3 ms·

I commented awhile back on another thread that: I think, ultimately, there are only 3 possible explanations for the paradoxes of the quantum world. 1) superdet

I commented awhile back on another thread that: I think, ultimately, there are only 3 possible explanations for the paradoxes of the quantum world. 1) superdeterminism (everything including our choices in quantum experiments today were fully determined at the instant of the Big Bang), 2) something "outside" our observable reality acting as a global hidden variable (whether something like the bulk in brane cosmology or whatever is running the simulation in simulation theory) or 3) emergent spacetime (if space and time are emergent phenomena then locality and causation are not fundamental). You seem to be suggesting something similar to option 2. Or am I misunderstanding?

GistNoesis 2y ago
The solution I'm suggesting is that nature does it in the really boring way : classically. It's almost like option 2, but the state is local. This state is local and "inside" our universe, but we can't observe it. (A good analog for thing that are unobservable from inside the universe are seed of a pseudo-random generator). The beauty of it, is just realising that Nature's simulator can be purely local and yet not be subjected to Bell Inequalities, but still reproduce the spurious quantum correlations, if you calculate the probabilities. Violating Bell Inequalities is totally normal when you construct your theory such that Bell Inequalities don't apply.
- eigenket 2y ago
  I guarantee you can't break (for example) the CHSH inequality [1] with such a set-up (assuming I've understood your description of what you're proposing), and encourage you to try (with similar python script). An easy formulation of the inequality is in the CHSH game section of the same article [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality#CHSH_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality#CHSH_game
  - GistNoesis 2y ago
    In the script I already gave you it shows an even stronger argument than CHSH inequality : Convergence (in law) towards the QM probas : It can replicate all the proba given by QM for any alpha,beta polarizer settings, up to epsilon, with epsilon that can be made vanishingly small. QM breaks CHSH inequality, this replicates the proba of QM therefore it also breaks CHSH. Of course I'm not banging against a math theorem wall, I just made some leeway to go around, based on the fact that conditional probabilities are not probabilities. Setting the problem such that measurements/observation are defined as a conditional probability (against an unobservable variable) suffice for making Bell theorem not applicable. It offers a whole class of solution to the seemingly paradoxical Bell Inequalities.
    - eigenket 2y ago
      If I understand correctly what your script is doing, it emphatically does not meet the challenge I gave above (specifically it fails the "but the state is local" part of your comment). This is because of the post-selection on line 44. This post selection involves information about the measurement settings of both party A and party B, and is therefore a (very strongly) non-local thing. To give a more explicit example - imagine I am trying to break the CHSH inequality I linked above. My response functions are set up so Alice and Bob return completely random answers (0 or 1) independent of what they get sent and I add a line to the code much like your 44 except it just keeps the lines where xy = a+b (mod 2), i.e. we filter so that we keep only the trials where we won the CHSH game. Then we have completely trivially "won" the CHSH game with probability greater that 75% entirely due to this magic non-local filtering.
      - GistNoesis 2y ago
        That the subtlety of this post-selection scheme, the state is completely local : By construction (L37) sela only depends on particle a, and (L38) selb only depends on particle b. The measurement of a only depend on sela (and not selb), and the measurement of b only depend on selb (and not sela). There is no exchange of information. The universe already has given you the observations it needed to give you by line 38. The simulator only used local information to simulate the universe up to this point. Like in qm once you have written down your measurements, you compare them to count coincidences. Sela just mean you registered a click on detector a, Selb just mean you registered a click on detector b. The logical_and is just you counting the observations as a coincidence or not, aka whether you got a click on both detector simultaneously. You are free to be as non-local as you want here, it is of no importance with regard to the state of the universe, the clicks already happened or not happened.

GistNoesis 2y ago

The solution I'm suggesting is that nature does it in the really boring way : classically. It's almost like option 2, but the state is local. This state is local and "inside" our universe, but we can't observe it. (A good analog for thing that are unobservable from inside the universe are seed of a pseudo-random generator). The beauty of it, is just realising that Nature's simulator can be purely local and yet not be subjected to Bell Inequalities, but still reproduce the spurious quantum correlations, if you calculate the probabilities. Violating Bell Inequalities is totally normal when you construct your theory such that Bell Inequalities don't apply.

eigenket 2y ago
I guarantee you can't break (for example) the CHSH inequality [1] with such a set-up (assuming I've understood your description of what you're proposing), and encourage you to try (with similar python script). An easy formulation of the inequality is in the CHSH game section of the same article [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality#CHSH_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality#CHSH_game
- GistNoesis 2y ago
  In the script I already gave you it shows an even stronger argument than CHSH inequality : Convergence (in law) towards the QM probas : It can replicate all the proba given by QM for any alpha,beta polarizer settings, up to epsilon, with epsilon that can be made vanishingly small. QM breaks CHSH inequality, this replicates the proba of QM therefore it also breaks CHSH. Of course I'm not banging against a math theorem wall, I just made some leeway to go around, based on the fact that conditional probabilities are not probabilities. Setting the problem such that measurements/observation are defined as a conditional probability (against an unobservable variable) suffice for making Bell theorem not applicable. It offers a whole class of solution to the seemingly paradoxical Bell Inequalities.
  - eigenket 2y ago
    If I understand correctly what your script is doing, it emphatically does not meet the challenge I gave above (specifically it fails the "but the state is local" part of your comment). This is because of the post-selection on line 44. This post selection involves information about the measurement settings of both party A and party B, and is therefore a (very strongly) non-local thing. To give a more explicit example - imagine I am trying to break the CHSH inequality I linked above. My response functions are set up so Alice and Bob return completely random answers (0 or 1) independent of what they get sent and I add a line to the code much like your 44 except it just keeps the lines where xy = a+b (mod 2), i.e. we filter so that we keep only the trials where we won the CHSH game. Then we have completely trivially "won" the CHSH game with probability greater that 75% entirely due to this magic non-local filtering.
    - GistNoesis 2y ago
      That the subtlety of this post-selection scheme, the state is completely local : By construction (L37) sela only depends on particle a, and (L38) selb only depends on particle b. The measurement of a only depend on sela (and not selb), and the measurement of b only depend on selb (and not sela). There is no exchange of information. The universe already has given you the observations it needed to give you by line 38. The simulator only used local information to simulate the universe up to this point. Like in qm once you have written down your measurements, you compare them to count coincidences. Sela just mean you registered a click on detector a, Selb just mean you registered a click on detector b. The logical_and is just you counting the observations as a coincidence or not, aka whether you got a click on both detector simultaneously. You are free to be as non-local as you want here, it is of no importance with regard to the state of the universe, the clicks already happened or not happened.