3 ms·

He explains it in the article. Questioning one of the assumptions in the Bell theorems

by EGreg 4y ago

naasking 4y ago
Indeed, he's on the superdeterminism train with Sabine Hossenfelder: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139...
- fsh 4y ago
  I am not aware of any superdeterministic theory that can explain the violation of Bell's inequality. They only argue that a violation of Bell's inequality is not impossible in a superdeterministic local hidden variable theory (but no such theory has been formulated). I suspect this is why Hossenfelder just knocks down a few strawmen in her video on superdeterminism [1], instead of addressing the elephant in the room (experimental violations of Bell's inequality). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytyjgIyegDI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytyjgIyegDI
  - naasking 4y ago
    Of course there are: * Hossenfelder's own toy model, https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.01327v5 https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.01327v5 * Gerard 't Hooft's cellular automata model: https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gthpub/FFP11_2010.pdf https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gthpub/FFP11_2010.p... * https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/714819 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/714819 Models that violate Bell's theorem are in fact simple to construct. Everyone agrees that superdeterminism can evade Bell's theorem, the key is making this evasion as plausible or more plausible than accepting many worlds or the absence of counterfactual definiteness. Given so little effort has been expended in this direction because of incorrect assumptions of superdeterminism, it's not surprising that these models are still rudimentary proofs of concept, but the notion that Bells' theorem is some insurmountable obstacle is just incorrect.
  - rafaelero 4y ago
    Accepting the very simple assertion that the thing being measured is not independent from the act of measurement already renders the bell inequality invalid.

He explains it in the article. Questioning one of the assumptions in the Bell theorems

by EGreg 4y ago

He explains it in the article. Questioning one of the assumptions in the Bell theorems

Indeed, he's on the superdeterminism train with Sabine Hossenfelder: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139...

fsh 4y ago
I am not aware of any superdeterministic theory that can explain the violation of Bell's inequality. They only argue that a violation of Bell's inequality is not impossible in a superdeterministic local hidden variable theory (but no such theory has been formulated). I suspect this is why Hossenfelder just knocks down a few strawmen in her video on superdeterminism [1], instead of addressing the elephant in the room (experimental violations of Bell's inequality). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytyjgIyegDI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytyjgIyegDI
- naasking 4y ago
  Of course there are: * Hossenfelder's own toy model, https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.01327v5 https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.01327v5 * Gerard 't Hooft's cellular automata model: https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gthpub/FFP11_2010.pdf https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gthpub/FFP11_2010.p... * https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/714819 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/714819 Models that violate Bell's theorem are in fact simple to construct. Everyone agrees that superdeterminism can evade Bell's theorem, the key is making this evasion as plausible or more plausible than accepting many worlds or the absence of counterfactual definiteness. Given so little effort has been expended in this direction because of incorrect assumptions of superdeterminism, it's not surprising that these models are still rudimentary proofs of concept, but the notion that Bells' theorem is some insurmountable obstacle is just incorrect.
- rafaelero 4y ago
  Accepting the very simple assertion that the thing being measured is not independent from the act of measurement already renders the bell inequality invalid.