Reply
Thu 22 Oct, 2020 01:43 pm
Physics forum refused to answer this question!!!
@derrida,
You’d better make sure you get your money back then.
This is the whole conversation!
ME :
Bell's superdetermimism seems to imply that there is a hidden variable. Please correct me if I am wrong but that seems like classical physics.
“Given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective positions of the beings which compose it, if moreover this intelligence were vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in the same formula both the movements of the largest bodies in the universe and those of the lightest atom; to it nothing would be uncertain, and the future as the past would be present to its eye.”
Pierre-Simon Laplace
OTHER: Superdeterminism has no physical content.
OTHER: Of course - that's why it was invented. Superdeterminism is one way (the only way when the other "loopholes" are closing) of reconciling classical physics with the experimentally observed violations of Bell's inequality.
Superdeterminism has a number of problems: it is not experimentally testable (as @bobob says, "no physical content") and the mechanisms it requires seem wildly implausible to most people. It is pretty much a matter of personal taste whether retaining the classical worldview is worth accepting these problems.
ME: You wrote," and the mechanisms it requires seem wildly implausible to most people "What are those wildly implausible requirements? Superdeterminism seems reasonable .OK it is not experimentally testable. It is not experimentally possible to determine if outside the light cone are unicorns. But I think it is reasonable to say that there are no unicorns beyond the observable universe. Do I absolutely know that there are none? NO! Science is not based on absolute certainty. Can I say that the earth goes around the sun? I am "ONLY " 99.99999 % sure.
OTHER : Suppose I design a clever automated device with a polarizing filter and a chamber into which we can insert a billet of uranium; the device sets its orientation for each measurement according to the pattern of random radioactive decay in that uranium billet. I make two copies my design blueprints; one goes into storage on earth and the other goes into something like the Voyager spacecraft. A few tens of millennia later the spacecraft reaches an inhabited planet, and these alien physicists build the machine according to the blueprint I sent them, including locating an ore deposit and mining and refining some uranium. Meanwhile my remote descendants are doing the same thing with the blueprints left back on earth. After a decade or so exchanging radio messages to confirm that both sides have set up their devices, some entangled photon pairs are generated and sent to both detectors (another few years) and then the results are shared by radio (even more years).... and it is seen that Bell’s inequality has been violated.The superdeterminist explanation is that there is a relationship between the decay patterns of two ostensibly independent pieces of uranium mined and refined on different planets light-years apart and the BBO crystal we’re using to generate our entangled photon pairs. It’s possible - all three deterministically evolved from the same cloud of intergalactic schmutz a few billion years ago - but I feel justified in applying adjectives like “extraordinary” and “implausible” to that possibility.
ME : Bobob wrote," Superdeterminism has no physical content. "
I dont know what that means. Are you saying that there is no experiment that verifies superdeterminism? OK, So the theory that there are not 8,000,000 unicorns just beyond the observable universe has no physical content? If a theory is reasonable such as superdeterminism and doesn't require abandoning logic ( Copenhagen violates the law of the excluded middle ) I am more likely to accept it.
OTHER: Anything outside the lightcone of an observer can have no effect. As far as the observer is concerned, it doesn't exist. Ditto for anything that does not interact with us. For example, it would be pointless to propose a 4th quark flavor that does not interact in anyway with anything in this universe. If it doesn't interact, it doesn't exist. Measurements are not something only people do. Any interaction in nature is, in principle, a measurement that can be performed.
OTHER: Yes, superdeterminism is a sort of hidden variable theory. Unlike a hidden variable theory like Bohmian Mechanics, superdeterministic hidden variables can be local. However, it is difficult (impossible?) for us to come up with a useful hidden variable theory, since it is likely to depend on fine tuning of many details in the past.
ME: Bob wrote, " Anything outside the lightcone of an observer can have no effect. "I understand that. My point is that even tho we can do no experiments outside our light cone, that doesn't mean that we cannot say that outside of our light cone are no unicorns. We can safely assume that 1+1=2 outside our lightcone. Bobob wrote," Any interaction in nature is, in principle, a measurement that can be performed. " So the laws of math are only empirical? 1+1=2 only because we can see that 1 apple plus one apple = 2 apples? Logic is purely empirical? Have all the theorems of math been tested empirically?
OTHER : I think they are still checking that all right-angle triangles obey Pythagoras's theorem. They are testing some quite big triangles now, but have a lot more still to do.
ME: Exactly, you detected my sarcasm! But even if they measure all the triangles within our light cone that still leaves all the triangles outside our light cone! And have we seen the light cone? ( if math is purely empirical ) Do we know if it follows geometrical rules? I have always been a fan of quantum weirdness. It makes reality interesting. But now it seems that its just old fashioned Newtonian billiard balls. In my humble opinion superdeterminism seems more reasonable then a theory that rejects logic. For example the law of the excluded middle.
Moderator: Closed while the moderators fetch a mop and a bucket
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Please facilitate discussion and don’t be so dogmatic as Physics forum! Even if I am wrong at least explain why I am wrong! Don’t be ;like “Physics Forum”!
This is people who know what they are talking about, telling someone who has no clue that they are wrong about something.
There are real Physicists who have spent the time studying real Physics. They know much more than you because they have spent the time learning. You kept on saying really silly things and not listening to them about why your ideas a silly.
When you got too annoying, you were ignored. The real physicists can't answer your question because.
1) You lack the basic knowledge to understand what you are talking about.
2) Your question is nonsense.
For anyone who is interested in a simple explanation of the argument here... our OP is arguing a variant of the Flying Spaghetti Monster theorem.
The idea is that the omnipotent Flying Spaghetti Monster spends his days ******* around with scientific experiments. He uses a noodly appendage to change the results of the experiments in order to mislead scientists. Therefore scientific experiments are meaningless. The believers in the FSM know that gravity doesn't exist. When you drop something, the FSM pull it down to the ground with a noodly appendage (this is called the "theory of intelligent falling").
Incidentally there is a rather more serious variant of this idea in the recent novel The Three Body Problem by Liu Cixin. In this novel there is a race of sentient Aliens who see themselves as in a scientific arms race with the human race (who haven't discovered them yet).
These aliens need to stop the scientific progress of human beings... and so they devise a technological device that will change the results of experiments and prevent the human scientists from advancing any further.
In the course of the novel, scientists start to realize that science is no longer working, but can't explain why.