4 ms·

Ok, particle states are correlated in a way we've missed. Fine. Every set of particles has fewer degrees of freedom than we assumed. We can check experimentally

Ok, particle states are correlated in a way we've missed. Fine. Every set of particles has fewer degrees of freedom than we assumed. We can check experimentally: the heat capacity of your set of particles is proportional to the number of degrees of freedom. It would be nice to see something about this point in the essay.

gus_massa 7y ago
> the heat capacity of your set of particles is proportional to the number of degrees of freedom IIRC that is only valid for a classic system.
- tom-thistime 7y ago
  Sure, but it's the same issue. In a quantum system some degrees of freedom are "frozen out"--the energies are much higher than (Boltzmann's constant)(Absolute temperature) and they become irrelevant. But the accessible degrees of freedom show up in the heat capacity.
  - gus_massa 7y ago
    When the Cv of a diatomic gas goes from 3/2R to 5/2R there is an intermediate part that is complicated. A photon gas has also a strange Cv. I think it's not easy to dismiss superdeterminism using just the Cv, because sometimes Cv is more complicated. [Disclaimer: I really really dislike superdeterminism. I just think that Cv is the wrong reason to dismiss it.]
    - tom-thistime 7y ago
      For sure. The transition from 3/2kT to 5/2kT is a good example of a frozen-out mode getting "unfrozen". Within the transition we have to count density of states and not screw around with classical analogs. ( I'm an optics person, so I think the Cv of a photon gas is normal and understandable ... If I take half an hour to write it all out again!) This is technical stuff we're talking about ... but it's not difficult for particle physicists to address! Anyway I don't think I'm dismissing the idea of "superdeterminism". I'm only puzzled that directly measuring degrees of freedom, which was a central reason for adopting quantum mechanics, isn't even mentioned in an article where the public is being told there are fewer "real" degrees of freedom than generally thought.
    - tom-thistime 7y ago
      For "degrees of freedom" substitute "density of energetically available states." We're taking some states off the table, we have to explain whether there are measurable consequences. I don't understand superdeterminism and I'm not qualified to dismiss it.

gus_massa 7y ago

> the heat capacity of your set of particles is proportional to the number of degrees of freedom IIRC that is only valid for a classic system.

tom-thistime 7y ago
Sure, but it's the same issue. In a quantum system some degrees of freedom are "frozen out"--the energies are much higher than (Boltzmann's constant)(Absolute temperature) and they become irrelevant. But the accessible degrees of freedom show up in the heat capacity.
- gus_massa 7y ago
  When the Cv of a diatomic gas goes from 3/2R to 5/2R there is an intermediate part that is complicated. A photon gas has also a strange Cv. I think it's not easy to dismiss superdeterminism using just the Cv, because sometimes Cv is more complicated. [Disclaimer: I really really dislike superdeterminism. I just think that Cv is the wrong reason to dismiss it.]
  - tom-thistime 7y ago
    For sure. The transition from 3/2kT to 5/2kT is a good example of a frozen-out mode getting "unfrozen". Within the transition we have to count density of states and not screw around with classical analogs. ( I'm an optics person, so I think the Cv of a photon gas is normal and understandable ... If I take half an hour to write it all out again!) This is technical stuff we're talking about ... but it's not difficult for particle physicists to address! Anyway I don't think I'm dismissing the idea of "superdeterminism". I'm only puzzled that directly measuring degrees of freedom, which was a central reason for adopting quantum mechanics, isn't even mentioned in an article where the public is being told there are fewer "real" degrees of freedom than generally thought.
  - tom-thistime 7y ago
    For "degrees of freedom" substitute "density of energetically available states." We're taking some states off the table, we have to explain whether there are measurable consequences. I don't understand superdeterminism and I'm not qualified to dismiss it.