determinism or indeterminism

[Eise]

Thanks for the article you linked, Mordred. Very enlightening.

 

Really wondering why a thanks for an interesting article gives me a -1... Didn't you like the article, Itoero?

-Bells theorem debunks our theories concerning local hidden variables, but you claim hidden variables are 100%unnecessary so that makes bells theorem 100%unnecessary.

 

Bell's theorem showed that it is possible to empirically decide that there are no local hidden variables.

 

-Why do you evoke superposition?

 

Yes, why would Mordred have done this? Maybe because it is essential to understand Bell-like situations? Because it gives the valid description of what happens?

 

You only show you understand really nothing of QM, that you can't reconcile QM with your religion that everything must have a precise cause. And so QM must be false.

 

-If you believe that fundamental particles/quantum effects don't require hidden

variables then you think nothing causes them...then nothing caused the universe?

 

Look for the word 'precise' above, and then show us why it logically follows that nothing is caused, not even the universe?

[Itoero]

Really wondering why a thanks for an interesting article gives me a -1... Didn't you like the article, Itoero?

Since you think it's Very enlightening, it doesn't matter what I say.

 

Bell's theorem showed that it is possible to empirically decide that there are no local hidden variables.

No. It shows that theories concerning local hidden variables don't fit with the inequalities.

 

Yes, why would Mordred have done this? Maybe because it is essential to understand Bell-like situations? Because it gives the valid description of what happens?

Quantum Superposition is in a sense the sum of 2 or more quantum states...but where do those states come from if they are not caused?

You only show you understand really nothing of QM, that you can't reconcile QM with your religion that everything must have a precise cause. And so QM must be false.

I gave many arguments. And what do you think about the holographic principle? That principle fits with my arguments.

But in your opinion, that's religion?

Edited January 15, 2017 by Itoero

[Mordred]

I did respond. You must literally study the meaning of the terminology you are ignoring. Like I said it is simple to google the terminology to confirm everything I have stated. Unless you understand the very terminology itself. It would be impossible to understand Bell's inequality.

 

Quite frankly I'm not even sure you understand what a deterministic system means in physics.

 

The very minute you determine a system state that system is no longer in superposition.

 

The very term action has specific requirements in physics. ie spooky action at a distance. No action occurs it is a misnomer in and of itself

Edited January 15, 2017 by Mordred

[Prometheus]

But in your opinion, that's religion?

 

Some might say that making the facts fit your theory rather than your theory fit the facts is the very definition of religion.

[Eise]

Some might say that making the facts fit your theory rather than your theory fit the facts is the very definition of religion.

 

Yep. Exactly the point.

[Itoero]

Some might say that making the facts fit your theory rather than your theory fit the facts is the very definition of religion.

During this thread I made many arguments why quantum effects are deterministic. I've read about the Holographic principle and it explains my arguments.

 

Mordred's main argument is that it's to complex to be deterministic.

It's like the Irreducible complexity argument

Why do you think that complexity points to indeterminism?

Many people do that. This logical fallacy causes people to believe in free will.

 

The holographic principle basically suggests that the entire universe can be seen as two-dimensional information...which causes the observable 3-dimensional world we live in.

[Prometheus]

Mordred's main argument is that it's to complex to be deterministic.

It's like the Irreducible complexity argument

Why do you think that complexity points to indeterminism?

 

I thought his, and Eise's, main point was that indeterministic models are consistent with experiment.

 

Some of the problem may be that the word 'complex' has been used to refer to different things: sometimes 'complex' refers to complicated, other times it refers to complex valued functions.

 

As for myself, i have not sufficiently studied the subject and so am happy to take on trust the majority view of physicists. I have hidden variables and Bell's inequalities coming up in the next chapter of my QM course so look forward to being able to contribute more constructively then.

[Itoero]

As for myself, i have not sufficiently studied the subject and so am happy to take on trust the majority view of physicists. I have hidden variables and Bell's inequalities coming up in the next chapter of my QM course so look forward to being able to contribute more constructively then.

What do you think about the holographic principle?

It explains why the local hidden variables don't work and why entanglement collapses seemingly a lot faster then the speed of light.

I think I read that it was (mathematically) shown to be possible.

[Mordred]

Have you ever considered why QM requires statistical mechanics Itereo ie the Heisenburg uncertainty itself.

 

The more you determine a particles momentum the less you know it's position and vise versa ?

 

Please provide a reference that the holographic principle involves entanglement/hidden variables.

 

the extra dimensions are degrees of freedom ie independant variables of key different dynamics.

 

The holographic principle use ADS/cft anti-DeSitter space/ conformal field theory.

 

These extra dimensions are not some hidden dimension but correspond to a key term "degrees of freedom" Here is an excellent article on the holographic principle

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0203101&ved=0ahUKEwjzhu3yqMfRAhVM9GMKHXXFDpAQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNErDQF4tJOXXA9mdOj3RyiCyRbzXQ&sig2=fIS628S6LNodthWxrfiGBQ

 

and no my argument is not strictly based upon complexity. One must first learn what a particle is in the first place. As well as understanding key terminologies.

 

Though complexity is one of primary reasons we use statistical averaging. It isn't entirely the only reason. Ie the HUP I mentioned above

 

I know Prometheus is currently studying degrees of freedom though his current subject isn't strictly stating so

 

Lets try a simple example. Take a robot arm that can only go up and down. There is two possible directions that arm can move.

 

This arm has orthogonal symmetry the only difference between going up and going down is the direction itself. Everything else about that robot arm is identical (symmetric) so we can reduce this two directions to simply a change in sign. Plus or minus. For Prometheus benefict an inner product. Its range of motion is 1 dimensional. As Prometheus has posed a related question in spin I will add another type of symmetry example.

 

A mounted fan can either spin clock wise or counterclockwise. The fan blade itself doesn't change only the direction of motion "Rotational symmetry" so once again we can reduce the number of possible directions to an inner product. As rotation requires 2 dimensions to describe its range of motion inner product space is two dimensional ie spin space (I know you are having difficulty visualizing inner products Prometheus these two examples will help) Its not an attempt to call attention to you but an effort to assist you get past all the fancy mathematical terminology such as complex conjugates/ operators etc.(though these are also extremely important terms)

 

 

This is in essence what the holographic principle is doing. Finding ways to take a huge number of degrees of freedom and reducing them via symmetry relations.

 

PS By the way I really couldn't care what goes on with my reputation points. They rarely reflect quality of answers but opinions. I've posted hundreds of far better quality answers than many of the posts I have recieved reputation votes on lol. For that matter I can't recall ever giving neg rep points.

 

Just as I really couldn't care if someone feels the universe is deterministic or not. Provided they take the time to properly understand what they are talking about. That is my only purpose on this thread. To help everyone better understand what is involved instead of making baseless and incorrect assertions. When I see someone that doesn't understand what they are talking about. I try to help them better understand what they are talking about. Nor do I expect anyone to take my word on anything. That is precisely why I always try to supply supportive materials.

 

Lol for that matter I don't visit forums to ask questions. I don't need to, I literally can research my own questions without outside help in physics.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Mordred

[Eise]

Is there a contradiction between the holographic principle and the non-existence of local hidden variables?

[Itoero]

A hidden variable is any factor that influences your measurement which is unobservable/unmeasurable..

Measuring one entangled particle of a pair causes both particles to get a definite state...how can that be without hidden variables? Without hidden variables, they should be separate particles and not causal related.

Measuring one particles causes the other particle to get a definite state...they are causal related.

Any causal relationship demands hidden variables.

 

-The holographic principle states that gravity in a three-dimensional volume can be described by quantum mechanics on a two-dimensional surface surrounding the volume. In particular, the three dimensions of the volume should emerge from the two dimensions of the surface. However, understanding the precise mechanics for the emergence of the volume from the surface has been elusive.

 

-Ooguri and his collaborators have found that quantum entanglement is the key to solving this question. Using a quantum theory (that does not include gravity), they showed how to compute energy density, which is a source of gravitational interactions in three dimensions, using quantum entanglement data on the surface.

 

It seems that the hidden variables between entangled particles are present in a 2 dimensional 'surface'.

The fact that entanglement collapses seemingly a lot faster then the speed of light or instantly, shows this.

It looks like entanglement doesn't take in real space.

[Mordred]

Ah ok I seem to recall a paper written along those but don't have a copy of it atm. If I recall the pop media coverage didn't properly describe it. Big surprise there. If I recall the paper is on arxiv.

 

The unfortunate reality is heuristic descriptions really mislead what is really going on in ads/cft. Though in this case the heuristic descriptions in the paper itself was somewhat misleading until you examined the math itself.

 

edit: thinking about that paper, the author stated he required ads/cft which is reasonable he did not describe local hidden variables in the paper itself

Here you can read it for yourself.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0605073&ved=0ahUKEwij1_mDtMnRAhVE3WMKHVUWBjIQFgglMAE&usg=AFQjCNEROK4hF20BcjKCWD0Ci2e4NxZUdg&sig2=b6ecyvnULRh4PMGyfZO47Q

 

"When we study properties of a given quantum field theory (QFT), it is common to first investigate behaviors of correlation functions of local operators in the theory. However, properties of non-local quantities are equally important, especially for understanding of its quantum mechanical phase structure. One basic such example of non-local physical quantities is the Wilson loop operators in gauge theories, which is a very useful order parameter of confinment"

 

If you recall I mentioned these correlation functions earlier. but I don't think you believed me lol. Lets continue Oh an operator adds and subtracts a quanta of energy. Locality under QFT is a boundary confinement I should mention that it is not local as in nearby, which people tend to think but different overlapping manifolds those manifolds have the minimal number of dimensions with minimal reduced degrees of freedom to describe the state under examination which is why I included that in the quote above

 

"As its name suggests, we expect that the entanglement entropy is directly related to the degrees of freedom. Indeed, the entanglement entropy is proportional to the central charge in two dimensional conformal field theories (2D CFTs)"

 

recall I mentioned degrees of freedom above

 

Ah equation 2.2 page 6 mentions Hilbert space which I also described briefly above. Hilbert space is a type of manifold, in this case a 2d manifold as it takes a minimal two dimensions to describe a sinusoidal wave rotation

 

I could continue but the article speaks for itself.

 

https://www.google.ca/search?site=&source=hp&ei=Qyx-WMzSLsqmjwPGpJPYAg&q=ads%2Fcft+and+entanglement+pdf&oq=&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.0.35i39k1l3.0.0.0.167666.2.1.1.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.mobile-gws-hp..1.1.24.3.bxqVVx-UH5U

 

The last link simply shows my search parameters just to show I didn't pick and choose a specific article but litetally chose the first article that matched both criterias I set on the search engine.

 

That should clear up that the holographic principle isn't overlapping universe/dimensions as per science fiction/pop media analogies but mathematical dimensions. ie mathematical manifolds When you get right down and into the math each manifold describes a specific interaction. it is a useful technique to describe complex multi simultaneous interactions by using manifolds and sub manifolds. Simply confine each individual interaction its own manifold space. Define its boundary conditions then decribe that particular interaction. This holds true in string theory/ M-theory even relativity

Edited January 17, 2017 by Mordred

[Itoero]

Correlation functions refer to entanglement.

 

Entanglement entropy proves the presence of hidden variables in the 'correlation function'.

Entanglement entropy is a measurement of quantum states (2 dimensional info) in entanglement.

Paper concerning Causality & holographic entanglement entropy

https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.6300

Edited January 17, 2017 by Itoero

[Mordred]

No the correlation function is established when the entanglement pair is first formed. It is not a communication channel that allows FTL. You really have to look in detail on the math itself.

 

Look I realize this is a very advanced topic but nothing in either of these papers are violating bells inequality. In all honesty I wish I could show you mathematically how it works. It would be pointless if you don't understand how the creation/annihilators of QFT work or advanced topics such as embedded manifolds. Don't feel bad this can be confusing even among physicists.

 

For now just think of the very term "Inequality" ie Bell's inequality. What does he specifically mean by this term ?

 

The last paper you posted is explaining the causal formation of entangled pairs from what I've read via Hawking Berkenstein radiation. It is exploring different regions that can be on causal connection to allow the formation of HB radiatiom.

 

I may just skip to the classical mathematics of this radiation to show the disctinction. Might help you better understand

 

At least your argument is getting stronger so I will give you +1 on that.

 

Here think about everything I said then reread

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

 

Until I get into describing this under Bell's inequality. We really don't need these advanced models when simply understanding Bells inequality is enough.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Mordred

[Eise]

Itoero,

I explicitly accentuated 'local' here:

Is there a contradiction between the holographic principle and the non-existence of local hidden variables?

But your answer only contains 'hidden variables'. So it is not much help.

My idea is the following (maybe its yours too): on this 2 dimensional surface with the same informational content as our normal 3 dimensional space, 2 detectors of entangled particles might be 'local', i.e. at the same 'place'. (So one must not equate this 2 dimensional surface with just a spacial surface somehow wrapped around the detectors). This would fit the fact that 2 entangled particles are described by one state function, and not by 2 independent ones, as in the case of two non-entangled particles. But this is very speculative from my side.

 

So it would be nice if a real physicist chimes in here and can answer above question!

It seems that the hidden variables between entangled particles are present in a 2 dimensional 'surface'.
The fact that entanglement collapses seemingly a lot faster then the speed of light or instantly, shows this.
It looks like entanglement doesn't take in real space.

I don't know what 'real space' means. At least when we talk about Bell-like experiments, when we talk about the impossibility of local hidden variables, this 'local' definitely relates to our normal 3 dimensional space.

To repeat: I never ruled out the possible existence of non-local variables. But nowhere did you even accept that the non-existence of local hidden variables (in our normal 3-d space!) is empirically proven.

A hidden variable is any factor that influences your measurement which is unobservable/unmeasurable..
Measuring one entangled particle of a pair causes both particles to get a definite state...how can that be without hidden variables? Without hidden variables, they should be separate particles and not causal related.
Measuring one particles causes the other particle to get a definite state...they are causal related.
Any causal relationship demands hidden variables.

No, there is no causal relationship between the 2 measurements of 2 entangled particles. In the first place, Bob has no way of knowing that the particle he measures is entangled, unless he compares them with Alice's measurements. Just having his own measurements he cannot find out anything about the question if Alice did measure anything at all. So causally, for Bob nothing changes because of Alice's measurement.

Secondly, because the correlation between Alice's and Bob's measurement is faster than light (I even assume it is instantaneous), the events of Alice's measurement and Bob's measurement are not in each other's light cone. This means that, according to special relativity, there can be an inertial frame in which Bob's measurement takes place before Alice's measurement, and there can be another inertial frame in which Alice's measurement takes place before Bob's measurement. So causality is not preserved. However special relativity preserves causality. A causes B is true for every possible inertial frame. So there can be no causal relationship between Alice's and Bob's measurements.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Eise

[Prometheus]

What do you think about the holographic principle?

 

No idea. I'll try to get my head round the mainstream stuff before considering the more speculative stuff.

 

 

Its not an attempt to call attention to you...

 

No worries, but i'll take up the points on the other thread to keep this one focused.

[Mordred]

No worries, but i'll take up the points on the other thread to keep this one focused.

No worries it was simply coincidence the two was related

 

So much attention on this thread has been the local hidden variable aspect.

 

That everyone has been missing one of the key reasons the statistical averaging in the Bell results showed a difference between local hidden variables theory and QM.

 

That being the Heisenburg uncertianty principle itself.

 

I was certainly able to explain entanglement by a classical means.

 

1) conservation laws (which Einstein certainly was aware of.

2) the term Superposition which he was also aware of from statical mechanics (the term was around before QM. I mentioned that before)

 

I'll let everyone think about that

Have you ever considered why QM requires statistical mechanics Itereo ie the Heisenburg uncertainty itself.

 

Hence why I asked this previously.

 

Then think back to this Dr Chinese paper posted previously

 

http://www.drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem

 

Now EPR stated

 

Reality -the measurable quantity must have a definite value before the measurement takes place.

Locality -the physical quantities within reality would not influence each other at a large distance.

 

Please review the EPR paradox

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

 

This was the argument Bell's experiment was testing for.

 

Just to get this lengthy thread back on track

Edited January 18, 2017 by Mordred

[Itoero]

@Eise: I mean that entanglement collapses instantly, regardless of the amount of space between the particles.

That happens imo in the absence of space time.

 

Can you describe the relationship between entangled particles to be non local causal?

 

Gerard 't Hooft is a Dutch theoretical physicist with interesting papers concerning quantum m, holographic principle, determinism...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_%27t_Hooft

 

This paper is called: 'Determinism beneath Quantum Mechanics'

 

"Contrary to common belief, it is not difficult to construct deterministic models where stochastic behavior is correctly described by quantum mechanical amplitudes, in precise accordance with the Copenhagen-Bohr-Bohm doctrine. What is difficult however is to obtain a Hamiltonian that is bounded from below, and whose ground state is a vacuum that exhibits complicated vacuum fluctuations, as in the real world. "

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212095

 

This paper is called: 'Quantum Gravity as a Dissipative Deterministic System'

 

"It is argued that the so-called holographic principle will obstruct attempts to produce physically realistic models for the unification of general relativity with quantum mechanics, unless determinism in the latter is restored. The notion of time in GR is so different from the usual one in elementary particle physics that we believe that certain versions of hidden variable theories can -- and must -- be revived. A completely natural procedure is proposed, in which the dissipation of information plays an essential role."

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903084

 

This paper is called: 'How a wave function can collapse without violating Schroedinger's equation, and how to understand Born's rule'

 

"It is often claimed that the collapse of the wave function and Born's rule to interpret the square of the norm as a probability, have to be introduced as separate axioms in quantum mechanics besides the Schroedinger equation. Here we show that this is not true in certain models where quantum behavior can be attributed to underlying deterministic equations. It is argued that indeed the apparent spontaneous collapse of wave functions and Born's rule are features that strongly point towards determinism underlying quantum mechanics. "

 

http://de.arxiv.org/abs/1112.1811

 

 

The quantum state vector(entanglement entropy) is a big bunch of hidden variables. And those variables determine the experimental probabilities that we measure.

 

Using inequalities to prove they can't be local is imo eating soup with a fork...

Inequalities disprove local hidden variables in a world governed by space time, the 'observable' quantum world.

Entanglement entropy builds the space time and observable quantum world.

[Eise]

@Eise: I mean that entanglement collapses instantly, regardless of the amount of space between the particles.

That happens imo in the absence of space time.

 

That is very vague again. Please be more precise, and use technical terms correctly.

 

Can you describe the relationship between entangled particles to be non local causal?

 

I already said that there is no causal relationship between two entangled particles, so how should I be able to that? Instead of understanding and dealing with my arguments, you ask a question of which you should already know that it is a meaningless question for me.

 

Using inequalities to prove they can't be local is imo eating soup with a fork...

 

Then can you tell me where the error in Bell's theorem is, and why the experiments show that local hidden variables are ruled out?

 

Inequalities disprove local hidden variables in a world governed by space time, the 'observable' quantum world.

 

What is 'governed by spacetime'? Bell's theorem, together with the proven correctness of the predictions of QM, indeed prove that local (meaning local in space) variables cannot explain the outcome of Bell-like experiments. If they are local in some other, mathematically defined space, is a complete other story. And still another story is if this mathematically defined space is somehow physically real, or even more fundamental, then spacetime in which we live.

 

I don't think it is very useful to link to a bunch of articles that you do not even understand yourself. Even if it turns out that 't Hooft and co are up to something, I do not think that they can make their theory operational in a way that would help to support your viewpoint: I assume that such a theory will not be able to predict where at the screen in the two-split experiment the next photon will be measured.

 

I wonder what the scientific status of a theory is that at one side says that the world is determined, but does not allow experimental verification for that fact.

 

Edited January 22, 2017 by Eise

[Nando]

How do I put this...
The macro scale does seem to definitely be deterministic. So, my ego having a dislike for having it's world view challenged, does indeed have a tendency to prefer the deterministic school of thought. And we can always claim that any apparent randomness must instead be caused by other phenomena we can't measure yet, or possibly never will.
But, I wouldn't dismiss an uncertain time line either.

 

I'm more interested in knowing what difference does it make to us, knowing that the future is certain, or not.

[Eise]

I'm more interested in knowing what difference does it make to us, knowing that the future is certain, or not.

 

Well, even in a deterministic world, the future is not certain. The world, and we are just too complicated to make real life predictions. But it is important that causality 'runs through us': our motivations, intentions and believes, are part of the causal fabric of the universe. Even if they are implemented in material structures, like brains.

 

So there is no difference to ask for: the future is uncertain anyway.

[Itoero]

@Eise

A physicist that wan the Nobel and Wolf prize backs up nearly all my claims.

 

Seeing what kind of nonsensical questions you again asks, it's pretty clear you lack understanding to discuss this subject matter.

Edited January 31, 2017 by Itoero

[Itoero]

How do I put this...

The macro scale does seem to definitely be deterministic. So, my ego having a dislike for having it's world view challenged, does indeed have a tendency to prefer the deterministic school of thought. And we can always claim that any apparent randomness must instead be caused by other phenomena we can't measure yet, or possibly never will.

But, I wouldn't dismiss an uncertain time line either.

 

I'm more interested in knowing what difference does it make to us, knowing that the future is certain, or not.

I hope we will be able to explain the randomness. If the holographic principle is correct then we will have to explain the randomness in order to prove a quantum gravity model.

[Itoero]

Gerard 't Hooft is mentioned in the Wikipedia page concerning 'Hidden variable theory'.

"Gerard 't Hooft has disputed the validity of Bell's theorem on the basis of the superdeterminism loophole and proposed some ideas to construct local deterministic models."

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

 

-In his papers he for example shows a model that

massless, non interacting neutrinos are deterministic.

 

"The physical interpretation of this result is that the dynamical behaviour of a massless,

chiral, non-interacting fermion is exactly like that of an infinite, flat, oriented sheet,

moving with the speed of light in a direction orthogonal to the sheet."

 

-Something interesting concerning degrees of freedom:

"The degrees of freedom in terms of which we usually describe atoms, molecules, subatomic

particles and their fields will be referred to as microscopic degrees of freedom. It

is these that have to be described as superpositions of the sub-microscopic states, and in

turn, the macroscopic states are superpositions of microscopically defined states. Perhaps

the most accurate way to describe the situation is to say that the states we use to describe

atoms, quantum fields, etc., serve as templates."

 

"Information loss at the level of the underlying deterministic theory, may also explain

the apparent lack of causality in the usual attempts to understand quantum mechanics"

 

"Theories

with continuous degrees of freedom would have an infinity of possible states if there were

no information loss. With information loss, there may be a discrete set of limit cycles,

meaning that the equivalence classes may still form discrete sets."

 

=>This explains what I said many times...in different words obviously.

With an infinity of possible states (degree of freedom) you wouldn't have a measurable difference between particles...particles like we observe them would not exist. Quantum states would randomly 'fly around'.

Without what is called 'information loss', there would not be any order or structure in the universe.

 

Information loss might explain the information paradox of Black Holes.

 

-About Bell:

"Bells inequalities appear to imply that the correlations then

found cannot possibly be reconciled with a deterministic hidden variable theory. In the

hidden variable theories that one then has in mind, the quantum particles are, somehow,

accompanied by classical hidden variables that decide ahead of time what the outcome of

any of the possible measurements will be.

Clearly, Bell has shown that such hidden variable theories are unrealistic."

 

=>This is what I also said many times. The inequalities disprove theories concerning hidden variables...they don't prove the complete absence of hidden variables.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Itoero

[Itoero]

I hope we will be able to explain the randomness. If the holographic principle is correct then we will have to explain the randomness in order to prove a quantum gravity model.

Why do I get a -1 for that?