Why quantum entanglement doesn't allow faster-than-light communication (2016)

Bookiping for things that happen so fast and at such a small scale that our current technological tools cannot fully capture data with enough precision and accuracy for us to make an good model of the underlying behaviour.

Imagine you put a spinning ball on top of a frozen lake on a windy day. You are going to observe the ball spin continously towards the same orientation until several gusts of wind make it spin the other way around, and this goes on and on for hours. From the measurements of the wind and current spin of the ball, you can make a model that accurately and precisely predicts the spin of the ball on the almost frictionless frozen lake.

Now imagine your spinning ball is extremely small you can't even see it or any "wind" with any tools that you currently have, but you can still measure its spin to a certain precision. Now imagine this "wind" is so strong and volatile that the tools you have sometimes takes a somewhat accurate physical snapshot of it and sometimes it just misses the gust. You take a look at the somewhat accurate measured spin and it seems to have changed without any reason, but it was just because your tooling is not accurate and precise enough to capture all the quantum gusts of wind that influence the quantum ball, so it looks like the ball is changing its spin randomly, whist in reality, we just can't precisely measure whatever is influencing the ball's spin with our current tooling. The influences are there, it's just that our tooling can't capture them precisely and accurately enough.

To combat that, we continously measure the ball's spin and we are able to figure out a pattern, not a precise one (because again, our tooling is not precise and accurate enough), but a pattern based on probability of the ball being in a specific spin state, we can even combine this with our inaccurate measurements of the quantum wind and further improve the accuracy of the probability. But never to a precise pattern, because our tooling sometimes misses certain wind states that it looks like the ball chagend spin randomly.

If we had tools that precisely and accurately measured the ball's spin and the quantum wind, we would be able to build a precise and accurate model of the spin based on those measurements. But we can't, although, we still want to make science around these inaccurate measurements, and probability based patterns are just enough for the science we want to make.

The wave function is just the result of our lack of precise and accurate measuring tools and measuring methods at this quantum scale. And for now, it's good enough for the science we want to do.

My proposal was intended to be independent of A and B’s strategy. As a fully worked-out example, suppose the tickets are printed like this:

With probability 42.5%: all positions win

With probability 42.5%: all positions lose

With probability 7.5%: Both of A’s options win and both of B’s options lose

With probability 7.5%: Both of A’s options lose and both of B’s options win.

This follows the rules of the game, and it has the following properties. A wins with probability 50% regardless of their strategy, as does B. And A and B get the same outcome 85% of the time.

For the CHSH inequality (following the pretty-bad Wikipedia article), each E term is the probability that A and B both win when they use the indicated strategies, which is 0.425. So S=0.85, which is well within the limit, as it should be since these are extremely boring classical tickets.

Also Superdeterminism might allow for Local Hidden Variables.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory

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

Worse, the symmetries of the Standard Model are pretty complicated, especially when one goes from the local Lorentz or Poincaré symmetries x SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) to the global continuous symmetries that capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custodial_symmetry, (particlularly QCD) flavour symmetry, and scale symmetry. There are some further long-range approximate symmetries too, and those get worse with spacetime curvature. These all may have to be accounted for if one is time-reversing a region of the spacetime-filling fields of the Standard Model.

> So where did all our antimatter go?

Good question. Nobody can really tell you right now. Maybe there are galaxy clusters totally dominated by antimatter, maybe the antimatter is in a different Hubble volume, maybe it all annihilated into the cosmic microwave background and other ultra-low-energy relic fields (e.g. the cosmic (anti-)neutrino background) we haven't detected or discovered yet, maybe into primordial black holes, maybe in an extension of the Standard model to extremely high energies there isn't a matter-antimatter balance in the first place. One can write down an enormous number of different theories, and relax knowing that there is presently no evidence to favour or disfavour it, provided it's compatible with the experimental and astrophysical evidence we have today.

(I do like the idea, building on an idea arising from Wheeler's one-electron universe, that anti-electrons (in this case more than one) are screened within pion condensates ("maybe they're hiding in neutrons", vaguely), because that makes the symmetries even crazier, and particle physicists deserve that).