5 ms·

I'm a bit sad that they couldn't reproduce the double slit interference pattern. I'm still holding out hope that we'll eventually develop a model of reality whe

by m12k 8y ago

I'm a bit sad that they couldn't reproduce the double slit interference pattern. I'm still holding out hope that we'll eventually develop a model of reality where the apparent indeterminism of quantum mechanics can be explained by currently unobservable interactions in higher dimensional space (such as the space described here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-discover-geometry-underlying-particle-physics-20130917/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-discover-geometry-... )

msslx 8y ago
At least locally, there are no hidden variables (e.g., in higher dimensional space). You might have a look at Bell's work on hidden-variable theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory#Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory#Bell%27...
whatshisface 8y ago
What you're describing has been desired by many (including Einstein). However, John Bell more or less proved it impossible[0] in a landmark, sweepingly general result. He would have won a Nobel for it if he had lived long enough. On the other hand, if you are willing to accept superluminal messages and also unobservable mechanics, there is always the pilot wave interpretation[1]. The fluid analogy is disappointing to see go but pilot wave theory lives on. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem Edit: fixed order of references.
- twtw 8y ago
  FYI your references are swapped.
- m12k 8y ago
  Thanks for the link to Bell's Theorem (I recalled there being a result like that, but didn't remember the details of it). If the hidden variables really are in a higher dimensional space, then maybe superluminal communication (in our observable dimensions of space) isn't off the table either? But that comes with its own can of worms that would have to be taken care of as well.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    If you give me both sides of a superluminal telephone I can use it along with special relativity to set up a time paradox. If I only have one end of the phone, or if I can't have a phone at all (not all apparently superluminal interactions allow signaling) then it's considered an undesirable trait but not paradoxical.
    - effie 8y ago
      By paradox, do you mean something like reverting order of events in some inertial frames?
      - whatshisface 8y ago
        The order of events is fair game to reverse so long as they are far enough away from each other that one couldn't have caused the other. The order of pairs of events like that reverse all the time. It's only a time paradox if you can actually do something paradoxical, like killing your grandfather.
        effie 8y ago
        > if you can actually do something paradoxical, like killing your grandfather. ... before certain crucial event in his life, you mean, I assume. How exactly does having a superluminal telephone imply I could change history? Changing history is the paradoxical part - don't assume it can happen.
        whatshisface 8y ago
        Here is an article that goes in to the detail[0]. In so many words, you can use the superluminal telephone to transmit information to your own past. In essence, there is a certain amount of freedom in the simultaneity of events that is well-known to exist (having been experimentally verified). You can abuse it to create time paradoxes if and only if you can send messages faster than light - without FTL it is a curiosity that seems strange to some but otherwise doesn't upset anything. [0] http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.htm...
- naasking 8y ago
  > On the other hand, if you are willing to accept superluminal messages and also unobservable mechanics, there is always the pilot wave interpretation[1] All quantum interpretations have superluminal characteristics, but that's not the same as superluminal messaging/signaling.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    That's true, I should have said "explicitly superluminal mechanics."
andrepd 8y ago
You cannot have (local) hidden variables, Bell showed that. You can have hidden variables only if you forgo locality.
jerf 8y ago
I hold out some hope that the Holographic Universe principle will prove true and tractable, and in the holographic isomorphism there will still be some profound sense in which two entangled photons still somehow locally share a quantum qubit prior to disentanglement. Don't be fooled by "local" in there; all non-locality results in 4D spacetime would remain true, because of course they have to. It would be "local" in an isomorphism that will be extraordinarily counterintuitive and probably never really be something anyone can "visualize". But, if this did pan out, there would be a reasonable sense in which the Copenhagen interpretation would have something physics-al about it (as in, grounded in physics, not necessarily "physical" in the traditional sense), where it wasn't in fact "action at a distance". I for one have no problem with the universe creating probability distributions and then randomly picking a result, as some seem to. (The Universe May Do As It Damned Well Pleases. It's true that a good sense of aesthetics has given us a lot of power up to this point, but "I don't think that's very aesthetic" is not a very strong argument. I'll give it more than 0, but not much.)

by m12k 8y ago

msslx 8y ago

At least locally, there are no hidden variables (e.g., in higher dimensional space). You might have a look at Bell's work on hidden-variable theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory#Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory#Bell%27...

whatshisface 8y ago

What you're describing has been desired by many (including Einstein). However, John Bell more or less proved it impossible[0] in a landmark, sweepingly general result. He would have won a Nobel for it if he had lived long enough. On the other hand, if you are willing to accept superluminal messages and also unobservable mechanics, there is always the pilot wave interpretation[1]. The fluid analogy is disappointing to see go but pilot wave theory lives on. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem Edit: fixed order of references.

twtw 8y ago
FYI your references are swapped.
m12k 8y ago
Thanks for the link to Bell's Theorem (I recalled there being a result like that, but didn't remember the details of it). If the hidden variables really are in a higher dimensional space, then maybe superluminal communication (in our observable dimensions of space) isn't off the table either? But that comes with its own can of worms that would have to be taken care of as well.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  If you give me both sides of a superluminal telephone I can use it along with special relativity to set up a time paradox. If I only have one end of the phone, or if I can't have a phone at all (not all apparently superluminal interactions allow signaling) then it's considered an undesirable trait but not paradoxical.
  - effie 8y ago
    By paradox, do you mean something like reverting order of events in some inertial frames?
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      The order of events is fair game to reverse so long as they are far enough away from each other that one couldn't have caused the other. The order of pairs of events like that reverse all the time. It's only a time paradox if you can actually do something paradoxical, like killing your grandfather.
      - effie 8y ago
        > if you can actually do something paradoxical, like killing your grandfather. ... before certain crucial event in his life, you mean, I assume. How exactly does having a superluminal telephone imply I could change history? Changing history is the paradoxical part - don't assume it can happen.
        whatshisface 8y ago
        Here is an article that goes in to the detail[0]. In so many words, you can use the superluminal telephone to transmit information to your own past. In essence, there is a certain amount of freedom in the simultaneity of events that is well-known to exist (having been experimentally verified). You can abuse it to create time paradoxes if and only if you can send messages faster than light - without FTL it is a curiosity that seems strange to some but otherwise doesn't upset anything. [0] http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.htm...
naasking 8y ago
> On the other hand, if you are willing to accept superluminal messages and also unobservable mechanics, there is always the pilot wave interpretation[1] All quantum interpretations have superluminal characteristics, but that's not the same as superluminal messaging/signaling.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  That's true, I should have said "explicitly superluminal mechanics."

andrepd 8y ago

You cannot have (local) hidden variables, Bell showed that. You can have hidden variables only if you forgo locality.

jerf 8y ago

I hold out some hope that the Holographic Universe principle will prove true and tractable, and in the holographic isomorphism there will still be some profound sense in which two entangled photons still somehow locally share a quantum qubit prior to disentanglement. Don't be fooled by "local" in there; all non-locality results in 4D spacetime would remain true, because of course they have to. It would be "local" in an isomorphism that will be extraordinarily counterintuitive and probably never really be something anyone can "visualize". But, if this did pan out, there would be a reasonable sense in which the Copenhagen interpretation would have something physics-al about it (as in, grounded in physics, not necessarily "physical" in the traditional sense), where it wasn't in fact "action at a distance". I for one have no problem with the universe creating probability distributions and then randomly picking a result, as some seem to. (The Universe May Do As It Damned Well Pleases. It's true that a good sense of aesthetics has given us a lot of power up to this point, but "I don't think that's very aesthetic" is not a very strong argument. I'll give it more than 0, but not much.)