determinism or indeterminism

[Itoero]

No, because we have empirical proof that local hidden variable theories impossibly can reproduce the predictions of QM. You simply do not understand Bell's inequalities and the fact that QM violates them.

And you don't understand that disproving a local hidden variable theory does not disprove local hidden variables.

There is imo a hidden reality which causes quantum effects, we can't observe (yet).

Hirosi Ooguri wrote a paper about space time that arises from entanglement.

http://www.ipmu.jp/en/node/2174

[Eise]

And you don't understand that disproving a local hidden variable theory does not disprove local hidden variables.

 

Bell's theorem shows that no local hidden variable theory can reproduce the predictions of QM.

 

There is imo a hidden reality which causes quantum effects, we can't observe (yet).

 

If you leave out the word 'local', then the discussion is open. But I really doubt that we can look behind the scenes of what we observe. There are no observations we can do below the level of quantum events: we measure photons, or electrons arriving at screens or in counters. Do you suggest that there is some mechanism in photons and electrons?

[Itoero]

Bell's theorem shows that no local hidden variable theory can reproduce the predictions of QM.

Yes but you said it was established empirically proven science that local hidden variables are absent.

 

 

If you leave out the word 'local', then the discussion is open. But I really doubt that we can look behind the scenes of what we observe. There are no observations we can do below the level of quantum events: we measure photons, or electrons arriving at screens or in counters. Do you suggest that there is some mechanism in photons and electrons?

Yes, without a mechanism there would not be order...there wouldn't be fundamental particles.

[Mordred]

And you don't understand that disproving a local hidden variable theory does not disprove local hidden variables.

There is imo a hidden reality which causes quantum effects, we can't observe (yet).

Hirosi Ooguri wrote a paper about space time that arises from entanglement.

http://www.ipmu.jp/en/node/2174

Interesting paper thanks for sharing. Reading the arxiv.

[Eise]

Yes but you said it was established empirically proven science that local hidden variables are absent.

 

Yes. Because the predictions of QM turn out to be correct. Must I spell it out for you?

 

1. Local variable theories comply to Bell's inequalities

2. The predictions of QM do not comply to Bell's inequalities.

3. The predictions of QM turn out to be correct in Bell test experiments.

Conclusion: There are no local variables in Bell like situations.

Corrolarium: if there are no local variables, then there are neither hidden local variables.

 

Yes, without a mechanism there would not be order...

 

On quantum level there is a tiny bit of 'disorder'.

 

Yes, without a mechanism there would not be order...there wouldn't be fundamental particles.

 

No idea why you think that. As you obviously do not understand the Bell theorem and its consequences, you say things that are far over your head.

Interesting paper thanks for sharing. Reading the arxiv.

 

Let me know if it is interesting. Seems above my head. But at least I have the strong impression that has not much to do with local hidden variables.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Eise

[Mordred]

The exact opposite to hidden variables but at the same time an interesting possible connection between spacetime and entanglement.

 

The math involved is substantial and extremely well thought out. Going to take me a while to work through it.

 

However more important is the possibility of describing mass and the stress energy tensor without once using gravity. Albiet via Ads/cft

 

That in and of itself is intriguing.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Mordred

[Eise]

So, Itoero, when Mordred is correct:

 

The exact opposite to hidden variables but at the same time an interesting possible connection between spacetime and entanglement.

 

then you are just citing papers without understanding them. No hidden variables.

[Mordred]

It involves entanglement which is an opposition to hidden variables. Most modern papers no longer include hidden variables.

[Itoero]

@Mordred, this is the arxiv paper.

It's called 'Tomography from Entanglement'.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.1879v1.pdf

 

A hidden variable is any factor that effects the results of en experiment or measurement that you can't measure or observe. If space time is built by entanglement then there is obviously a hidden reality. You can't do a tomography from entanglement if there is no hidden reality. It's obviously not what physics calls reality...that's why it's a hidden reality.

 

Most physicists agree that everything is made up of energy. Some mechanism must cause the forming and behavior of fundamental particles. Without a mechanism, energy would remain energy, there wouldn't be matter without a hidden mechanism.

A hidden mechanism is the same as hidden variables or a hidden reality.

[Mordred]

Maybe you should learn why the physics community state hidden variables doesn't work. Where the current models state entanglement does.

For example explain the hidden variable in entanglement of particle pairs where one of the pair is created at a much later time?

However thats more detail than we really need. Particle entangled pairs share the same superposition state. Once you examine one of the pair the other is now known.

We cannot determine either state until one is examined. You can't even predetermine a state. That results in loss of entanglement. This paper does nothing to counter entanglement. Thats not its intent.

 

The question I have is why you believe entanglement must equal hidden variables when Bells inequality shows this in error?

 

Here is a half decent article on hidden variables vs entanglement and Bells inequality.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjbpZqYjLrQAhVdGGMKHSiABooQFggkMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theory.caltech.edu%2Fpeople%2Fpreskill%2Fph229%2Fnotes%2Fchap4.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH9C5y14C8VrFVmbmpbIQfb3GIXXg

 

We've gone a long ways to test for variables. Far enough to essentially rule out local hidden variables. Were still in the progress of ruling out non local hidden variables. (its still being researched) Though some attempts to use local spacetime as the hidden variable do exist, they haven't reached the point of being considered conclusive

@Mordred, this is the arxiv paper.

It's called 'Tomography from Entanglement'.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.1879v1.pdf

 

 

For example this paper requires an ADS state. (anti-Desitter space) we have no definitive proof of our universe being in an antiDesitter space or a Desitter space.

 

Which in and of itself is problematic. Ads/cft model is only one of many possible models. sidenote If you ever read 100 roads to reality even Sir Roger Penrose is beginning to doubt this model which at one time he was one of its stronger supoorters. However thats just a sidenote

 

Modern tests looking hidden variables have shown non locality of entanglement. Where hidden variables require local connections to be deterministic within the system.

 

Of course many don't fully understand why locality vs determinism is important. They tend to argue against entanglement for personal philisophical reasons than the actual research.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Mordred

[Itoero]

The question I have is why you believe entanglement must equal hidden variables when Bells inequality shows this in error?

The inequalities show that our theories concerning local hidden variables can't explain quantum effects. It does not say anything concerning the absence of local hidden variables.

 

We've gone a long ways to test for variables. Far enough to essentially rule out local hidden variables. Were still in the progress of ruling out non local hidden variables. (its still being researched) Though some attempts to use local spacetime as the hidden variable do exist, they haven't reached the point of being considered conclusive

There is zero evidence for the idea that our science has evolved sufficiently to explain quantum effects.

 

A hidden variable is any factor that effects the results of en experiment or measurement that you can't measure or observe. If space time is built by entanglement then there is obviously a hidden reality. It's obviously not what (classical) physics calls reality...that's why it's a hidden reality.

 

Most physicists agree that everything is made up of energy. Some mechanism must cause the forming and behavior of fundamental particles. Without a mechanism, energy would remain energy, there wouldn't be matter without a hidden mechanism.

A hidden mechanism is the same as hidden variables or a hidden reality.

[Mordred]

in a sense you're right a hidden mechanism is similar to a hidden variable.

 

However good luck finding the hidden mechanism to predict superposition. The paper above does not predict the superposition state before examination. Invite me as a guest to your Nobel prize when you do lol.

 

Do you understand what is meant by determism within the system state ?.

 

Local vs global with regards to system states?

Edited November 24, 2016 by Mordred

[Itoero]

However good luck finding the hidden mechanism to predict superposition. The paper above does not predict the superposition state before examination. Invite me as a guest to your Nobel prize when you do lol.

I will:) The fact that I'm sure there are hidden variables doesn't mean I can find them. Our science s just not evolved enough to explain hidden variables.

 

Do you understand what is meant by determism within the system state ?.

 

Local vs global with regards to system states?

No & no

[Eise]

The inequalities show that our theories concerning local hidden variables can't explain quantum effects. It does not say anything concerning the absence of local hidden variables.

 

I will:) The fact that I'm sure there are hidden variables doesn't mean I can find them. Our science s just not evolved enough to explain hidden variables.

 

 

You are incredible. You show that you still do not understand Bell's theorem.

 

Maybe I was a little ambivalent when I wrote ' Local variable theories comply to Bell's inequalities' here. So I'll try once again:

1. Any possible theory (even a theory we haven't thought up yet) that contains local variables per definition obeys Bell's inequalities.
2. The predictions of QM do not obey Bell's inequalities.
3. The predictions of QM turn out to be correct in Bell test experiments.

Conclusion: It is impossible that there are local variables in Bell like situations.

Corrolarium: if it is impossible that there are local variables, then it is also impossible that there are hidden local variables.

 

The interesting thing is that number 1. is the easiest to understand, if you put some concentration in it. You do not need any knowledge about mechanics, quantum or not, to understand it. Just google. Mordred's 'Chapter 4' surely explains it all, but it is not aimed at lay persons, as you obviously are one.

 

After you understood point 1 you must believe the points 2 and 3. Of course, if you are really at it, you could learn QM, and then understand that 2 is correct too. Then you only have to believe number 3, but I am pretty sure after understanding number 2 you do not really doubt that the experiments done show exactly what they did: confirm QM, and therefore rule out the possibility of local variables.

 

But if you do not even try to understand number 1, I can only say that your standpoint is done from ill faith. So your task, if you want to stick to your view point, is to refute number 1. If you can't, you must logically accept that it is proven that there are no local hidden variables. Any belief or opinion of yours is empty if you do not take the bull at the horns.

 

 

There is zero evidence for the idea that our science has evolved sufficiently to explain quantum effects.

 

Of course there is! We can measure when a photon arrives at a detector, we can measure the projection of its polarisation, but what we cannot do is measure its polarisation as it really was before measuring: simply because there is no local reality behind the scenes. Again, you do not understand QM enough, otherwise you would not say this. Again, only ill faith can explain you saying such things again and again.

 

A hidden variable is any factor that effects the results of en experiment or measurement that you can't measure or observe. If space time is built by entanglement then there is obviously a hidden reality. It's obviously not what (classical) physics calls reality...that's why it's a hidden reality.

 

Again, a hidden variable theory might be possible: it is not ruled out by Bell's theorem. But local hidden variables logically cannot reproduce the empirically proven correct results of QM.

Most physicists agree that everything is made up of energy. Some mechanism must cause the forming and behavior of fundamental particles. Without a mechanism, energy would remain energy, there wouldn't be matter without a hidden mechanism.

 

I can only say: groundless metaphysical considerations, free flowing from any physics.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Eise

[Itoero]

Of course there is! We can measure when a photon arrives at a detector, we can measure the projection of its polarisation, but what we cannot do is measure its polarisation as it really was before measuring: simply because there is no local reality behind the scenes. Again, you do not understand QM enough, otherwise you would not say this. Again, only ill faith can explain you saying such things again and again.

So because we can measure a lot, we can measure everything?

I'm starting to understand why people believe in indeterminism.

The absence of evidence becomes evidence when it looks very fancy

Inserting indeterminism is like inserting intelligent design.

[Eise]

So because we can measure a lot, we can measure everything?

I'm starting to understand why people believe in indeterminism.

The absence of evidence becomes evidence when it looks very fancy

Inserting indeterminism is like inserting intelligent design.

 

Until you prove that Bell's inequality is wrong, your words are empty. Go ahead, and get your Nobel-price. Really, the inequality is not difficult to understand, so it must not be too difficult to disprove it, and show why thousands of physicists are deluded.

 

You argue from ill faith.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Eise

[Itoero]

Until you prove that Bell's inequality is wrong, your words are empty. Go ahead, and get your Nobel-price. Really, the inequality is not difficult to understand, so it must not be too difficult to disprove it, and show why thousands of physicists are deluded.

 

You argue from ill faith.

Why do you keep repeating that? Again, the inequalities show our local HV theories can't explain quantum effects. They don't show the absence of local hidden variables.

[Mordred]

no they show local hidden variables are NOT viable.

 

Here is a simplified article written by someone I consider incredibly knowledgable on the subject. I've had numerous conversations with him in the past.

 

http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

 

Swansont had a decent coverage on hidden variables previously I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

Found it thankfully QM forums isn't a busy one lol.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87347-why-hidden-variables-dont-work/

Edited November 25, 2016 by Mordred

[Eise]

Why do you keep repeating that? Again, the inequalities show our local HV theories can't explain quantum effects. They don't show the absence of local hidden variables.

 

Bell's theorem proves that not any possible theory that contains local variables can reproduce the predictions of QM. If you think it doesn't, then show us the error in Bell's theorem.

 

You really should read the article Mordred linked to, I had a small glance at it. Here is its central statement: No physical theory of local Hidden Variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics.

 

Follow his argumentation, and tell us where the author makes an error.

[Itoero]

no they show local hidden variables are NOT viable.

 

Here is a simplified article written by someone I consider incredibly knowledgable on the subject. I've had numerous conversations with him in the past.

 

http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

 

Swansont had a decent coverage on hidden variables previously I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

Found it thankfully QM forums isn't a busy one lol.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87347-why-hidden-variables-dont-work/

I should not have made the thread about 'my arguments against Bell's theorem.'. I agree with Bells theorem, it explains my idea.

The 'definition' the article gives:

"No physical theory of local Hidden Variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics. "

=>The theorem shows that our local theories can't reproduce all prediction of QM, it does not debunk local hidden variables. Especially since it's not defined what a hidden variable can be.

Don't you agree with this?

 

"ASSUME that a photon has 3 simultaneously real Hidden Variables A, B and C at the angles 0 degrees, 120 degrees and 240 degrees per the diagram above. These 3 Hidden Variables, if they exist, would correspond to simultaneous elements of reality associated with the photon's measurable polarization attributes at measurement settings A, B and C. "

=>That's why I call it a hidden reality. They are ascribing our ideas of reality to hidden variables.

Classical physics and quantum mechanics are if you will a different reality. You can't use your logic from classical physics to explain QM.

What evidence do we have to think we can apply our logic to the cause of quantum effects or the hidden variables?

 

This is a nice example of what happens when you have not enough knowledge/understanding about something and you apply logic:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/99867-we-are-in-early-stage-of-big-bang-and-there-would-be-a-black-whole-in-center-of-universe/

Edited November 26, 2016 by Itoero

[Eise]

The 'definition' the article gives:

"No physical theory of local Hidden Variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics. "

=>The theorem shows that our local theories can't reproduce all prediction of QM, it does not debunk local hidden variables. Especially since it's not defined what a hidden variable can be.

 

I think it is pretty clear what is meant with local variables. In the case of polarised photons the question would be: is there some physical attribute of the photon that determines for a certain angle of the measuring device what polarisation will be measured? It means that when a polarised photon pair is created, both photons already have this attribute. Bell's theorem proves that if this were the case, we cannot get the predictions that QM makes. In experiments where this can be tested it turns out that QM's predictions are correct. So it proves that in these situations there are no local variables that determine exactly what the measurement will be.

 

Of course that does not mean there is no determination at all. E.g. when both measurement devices are oriented exactly the same, I can predict for 100% sure that if I detect a photon on one side, I will also detect the photon at the other side. But on average, for random angles, QM's predictions differ from any possible theory that assumes that the measurement depends on any attribute the photons already have before measurement.

 

This is a nice example of what happens when you have not enough knowledge/understanding about something and you apply logic:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/99867-we-are-in-early-stage-of-big-bang-and-there-would-be-a-black-whole-in-center-of-universe/

 

This is even a finer example.

 

Another source: MinutePhysics

Edited November 27, 2016 by Eise

[Itoero]

I think it is pretty clear what is meant with local variables. In the case of polarised photons the question would be: is there some physical attribute of the photon that determines for a certain angle of the measuring device what polarisation will be measured? It means that when a polarised photon pair is created, both photons already have this attribute. Bell's theorem proves that if this were the case, we cannot get the predictions that QM makes. In experiments where this can be tested it turns out that QM's predictions are correct. So it proves that in these situations there are no local variables that determine exactly what the measurement will be.

Yes but the reality of those physical attributes is not defined.

You can't understand the cause for the properties/behavior of fundamental particles without knowing what the fundamental particles are made of.

[Mordred]

sure we can. We can measure its properties and interactions. We don't need to know the ultimate building blocks of particles to understand how they behave.

 

Particles are simply made up of smaller particles. The most fundamental we know of currently being quarks and gluons. Whether they are of smaller constituents we currently have no evidence for.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Mordred

[Itoero]

Measuring the properties doesn't say anything about the cause for those properties.

If you want to know the cause for the properties then you need to know what the particle is made of.

 

You can measure the properties of an atom, but if you want to know the cause for the properties, then you need to know what the atom is made of.

[Eise]

Yes but the reality of those physical attributes is not defined.

 

You do not understand how strong Bell's theorem is. It is valid for any particle that behaves according QM. If it is possible to create entangled pairs, you can create Bell like situations: local variables cannot explain the correlations between measurements. (Or QM is false...)

 

You can't understand the cause for the properties/behavior of fundamental particles without knowing what the fundamental particles are made of.

 

It doesn't matter if they would be made of smaller components. There is no presupposition about the precise buildup of the particles in Bell's inequalities. The only presupposition is that some attribute of the particle itself (e.g. one of its constituents, or of an attribute we not yet know of) determines what we will measure. As QM is not consistent with Bell's inequalities, we can conclude that there are no such local attributes.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Eise