Superdeterminism (just came upon this )

[geordief]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

 

 

"Physicists Sabine Hossenfelder and Tim Palmer have argued that superdeterminism "is a promising approach not only to solve the measurement problem, but also to understand the apparent non-locality of quantum physics".

Howard M. Wiseman and Eric Cavalcanti argue that any hypothetical superdeterministic theory "would be about as plausible, and appealing, as belief in ubiquitous alien mind-control"

 

Those seem like  two pretty  diametrically opposed interpretations of what is a.... (actually I have some trouble describing what  it seems to be)

 

It is apparently a theoretical loophole in Bell's Theorem.Have any  possible experiments been proposed  that could test this one way or another or  it probable that none can ever  be devised?

Can there be there any useful comparisons with the block universe idea?

 

 

Edited June 15 by geordief

[Markus Hanke]

14 hours ago, geordief said:

Have any  possible experiments been proposed  that could test this one way or another or  it probable that none can ever  be devised?

I think this is only possible if the particular correlations in question were established not too long in the past. In general though, correlations could go back right to the BB, so this idea is really not testable.

[MigL]

It's often said that if you perform an experiment to detect the wave nature of a quantum particle, you detect a wave.
And if you perform an experiment to detect its particle nature, you will detect a particle.
Superdeterminism is a generalization of the above statement. In effect, the 'result' is correlated with the 'experiment'.
This allows for the construction of local hidden variable theory, but I'm not too comfortable with that; as Markus explains, where do you draw the line for such correlations ? They could stretch back to the beginning of space and time ( and into the future as well ), and be 'correlated' to the notion of the block universe ( that you asked about ).

I personally see it as yet another interpretation of the goings on of the quantum world.
My preferred 'interpretation' remains no local reality, until 'revealed' by measurement.
( I hope you find 'revealed' less jarring than 'established', Joigus 🙂 )

[Markus Hanke]

On 6/16/2024 at 5:56 AM, MigL said:

I personally see it as yet another interpretation of the goings on of the quantum world.

It kind of goes beyond a mere interpretation though - SD implies that there’s no measurement independence, ie the experimenter isn’t actually free to choose his setup as he wishes. There will always be a prior correlation, no matter how you set up your experiment.

[geordief]

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

It kind of goes beyond a mere interpretation though - SD implies that there’s no measurement independence, ie the experimenter isn’t actually free to choose his setup as he wishes. There will always be a prior correlation, no matter how you set up your experiment.

So there  could never be a random event and this would apply to all  thought processes too?

Is it possible to apply logic to that hypothesis?

Could  logic also be defined by  randomness?

Don't they say you can prove nothing by logic but that you can (according to its rules)  disprove a hypothesis?

[MigL]

11 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

It kind of goes beyond a mere interpretation though

It makes no difference to the calculated predictions, or to the observed results.
If 'interpretation' is not the right word, I don't know what else to call it.
( you and Joigus are fairly picky about terminology 🙂 )

[joigus]

On 6/16/2024 at 5:56 AM, MigL said:

( I hope you find 'revealed' less jarring than 'established', Joigus 🙂 )

Aaah. I'm a stickler for precise terms. As if that was the problem with the present crossroads we're in. It's probably not.

Revealed does have a religious sound to it though...  

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

( you and Joigus are fairly picky about terminology 🙂 )

Lol so am I for that matter. For example the term correlation is a statistical mechanics terminology that describes a type of probability function. Hence it's application to entanglement. However this correlation function also includes the experimental setup. In essence the term doesn't particularly suit super determinism.

One of the hassles with interpretations, is which terminology is best suitable for a particular interpretation.

 

[joigus]

The more I think about superdeterminism, the more I think it's possible and, as Hanke said, untestable. Is it possible that back in a remote past of a preinflationary period lies the key to every happenstance in the universe? It's possible. It's a matter of plausibility perhaps. Occam's razor is sharp indeed.

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Lol so am I for that matter.

One should be, shouldn't one?

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

The more I think about superdeterminism, the more I think it's possible and, as Hanke said, untestable. Is it possible that back in a remote past of a preinflationary period lies the key to every happenstance in the universe? It's possible. It's a matter of plausibility perhaps. Occam's razor is sharp indeed.

One should be, shouldn't one?

Agreed and yes terminology can be critical to understanding some of the more complex theories. Particularly with lousy pop media etc knowing the correct terminology helps avoid garbage garden paths.

Superdeterminism would be a hard sell for me as under QFT all particles being field excitations it would literally be highly improbable to trace back further than one or two interactions leading to particle creation and annihilation.

 For example at a given blackbody temperature you have a number density of particles of a given species. You have no means of determining the precise number density but can only estimate depending on the particles effective degrees of freedom and cross section.

Edited June 17 by Mordred