Live data from Hacker News

The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

backreaction.blogspot.com

61–70 of 70 posts

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#61
post #7

Can someone explain more clearly how being in a deterministic universe resolves the “problem” of Bell inequalities? It seems like even if the universe were deterministic it would not cause the classic polarizing-filters Bell inequality to seem “reasonable”. In fact it makes it seem less reasonable to me!

The determinism doesn't solve the problem, it makes the non-locality more visible because some people think that state of two particles far away influencing one another is somehow worse than the wave function in whole universe changing it's value at once.

The superdeterminism "solves" the problem by claiming that there is no problem to begin with, and the results look non-local only because the experimenters always pick experiments that look non-local.

How can a local deterministic theory create such complex behavior as thinking people, and at the same time constrain it in a way that time taken to play mario level is correlated with a photon experiment a year later, is left for the reader as an exercise.

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#62
post #53
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the problem I'm addressing is that the interpretation of the experiment assumes that the system is memoryless That's easy to verify by testing the various components--parametric down conversion, prisms, beam splitters, etc.--and showing that if you shine repeated photons on them from the same source, prepared in the same state, they all come out in the same state, or more generally give the same results. All of the…

>if you shine repeated photons on them from the same source, prepared in the same state, they all come out in the same state, or more generally give the same results. Those kinds of measurements would violate the uncertainty principle. You can't know the complete state going in to the system or the complete state going out. You can run some tests and justify other assumptions based accepted theories. We generally hav…

> Those kinds of measurements would violate the uncertainty principle.

No, they don't. The uncertainty principle places limits on measurements of non-commuting observables on the same system. We are not talking about that here. See below.

> You can't know the complete state going in to the system

Sure you can: just prepare the system in a known state. For example, pass your photon through a vertically oriented polarizing filter: if it comes through, it must be vertically polarized, so you have complete knowledge of its polarization state. (You might have to try multiple photons to get one that passes through: that's why photon sources in these experiments are often inefficient.)

> or the complete state going out

Sure you can: you measure it. For example, you pass the vertically polarized photon that just came through your vertical polarization filter through a beam splitter, and you have detectors at each output of the beam splitter. Exactly one detector will fire for each photon.

> If the emitter were to only emit useable photons when it's "in the right state", what stops the "right state" for emitting photons to become correlated with the polarizers?

> There are a bunch of "unusable" photons bouncing around interacting with everything and transporting global state.

It looks like you don't have a good understanding of how the "emitter" works. What you are calling the "emitter" is really a filter, like the vertical polarizer described above: it throws away the photons coming from a source (like a laser) that don't meet a particular requirement (like vertical polarization). The thrown away photons are either absorbed (as in the case of the polarizer) or they just pass through the apparatus altogether and fly away (as in the case of parametric down conversion, for example: only a small percentage of the laser photons will be down converted, the rest just fly away and are gone).

In no case are the photons not used kept "bouncing around". They're gone. And the photons in the "right" state are just the ones that make it through the filter and are therefore in a known state when they come out, because that's how the filter works: the filter is uncorrelated with what's inside the experiment because, again, that's how the filter works (and it is tested to make sure it works that way).

> What happens to the photons that reflect off of the polarizers and travel back into the emitter?

There aren't any. See above.

> If a photon bounces off of a mirror it had to have 1. transfered momentum to whatever it hit, and 2. induced a sufficiently strong opposing electromagnetic field to cause the photon to be reflected or re-emitted.

1. Yes, but in these experiments the mirror is fixed to the Earth, so the momentum is transferred to the Earth, which means it's effectively gone. The entire Earth is not going to have a "memory" that can become correlated with the rest of the experiment.

2. No. You are thinking of it classically, but we are not talking about a classical process.

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#63
post #60

In Superdeterminism each time a particle has to collapse, instead of rolling a dice it looks into a secret table of hidden variables that was calculated at the beginning of the universe. The table was calculated carefully so the apparent random choices follow all the laws of quantum mechanics, and the results are equivalent to what you would expect if any of the other interpretations where correct. To calculate this…

What you describe is not superdeterminism, but a replay of a non local theory. The important part happens in the first run when you calculate the table. What superdeterminism says, is that there exists local and deterministic evaluation rule that will compute consecutive states of the universe, but simply because of the way the rule works experimenters far away end up always choosing the experiments that yield correc…

From the article:

> Where do these correlations ultimately come from? Well, they come from where everything ultimately comes from, that is from the initial state of the universe. And that’s where most people walk off: They think that you need to precisely choose the initial conditions of the universe to arrange quanta in Anton Zeilinger’s brain just so that he’ll end up turning a knob left rather than right. Besides sounding entirely nuts, it’s also a useless idea, because how the hell would you ever calculate anything with it? And if it’s unfalsifiable but useless, then indeed it isn’t science. So, frowning at superdeterminism is not entirely unjustified.

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#64
post #58
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in this regard the pilot wave is not different from the standard Schroedinger’s wavefunction, is it?

Schroedinger’s wavefunction isn't sufficient in a relativistic context

True. To be fair, it's true that the relativistic extensions to Bohmian mechanics are not as advanced as for the "standard" theory. But they are not necessarily impossible and the requirement of a prefered foliation may not be so unacceptable if the history of the universe goes back to a singularity (so there is a "local time since singularity" that gives somes sense to the idea of simultaneity).

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#65
post #60

In Superdeterminism each time a particle has to collapse, instead of rolling a dice it looks into a secret table of hidden variables that was calculated at the beginning of the universe. The table was calculated carefully so the apparent random choices follow all the laws of quantum mechanics, and the results are equivalent to what you would expect if any of the other interpretations where correct. To calculate this…

What you describe is not superdeterminism, but a replay of a non local theory. The important part happens in the first run when you calculate the table. What superdeterminism says, is that there exists local and deterministic evaluation rule that will compute consecutive states of the universe, but simply because of the way the rule works experimenters far away end up always choosing the experiments that yield correc…

> there exists local and deterministic evaluation rule that will compute consecutive states of the universe

If this is the correct meaning of superdeterminism, then it doesn't make sense. Saying that there are some unknown rules that explain something is not a scientific theory.

You can solve the quantum gravity problem saying that there are some unknown rules that explain that. You can solve the renormalization problem saying that there are some unknown rules that explain that. You can solve everything saying that there are some unknown rules that explain that.

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#66
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you describe is not superdeterminism, but a replay of a non local theory. The important part happens in the first run when you calculate the table. What superdeterminism says, is that there exists local and deterministic evaluation rule that will compute consecutive states of the universe, but simply because of the way the rule works experimenters far away end up always choosing the experiments that yield correc…

> there exists local and deterministic evaluation rule that will compute consecutive states of the universe If this is the correct meaning of superdeterminism, then it doesn't make sense. Saying that there are some unknown rules that explain something is not a scientific theory. You can solve the quantum gravity problem saying that there are some unknown rules that explain that. You can solve the renormalization prob…

It is not that simple. Bell inequalities show that there cannot exist a local evaluation rule that could explain experiments with entangled particles where two people pick filters independently.

Superdeterminism is saying that strictly speaking we do not have a proof that two people (whose past light cones intersect) can pick the filters independently, so Bell inequalities still would allow local rules, that in addition to describing particles, somehow also restrict the choices that experimentators can make.

So superdeterminism is not a scientific theory, but a hypothesis that there exists a scientific theory that would fit in the small crack left open by Bell inequalities.

No one knows how to construct such a theory, and most people think it cannot be constructed.

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#67
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you describe is not superdeterminism, but a replay of a non local theory. The important part happens in the first run when you calculate the table. What superdeterminism says, is that there exists local and deterministic evaluation rule that will compute consecutive states of the universe, but simply because of the way the rule works experimenters far away end up always choosing the experiments that yield correc…

From the article: > Where do these correlations ultimately come from? Well, they come from where everything ultimately comes from, that is from the initial state of the universe. And that’s where most people walk off: They think that you need to precisely choose the initial conditions of the universe to arrange quanta in Anton Zeilinger’s brain just so that he’ll end up turning a knob left rather than right. Besides…

Yes, despite the title, the articles has better arguments against superdeterminism than for it.

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#68
post #42

"The Facts" basically say that among the statements, "Your experiment design isn't predestined by the universe to make it accidentally seem like quantum mechanics is true," "the state of the universe today is all you need to know to predict the state of the universe tomorrow," and "an experiment only has one outcome," there is at least one lie. If the first one is a lie that's superdeterminism, the second one the Cop…

My issue with the second statement, about knowing the exact state of the universe at any given reference time is that by definition the information within that state would require the entire space of the universe to store with sufficient detail to make an accurate prediction of future states. (One might also assume it would require a real universe's worth of processing power to compute a new state as well.) I believe…

The fact that nothing can propagate faster than light speed, allows to isolate segments of universe from one another. Of course you can not simulate the whole universe exactly, but simulating a part of it, like completely closed room, or a different smaller universe, is still interesting and useful.

Wolfram proposes an interesting solution to the question of free will, that does not require any randomness: computational irreducibility. It is the hypothesis that for some computations there is only one way to perform. That is if you try to predict what an AI will chose, your only option is to create an exact copy and let that copy to make the choice.

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#69
post #64
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schroedinger’s wavefunction isn't sufficient in a relativistic context

True. To be fair, it's true that the relativistic extensions to Bohmian mechanics are not as advanced as for the "standard" theory. But they are not necessarily impossible and the requirement of a prefered foliation may not be so unacceptable if the history of the universe goes back to a singularity (so there is a "local time since singularity" that gives somes sense to the idea of simultaneity).

I am not very familiar with Bohmian mechanics/Pilot wave theory, just wanted to make sure what the schro eq is and isn't was clear to everyone

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does superdeterminism have to do with the Tao?

There was something formless and perfect before the universe was born. It is serene. Empty. Solitary. Unchanging. Infinite. Eternally present. It is the mother of the universe. For lack of a better name, I call it the Tao. It flows through all things, inside and outside, and returns to the origin of all things. The Tao is great. The universe is great. Earth is great. Man is great. These are the four great powers. Man…

That's beautiful.
Post reply on HN