Eise Posted February 5, 2017 Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) How Entanglement Could Be Deterministic A Nobel Prize-winning physicist has developed a model of the universe as a cellular automaton that allows entanglement to be deterministic. However, his model has a number of deficiencies of which he seems to be well aware. Perhaps the most serious is that the model lacks many of the most basic symmetries that our universe enjoys, such as rotational symmetry. But ‘t Hooft counters by saying, “One could argue that symmetry arguments should not enter into the discussion of the interpretation of quantum mechanics.” Although how you can make this argument isn’t clear. I think it’s fair to say that ‘t Hooft’s ideas do not enjoy widespread support. On the other hand, that is no real measure of their efficacy. The real question is whether ‘t Hooft can make any predictions that would allow other scientists to put his model to the test. I think it is never wise to build your world view on hypotheses that do not find much support in physicist's community, and of which it is totally unclear how they could be empirically tested. Edited February 5, 2017 by Eise
Itoero Posted February 5, 2017 Author Posted February 5, 2017 How Entanglement Could Be Deterministic I think it is never wise to build your world view on hypotheses that do not find much support in physicist's community, and of which it is totally unclear how they could be empirically tested. Of course his model is not perfect...it's the first one. It's not proven that Bell's theorem shows ultimate reality. The idea that the nature of the universe is indeterministic is an unscientific belief. A model (like bell's theorem) needs to be improven or disproven...science needs to evolve...that's how you keep real science. It's pretty normal his idea's do not enjoy widespread support...our science can't explain the randomness yet. Hooft wrote the paper 'Quantum Gravity as a Dissipative Deterministic System' several months before he wan the Nobel prize. Hoott is the first one that proposed the Holographic principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle Einstein created a hidden variable theory but he did not publish it. If Einstein knew about the holographic principle (information loss) then perhaps bell's theorem would not exist. What do you think about the holographic principle? It explains many things like the info-paradox in wormholes, insta-collapse of entanglement, the absence of observable causality, the fact that we observe probability and not 100% randomness... I made that argumentum ad hominem before because your questions are imo irrelevant.
Eise Posted February 5, 2017 Posted February 5, 2017 Of course his model is not perfect...it's the first one. It's not proven that Bell's theorem shows ultimate reality. The idea that the nature of the universe is indeterministic is an unscientific belief. A model (like bell's theorem) needs to be improven or disproven...science needs to evolve...that's how you keep real science. Bell's theorem is a simple mathematical proof. It will not go away. The idea that the nature of the universe is indeterministic is definitely not an unscientific belief. It could turn out to be wrong, but it is based on empirical proof. There might be an underlying theory that shows some form of determinism we do not know yet, but that is pure speculation. You present us speculation as truth, and scientific theories as belief. Hooft wrote the paper 'Quantum Gravity as a Dissipative Deterministic System' several months before he wan the Nobel prize. Hoott is the first one that proposed the Holographic principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle I do not believe 't Hooft was the first. Whatever. Einstein created a hidden variable theory but he did not publish it. Really? He was convinced that there must be hidden variables, that is his famous EPR-paper. But I do not know anything about a theory. Do you have references please? Or do you mean with 'theory' again just an 'idea'? If Einstein knew about the holographic principle (information loss) then perhaps bell's theorem would not exist. Bell's theorem, as said, will not go away. But maybe one day in some other scientific theory it will turn out not to be relevant. But that is something different. What do you think about the holographic principle? Not much, because I cannot really understand it. As you cannot. Or can you explain to me why the idea of cellular automata leads to a deterministic holographic theory? (Not just throwing words and citations, explaining. I bet you can't.) I think you just feel attracted to these ideas, without really understanding them. They fit to your beliefs. It explains many things like the info-paradox in wormholes, insta-collapse of entanglement, the absence of observable causality, the fact that we observe probability and not 100% randomness... Really? And this is proven science? Or is it still speculative?
Itoero Posted February 5, 2017 Author Posted February 5, 2017 You apparently continue with your lack of understanding. Will you plz stop posting replies? -2
dimreepr Posted February 5, 2017 Posted February 5, 2017 You apparently continue with your lack of understanding. Will you plz stop posting replies? I have no real understanding of this subject, but I do know when the irony field peaks, and this post... blink blink blink hey WTF... is off the charts. If a neg rep on the last 2 posts was designed to break my irony meter... sorry, it has a fail safe.
Itoero Posted February 5, 2017 Author Posted February 5, 2017 I have no real understanding of this subject, but I do know when the irony field peaks, and this post... blink blink blink hey WTF... is off the charts. If a neg rep on the last 2 posts was designed to break my irony meter... sorry, it has a fail safe. Yes and what is so ironic? Can you give examples?
dimreepr Posted February 5, 2017 Posted February 5, 2017 Yes and what is so ironic? Can you give examples? Bugger, you had to ask, there goes my latest so called fail safe irony meter... Post #229
Itoero Posted February 5, 2017 Author Posted February 5, 2017 Bugger, you had to ask, there goes my latest so called fail safe irony meter... Post #229 Why is it ironic? Give EXAMPLES -1
dimreepr Posted February 5, 2017 Posted February 5, 2017 Give EXAMPLES Nope... I think I'll just press the red button, it's much more fun...
Itoero Posted February 6, 2017 Author Posted February 6, 2017 Nope... I think I'll just press the red button, it's much more fun...You have a funny brain This is the second time you say the irony field goes of the charts and you still don't want to back up your claims...probably because you can't. Your behavior should not be allowed on a science forum.
Eise Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) You apparently continue with your lack of understanding. Will you plz stop posting replies? It seems you are seriously running out of arguments. dimreepr is right. I have to buy a new irony meter, with at least 10 times max value. I suppose following statements are true: You do not know that Bell's theorem is a simple mathematical truth of set theory. Only its application to EPR situations makes Bell's theorem revolutionary. You do not understand how science progresses, and do not understand the difference between speculation and hypotheses at one side, and 'best scientific theory we have' on the other. You just fantasised that 'Einstein created a hidden variable theory but he did not publish it'. You cannot provide us with reliable references. You do not understand the articles of 't Hooft, i.e. the holographic principle. You choose to believe the holographic principle is true, because it would support your belief that quantum events are determined. If you think my suspicions are wrong, then please prove it, by delivering the references, justifications or arguments. Otherwise the case is clear. Edited February 6, 2017 by Eise
Itoero Posted February 6, 2017 Author Posted February 6, 2017 I suppose following statements are true: You do not know that Bell's theorem is a simple mathematical truth of set theory. Only its application to EPR situations makes Bell's theorem revolutionary. You do not understand how science progresses, and do not understand the difference between speculation and hypotheses at one side, and 'best scientific theory we have' on the other. You just fantasised that 'Einstein created a hidden variable theory but he did not publish it'. You cannot provide us with reliable references. You do not understand the articles of 't Hooft, i.e. the holographic principle. You choose to believe the holographic principle is true, because it would support your belief that quantum events are determined. If you think my suspicions are wrong, then please prove it, by delivering the references, justifications or arguments. Otherwise the case is clear. You keep repeating the same nonsense. -Bells theorem debunks theories concerning hidden variables not the complete absence of hidden variables. Don't you understand this? 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." =>Do you deny this? -The idea that the bells theorem shows ultimate reality is speculation, the Idea's of G 't Hooft are speculation. The difference is that the idea's of G 't Hooft can explain many things like the info-paradox in black holes, insta-collapse of entanglement, the absence of observable causality, the fact that we observe probability and not 100% randomness... And of course this is not proven, if it was proven then the Holographic principle would be 'proven'. -Einstein did write an unpublished hidden variable theory. You should do some research before you post your nonsense. https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0401/0401017.pdf -Why do you think I don't understand t hooft and the holographic principle? Can you show the comments I gave which makes you think that? -That's not true, I believe in the holographic principle because it fit's with my arguments and because it explains many things. Your are an IGNORANT LIAR
Phi for All Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 Your are an IGNORANT LIAR ! Moderator Note Since civil discussion has vanished, along with any attempt at reasonableness, this thread is closed.
Recommended Posts