed. In your scenario you only ever had the green sock in the box, you just didn't know it. In real QM the sock is in superposition and in a real sense is both until observed.
There are no hidden variables.
>Right? That's your scenario. But that's not how QM works. You're saying there's something that predetermines the color of the sock in your box and it's just a matter of you not knowing until you observe the sock. This is wrong. Both socks are completely indeterminate until observed. In your scenario you only ever had the green sock in the box, you just didn't know it. In real QM the sock is in superposition and in a real sense is both until observed.
Nnnnope not my scenario, that is the old Einstein one. I gave you a video on this. The thing different from the sock example and what I just assumed was obvious - a huge mistake on my part clearly - is that measuring the sock changes the color of the sock in quantum mechanics. To continue the analogy.
So the reason why it is indeterminate is that hidden value you cannot know because your "finding out that one sock" necessarily means changing the system. You cannot measure things in QM without changing them.
Nope. It is explained by the fact interactions are what change the state of the system. Your lying about that is irrelevant. Go troll somewhere else.
>Nope. It is explained by the fact interactions are what change the state of the system.
This is easily explained without superdeterminism. Again, it's purely special pleading. There's no rational reason to accept Superdeterminism when it's so obviously ad hoc.
>So the reason why it is indeterminate is that hidden value you cannot know
Hidden values are excluded by Bells Theorem.
i can tell here you are making a poor-faith argument (a shitty one at that) to avoid actually responding. classic “obscurantism” which i know is what philosophers always do when they try to talk about physics.
you literally had nothing to say about the physical implications of superdeterminism in physics even though that is what we were talking about. you changed topics and deflected.
god i hate philosophy majors
what makes me really sad is that this means philosophy majors are now learning their physics from Sabine Hossenfelder. seriously, philosophy anons, DO NOT TRUST SABINE. she is basically a failure in physics and following her is like…. it’s like if your reference person on Philosophy was Wilhelm Reich
Not a philosophy major, but thanks for conceding by showing you have no argument.
Nope already went over this.
Superdeterminism is unfalsifiable pseudscientific special pleading and Bells Theorem is scientifically proven with experimental evidence. I know which one I'm siding with
Your willful ignorance isn't my problem. Those experiments do not show what you think they show, and plenty of people including Sabine have explained this.
>Not a philosophy major, but thanks for conceding by showing you have no argument.
actually you are the one who had no argument. i asked you to seriously address the implications of superdeterminism and everything you said dodged that topic with such great skill i think it is clear you were intentionally dodging responding to it
I explained you do not understand it and how, and you have to make up an excuse so you can avoid addressing something other than your strawman. Pure projection continues.
maybe i can just repost what i already said and maybe you can take another stab at it? here goes:
> do you agree that in a super deterministic world that observers named Alice and Bob, who in normal interpretations are assumed to be able to have a “choice” in how to measure things like e.g.entangled particles , actually in the superdeterministic framework are predetermined in what choices they make, and only hold a mental illusion of free will in their measurement choices?
>this cuts to the heart of superdeterminism. and if you agree our choices are predetermined then a whole avalanche of “everything science thought was true is just the dictate of the superdeterministic power” ensues fyi
i asked these questions, you responded, but your responses were actively avoiding actually answering the questions. they were typical obscurantist philosopher bullshit where it becomes obvious how far out of your depth you are
>i asked these questions, you responded, but your responses were actively avoiding actually answering the questions. they were typical obscurantist philosopher bullshit where it becomes obvious how far out of your depth you are
I responded "No, that is not correct" and explained how. Not accepting a strawman is not evasion. You're just dishonest.
Nice that you're admitting that superdeterminism is religious dogma and not science though
Nnnnope but thanks for conceding by showing you have no argument. If you need to lie this badly to avoid addressing what anyone truly believes, well, you've made my point for me.
so what’s not correct about it? are you capable of explicating your thoughts? can you make a list that actually has content that adds something to the conversation?
i am trying to take you i. good faith but more and more i am convinced you are trolling
Already explained this. You are wasting my time and avoiding responding to what is actually going on. Sabine also has put out videos and articles along the exact same lines.
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2022/02/an-update-on-status-of-superdeterminism.html
>I therefore eventually decided to focus the video on the most common misunderstandings about superdeterminism, which is (a) that superdeterminism has something to do with free will and (b) that it destroys science. I sincerely hope that after my video we can lay these two claims to rest.
So if you for whatever reason can't read the plain English of that reply, there's a video and an article by someone else.
honestly if you are trying to quote Sabine as an “authority” i have to admit i have to stop there and not even go further into analyzing your posts. if she’s your “authority” on science then seriously, bro, what the frick. have you heard of “real textbooks” or “real scientists”? fricking Sabine is your authority? what has this world come to?
Okay, so you ignore what I wrote and you ignore what someone else wrote. I'm sensing a trend. I think I shall call it "dishonesty". Thanks for playing.
thanks for ignoring how i pointed out you think Sabine is your authority—you can’t possibly addres that or else you’d lol like a complete fool right?
>Anon keeps trying to tell me what I believe
>I explain what I believe
>Anon claims I totally didn't and re-asserts what I don't believe
>I point this out and then give a resource of a different author as an example
>Anon continues to not read
Sabine is not "my authority", she is a reference point among many. I happen to entirely agree with Gell-Mann on quantum flapdoodle as well, but I suppose you think Gell-Mann is also not a real physicist now?
You've had the wrong idea from the start and taken every attempt to correct you as "evading" your "gotcha" that doesn't actually apply to what anybody believes. It's fricking absurd how little sentience you exhibit.
>Gell-Mann is also not a real physicist now?
He's real but his ideas are very outdated and have been proven wrong by modern experimentation
No one cares about your hate mania for Sabine, get straight to the point or frick off.
I can say the same about Bell theorem and your "authorities", we are all human. But hide your personal hate and comment on the content or stop posting. "Uhhhh i dont respond to what she presented cuz i personally think she is bad"
Quantum mechanics isn't complete, that is all. We can't use it and there is no proof we ever used it for anything relevant. Put your dust filled books away and try to make this better. Einstein, Schrodinger actually laughs at your modern "Quantum Mechanics" because it's a joke of its former self.
She's a moron. Literal NDT tier pop science
meant for
Well, as you can plainly see in yet another example
, they don't have a point to get to. All they can do is lie and make up moronic shit.
bruh just give up already.
spooky action / many worlds / superdeterminism / some other explanation beyond human reasoning exists.
whatever the correlation is, it's not caused by hidden variable / predetermined plan of putting one sock in one letter.
Oh my God you people really are that moronic. I considered writing a smug inb4 you'd do that, but thought better of it. Clearly you've proven your mental deficiency in excess of my common courtesy.
OBVIOUSLY a 50/50 chance and inference is not sufficient because OBVIOUSLY I am positing something MORE Than Einstein (hence superdeterminism) and OBVIOUSLY it is not ENTIRELY RANDOM THEN NOW IS IT?
Dumbasses can't read oh my god.
are you guys arguing about superdeterminism again? isn’t the common consensus that if you believe in superdeterminism then you accept that every experiment that involves “choosing” or “randomizing” is moot and thus the whole thing about trying to “test” nature is sort of a charade? a lot of people call it a “conspiracy theory”. i mean it says that Alice and Bob choosing their orientation of their detectors are being controlled (subconsciously?) by some i observable dynamics? or maybe worse, by God or something? is this Calvinism?
this is one of my main problems with Sabine: she posits superdeterminism as a reasonable scientific idea. ‘t Hooft has done this too. the problem is that it is basically the same thing as Bohm’s interpretation using pilot waves but instead of pilot waves it’s just a miracle from God or something.
opinions discarded on basic scientific grounds
Yes. And I find it highly suspect people would be so ideologically committed to Superdeterminism with all its flaws, makes me think it's a coping strategy and not an actual justifiable position.
related video.
its not muh hurr durr opposite sock
They're only against superdeterminism because it proves God. If superdeterminism is true then the universe is so finely tuned that God existing is a fait accompli. As usual it's the fedora tippers.
That is not even remotely true. Frick off.
It is. Superdeterminism is true and it proves God exists. Seethe about it
Sure bud, however you wanna cope. You're just as ignorant as the other morons in here.
You should listen to
It's basically hard proof of God. Superdeterminism means the universe is FAR more finely tuned than we previously thought, which shows that it was designed. It's basically why the theory was created.
That's me you dipshit. Man even the trolls are morons in here.
Amazing how people will accept quantum woo woo rather than just accepting God does indeed exist. Superdeterminism is a masterpiece of theistic though
Amazing how all the people who attack superdeterminism are atheists. Really makes you think
it isn't affected
it's resolved
The reason no one other than academic outcasts like sabine take superdeterminism seriously is because superdeterminism not only has zero predictive power and is a rehash of "god works in mysterious ways", but also because the statistical independence assumption implies various absurd things like astrology and divination. Statistical independence (SI) claims that the hidden variable which determines the outcomes of the spin measurements in the bell experiments is correlated very much with the choice of directions in which the experimenters measure the spin. But since these directions can be chosen based on things like the movements of distant stars or planets, SI literally implies the results of experiments on subatomic particles on earth are can be determined/guessed better by looking at the motion of jupiter and saturn or whatever. This is the reason any rational person should immediately discard SI and hence superdeterminism.
I should clarify myself, superdeterminism requires the *violation of SI.
Congratulations, you finally shat on the keyboard ENOUGH to get one thing right. Maybe try reading so you can get more of it right.
You are literally pic related and have no arguments whatsoever.
You haven't mentioned any of my arguments. You've just continued schizoposting about nonsense.
I literally don't care or know what your arguments are. My point is that any theory like superdeterminism which violates statistical independence should be considered a joke/schizo theory.
>I literally don't care or know what your arguments are.
Thanks for conceding. Next.
>statistical independence
>violates statistical
>My point is
>should be considered
>joke/schizo
Ye, boring strawman, next.
>assume everything is random
>laugh at anyone who disagrees.
don't be like this moron.
Does anyone have any idea what these two schizos are talking about?
>Does anyone have any idea what these two schizos are talking about?
Prove anything is random.
See
I'm very high IQ, I can see through your facade.
>I'm very high IQ, I can see through your facade.
Lol. You think your ability to grasp statistical dependence / independence proves your high IQ? Don't you have to prove the phenomenon of interest is random first, moron? Otherwise what's the fricking point of applying statistics? Now address the point. You must prove the phenomena of interest is random.
My IQ is 148, don't waste my time.
>My IQ is 148, don't waste my time
If you are so smart, prove the relevance of applying statistics in the first place, brainiac
Imagine being so bitter that you'd have to impersonate me on a mongolian goat stewing board
What you're arguing for is a hidden variable theory and such theories are not good because they must violate very well tested things like locality and/or statistical independence. For an explanation of why this is terrible, see
This has nothing or very little to do with being "truly random".
You want to reread that post more carefully. What I wrote and why I said it does not match what you wrote. It does not "really" violate statistical independence if one changes paradigm. That obviates your issues.
Or just keep firing from the hip and missing. Don't know why you would but whatever.
>It does not "really" violate statistical independence if one changes paradigm
I did read your post and I don't know how on Earth you're concluding this. I think you have to elaborate more on how what you're saying is not violating Bell's theorem.
Okay, that gets us somewhere. I am saying that assertion by Bell is not relevant, and so "gets around" what would be the case if Bell's assumptions were true. I am saying "No, change the assumption". Because what happens changes depending on what you measure (since you must change energy to measure), you are changing the thing being measured, analogous on paper as if you are now performing a different probability calculation. It is not changing the result of the same equation it is changing the equation.
In one very specific sense, I am saying that does not violate statistical independence, in that the probability of the thing post-measurement is not the thing pre-measurement. So the calculation performed is not the same. Superficially with entanglement it merely appears as if it is violated unless one understands the act of entanglement itself - how you put the socks in the envelope - to set up the later measurement is what gives you the later result.
So you have hidden variables and you preserve statistical independence. All you have to do is recontextualize the concept. The big problem here is people do not realize there is more than one sense to consider statistical independence and the assumptions made in its application.
>unless one understands the act of entanglement itself - how you put the socks in the envelope - to set up the later measurement is what gives you the later result.
the key here is that putting the socks in the envelope is not determined by anything else. the presumption is that you can put whatever sock in whatever envelope because any person standing in front of socks and envelopes will tell you that they do not feel some preternatural force that dictates which sock to put in which envelope .
>Because what happens changes depending on what you measure (since you must change energy to measure)
Well, even in Bell's theorems, such things are allowed because the probability of the measurement outcome is assumed to depend on both the particle's hidden variables as well as the detector settings which determine what property of the particle is measured.
>It is not changing the result of the same equation it is changing the equation.
> in that the probability of the thing post-measurement is not the thing pre-measurement
Do you mean that for the time evolution of the system consisting of both the measuring apparatus and the measured particle, you'd need to consider more than one equation? One before and one after the measurement? In that case, it seems that you have to add what counts as a "measurement" as an extra ingredient to your theory. But even granting all this, I still don't see what assumptions of Bell's theorem you're saying that this bypasses.
I am saying the act and nature of how the experiment is set up to generate the particle to be measured, by definition requiring interaction in the experimental apparatus and by definition measurement changing the thing, creates the end result wherein we are merely opening the envelope to infer the opposite colored sock.
It may seem so simple it is impossible but look into how things are set up, Sabine said it herself in simple terms too, it is entirely possible that is what is going on. We are altering the thing to be measured due to how we stuff the envelope with the socks to give us that later result.
Here I dug up a sabine quote that is also getting at something similar to what I am getting at.
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2013/10/testing-conspiracy-theories.html
>But really, this is a very misleading interpretation of superdeterminism. All that superdeterminism means is that a state cannot be prepared independently of the detector settings. That's non-local of course, but it's non-local in a soft way, in the sense that it's a correlation but doesn't necessarily imply a 'spooky' action at a distance because the backwards lightcones of the detector and state (in a reasonable universe) intersect anyway.
The determinism thing is a red herring the real thing going on here is the set up of the experiments is what matters. I am simply specifying it in the energy itself rather than functionally about detectors and equipment. I think people get hung up on that.
Please try to set that aside because I am not saying, nor is it thus implied, one requires nor is subject to some preternatural force dictating which sock. Yes I understand that is one potential interpretation but it is not necessary I think. Representing the wave function by old analogy, BOTH socks are in the envelope, but which sock we set out to measure (spin, or color, or whatever) is determined by how we put those socks in the envelop TO measure later. There's nothing conspiratorial needed to understand about that. That is, we have not gone back far enough, we are assuming it is random and determined after the fact with this FTL flapdoodle rather than testing if it is.
>I am not saying, nor is it thus implied, one requires nor is subject to some preternatural force dictating which sock
How is this not exactly that?
>but which sock we set out to measure (spin, or color, or whatever) is determined by how we put those socks in the envelop TO measure later
When putting the socks into the envelope, you think to yourself "I have no idea which sock I'm going to measure later", then when "later" comes some preternatural dictates to you which sock to measure, based on how you put the socks into the envelope before. That's what superdeterminism is, and it seems pretty far fetched.
>But really, this is a very misleading interpretation of superdeterminism. All that superdeterminism means is that a state cannot be prepared independently of the detector settings. That's non-local of course, but it's non-local in a soft way, in the sense that it's a correlation but doesn't necessarily imply a 'spooky' action at a distance because the backwards lightcones of the detector and state (in a reasonable universe) intersect anyway.
I actually skimmed through one of Sabine's papers explaining a toy model yesterday
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.01327.pdf
For one, she admits that it is very incomplete and unrealistic as of now. More importantly, I don't see how that model proves her point at all. It contains things like the state of the particle depending on the detector settings at the time of measurement. But as the model is claimed to be local, this detector setting will actually depend on the past light cone of the detector, so essentially, the state of the particle in the lab can depend a lot on a whole lot of things like the light emitted by distant quasars in the past or whatever. So this model looks like it's still non-local and fine-tuned in a very strong way and not just a "soft way" as she claims.
>It contains things like the state of the particle depending on the detector settings at the time of measurement
I mean to say that the state of the particle at *earlier times is determined by the state of the detector at a future time - the time of measurement.
Wow the thread immediately dropped in quality once I made a scientific post here . Really tells you about the quality of posters here.
Sorry about that, it simply continued along the lines of the wrong assumptions leading to mistaken interpretations. I had other things to do. I happen to agree with your remarks as to the toy model, but the toy model is not of much interest to me as much as an experiment Neumann and others were discussing before. That is also mentioned in the blog I linked from 2013.
The frustration for me is that I am not getting across that "preparing the same state" is the point of issue. Even when trying the analogy, emphasizing that it is how the black box is prepared that is the issue, I think nobody understands the physical set up of the experiments or WHY the Neumann experiment would be important. The thing at issue for me and the major mistake in assumption is the belief that particles or energy set up in experiments represent that "untouched wave function" and then you measure the particles. This is not the case.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1517007112
Example. Go to figure 1 and the description of the process. This may take quite some time to understand for the unfamiliar, but key is the fact the entanglement process is - as always - ensuring by definition when split by the polarizing beam splitter you will get 1 of the 2 (in this experiment there are two states measured only) conditions. The thing that is entirely possible and can be tested with the aforementioned Neumann experiment is exactly how to preclude whether splitting the beam itself generated at that moment the opposite entangled pairs. Some hidden variables go here, others go there, produce necessarily opposite results no matter how far apart.
So, again, you change the energy you determine the variables of the wave function prior to detection. Assume it does not matter "how" it only matters "that it does", my interest primarily is in discovery by experiment whether it does. Obviously if not I'd drop the issue.
>The frustration for me is that I am not getting across that "preparing the same state" is the point of issue.
The entire point of hidden variable theories is that quantum mechanics is incomplete and so what are usually thought of as the same states are actually different at a deeper level which is described by some unknown hidden variables. So even though the different entangled pairs produced during an experiment may have the same state in quantum mechanics, their underlying hidden variables would actually be different and would be the reason you get different measurement results for different pairs. The only problem with theories of this type is that they're ruled out by the Bell-type experiments as long as they satisfy very reasonable conditions such locality and statistical independence
You also seem to be talking about hidden variables which are different from the one Sabine is talking about. Your hidden variables are probably local (as seen by your mention of the "black box" producing the entangled pairs each with its own hidden variables) and you're also probably assuming statistical independence because I don't see anywhere in your posts where you mention correlations between the entangled particles and the detectors (which can be several hundred of meters away and whose settings may only be set well after the entangled photons have been produced). But it is exactly the rejections of these assumptions which are required to produce violations of Bell's inequalities, so your hidden variables cannot do that.
The experiment proposed by Sabine/Neumann, is just one among several experiments whose result could possibly falsify quantum mechanics. The reason people are probably not very interested in it is that billions of such experiments which could violate QM have already been performed and QM is still perfectly valid, so there is no reason to think that this one experiment (which isn't even well studied) would change anything.
Yeah, see, this is why I just don't see a point. Each time I add more material to clarify, more assumptions are made that are false to put me in a category of "wrong" rather than "talking from a position of knowledge with a subtle point to make". My machines are too far away. Guess I'll mentally just have an "I told you so" one day. Yes, I know everything you just said, YES I know about Bell, this conversation just refuses to move past step 0.
But the subtle point here IS the hypothesized superdeterministic correlation between the entangled pair and the detector settings, which I didn't see you address in your posts. (other than indirectly by referring to the blogposts by sabine)
Just again another correction here: No, in my post and especially the last one I belabored the point that the set up of the experiment itself is potentially the issue, as you never have a system in which you are not creating a scenario in which variables inaccessible until measurement could not be split as well.
Is that evidence? Well, no. Is it a reason to perform an experiment, such as Neumann's and which others continue to vaguely claim "have been done" yet never post a paper showing it having been done? I think so.
You see, step 0, all this time later I am still trying to derail people's brain tracks off the wrong assumptions. That COULD BE superdeterminism or it COULD BE still random but with the set up of the energy later measured being the problem. Am I saying speculation is evidence? No. Am I ignorant of Bell's ideas? No. Did anyone ever engage with what I was talking about? Sadly also no.
Basically I want this to be tested https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4326
Same as Sabine. To preclude any frickery of what I describe (frickery by black box in nature not some human) or anything else. That is all.
Statistical independence basically states the result of one probability does not alter the result of a subsequent chance. The flawed view of "fundamental randomness" is the strawman people are creating here, where statistical independence would be violated *if it were truly random*. Where it isn't true is where the interaction or any measurement with our "black box" (wave function/phi) necessarily changes the end result. I personally think this does not *really* violate statistical independence because energy represented by the wave function changes into predictable properties when measured (remember: A measurement necessarily requires interaction; adding/removing/changing the energy state).
The view I think makes the most sense is that the "black box" just changes the properties when interacted with depending on the nature of the interaction. That is why measurement changes the function, because the property the resulting energy has is changed. It does not really have anything to do with philosophical determinism.
This view resolves a number of major problems, including paradoxes due to nonrandom results. A major problem the public has is being sold misinterpretations of experiments, thanks to clickbait, alleging violations of things like causality or the speed of light. That has never happened.
So for our 50/50 red/blue sock in the mail case, where getting a blue sock lets you instantly infer a red one, we can update the analogy. Instead, how you open the envelope determines if the sock is red or blue. Entangled particles are entangled by an interaction in the first place, and it is not at all violating speed of light to open the envelope later and immediately know the other sock is red.
All the problems or "paradoxes" arose purely due to the assertion this is random when, instead, it is determined (hence superdeterminism) by inaccessible hidden variables (because we cannot measure them without changing them).
Sorry, mistake, I meant "how you put the sock in the envelope later determines if it comes out red or blue". Crap. That was a big error. It is supremely important to understand the later result is due to the interaction causing entanglement in the first place NOT the act of opening it later (where all the flapdoodle claims come from).
Every decision you ever make has already been made. You are a passive observer in a meat suit. Of course you can't predict "random" particles, because psychic powers aren't real, you can't check forward in time from your current location. But everything has happened.
Umad?
>Every decision you ever make has already been made
Meaningless
>You are a passive observer
I don't believe in souls
>rest of the post
Also meaningless schizobabble
>>>/x/
You believe in free will, that is the schizobabble. Give up the ghost. It's not real. Nothing has will. Enough free will cope. The scientists "decide" to measure, no they didn't.
That is actual determinism. That everything is already set in stone. Obviously you don't gain psychic powers to read the movements of "randomized" particles.
You're too stupid to be talking to me. Come back when you can define statistical independence and explain its relevance to superdeterminism.
Even a SpEd infant could debunk free will. It's not real.
I never said free will is real or even well defined, stupid schizo
Well, it's related... Take a novel off a shelf, book about robots. Randomly on page 99 it introduces a zombie and it becomes a zombie horror story. You couldn't predict that. But did the page not already exist when you picked up the novel?
It never made sense to me to conclude randomness from "it can't be predicted".
>Umad?
Zoomer.
>that's spooky
no. That's a statistical formalism not meant to be interpreted as a physical mechanism. It's conditional probability. You update the solution space to accommodate new info.
They've botched an experiment, more news at 11.
step 1: communicate with something
step 2: run away
step 3: be spooky
>how is it possible that the particle can communicate ftl with its entangled pair?
It isn't.
what about the measurement affecting it?
I think some expiremnt was conducted where they measured first one, then the other and found the first measurement affected the other one.
What are you trying to relate to is the concept of probability. A lot of pseudo dipshits like to say that it's only fundamentally understood because we had viewed in a certain time. What scientists are really saying is that we can make an estimate of how much y we will get if we have a certain amount x behaving in two possible states based on probability. It has been verified that certain spins or topologies can also be a byproduct of molecular radiation. I wish people would stop focusing on this nonsense and try to get some grasp on unified field.
Someone hasn't read Nikola Tesla's discussion of actuators..
Notes taken!
Records kept!
i see two anons arguing here but i can’t tell who’s argument is who’s. anyhow let me just state that QM is not acausal, especially not acausal “by definition”. vanilla nonrelativistic QM that undergrads learn says things about “instantaneous” collapse but they are always careful to mention that this is nonrelativistic QM where “instantaneous” is considered causal—instantaneous things in “galilean relativity” or nonrelativistic physics still absolutely prohibit effects PRECEDING their causes. instantaneous is therefore totally causally acceptable in a nonrelativistic picture. (for example, Newton’s gravitational law was instantaneous action at a distance in his pre-relativistic picture, but it is still perfectly causal with no time travel)
now, when we go to relativistic QM you need to simply go to quantum field theory. and quantum field theory is local and causal BY CONSTUCTION, at least in perturbative formulations.
the only way you can argue that there is some sort of possible acausal thing going on in QFT is only at the level of interpretations. so it’s a philosophical question so anyone speaking like there is a “canonical” answer is wrong since interpretations are just whatever you choose to believe in. so for example clearly if you believe the entire universe splits every time a radium atom decays, then clearly what you believe is nonlocal in some sense right? and nonlocality and a causality are more or less the same thing thinking relativistically. but keep in mind that this is interpretation stuff and even in MWI nobody disagrees that effects follow causes and not the other way around
Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, yeah you have the right of it. I said something similar before, how people have this misunderstanding, but there seems to be virtually no real engagement.
>instantaneous is therefore totally causally acceptable
get a load of this moron.
several of you were just cut from the team..
that will be all.
Why do people cope so hard over things that have been proven and play mental gymnastics to try and come up with some reason to deny it?
Remember the bell test they did the Bell test using two observatories miles apart?
They both locked on to a star (think it was around 300 million ly away) and did the test. The test proved entanglement, with 100% 'up' photons in one observatory and 100% 'down' photons in the other taken during the test.
Still subject to what I just explained and not at all relevant in fact but okay. I'm off to something else.
Ahhhh, there it is, there's the cope :3
Boredom with repeating myself isn't a cope. At some point with chronic lack of development beyond the "needing to explain step 0" there's nothing interesting to be found.
But it has been proven anon, the only way to deny it is to play mental gymnastics.
Repeating the results of experiment over and over is no way to rule out an interpretation of those results.
That is a good summary of my issue and my issue with experimental designs. Simply operating on an assumption of what's going on, it seems to me that Sabine was right and nobody thought to go and figure out how to check the assumption. It was mentioned, but never done. I consider that a big problem and my curiosity is burning over it.
Possible I missed it, possible nobody sees fit to take the popularity of demonstrating Sabine wrong on it by bringing it up, but I doubt it. Sufficed to say the issue remains and I would sincerely like an experiment to determine if correlations exist enough to show hidden variables. Again same thing explained here https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2013/10/testing-conspiracy-theories.html
I really want to see such moronic explanation with even more moronic claim, what has been published from the experiment?
Let me guess: "IT JUST IS, OKAY" without any other information, yeah i don't care.
It's all a matter of perspective
There is a test.
It produces results.
Test has been done over and over.
It produces the same results each time.
B-b-but muh socks.
What’s the point of this if nobody is arguing that you should get a pair of blue socks?
Superdeterminism is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific.
True, also true of the alternatives.
Maybe physicstards should stay in their lane and stop drifting over into making metaphysical claims
Reminder that everyone ITT is getting their panties in a twist over the wrong notion of causality (relativistic).
Because its all bullshit