Quantum Entanglement: Explaining the Logic Behind It

[zonde]

Of course, causality is sacrificed, which is why it is described as "adynamical".

Causality is not dismissed. It is just reinterpreted. Otherwise RBW would have to dump all the classical physics and start from scratch.

What does any of that have to do with superdeterminism?

It's the same approach. Measurement results (future) restrict initial conditions (past). That's superdeterminism as it is described in this thread.

Where there is no book to reference?

Please do not identify the idea with the name. The idea of future restricting past going under the name of "superdeterminism" has received dismissive criticism from some people closer to experimental side of Bell inequalities. Wikipedia editors have dug up some references for that (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism for references of Bell and Zeilinger).
But the same idea under different names is more popular among people closer to theoretical side.

 

[DrChinese]

1. Causality is not dismissed. It is just reinterpreted. Otherwise RBW would have to dump all the classical physics and start from scratch.

2. It's the same approach. Measurement results (future) restrict initial conditions (past). That's superdeterminism as it is described in this thread.

3. Please do not identify the idea with the name. The idea of future restricting past going under the name of "superdeterminism" has received dismissive criticism from some people closer to experimental side of Bell inequalities. Wikipedia editors have dug up some references for that (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism for references of Bell and Zeilinger).
But the same idea under different names is more popular among people closer to theoretical side.

1. RBW describes quantum physics, and from that the classical world evolves. The present does not "cause" the past, and so the theory is acausal and adynamical. There is no causality as it is currently defined.

2. This is not superdeterminism. I can't give a precise definition since it changes as it encounters new problems. But the basic idea is: initial conditions conspire to give us the illusion that our Bell test samples are representative, when they are not. This explains how the local realistic limit is exceeded, even though we live in a local realistic world.

I say any such explanation is not science. No different than a religion.

3. Sorry, I think you made my point for me. There is no actual (scientific) reference here. Just a few quotes/anecdotes from scientists who don't consider this as a valid issue:

"Although [Bell] acknowledged the loophole, he also argued that it was implausible."

 

[zonde]

RBW describes quantum physics, and from that the classical world evolves.

Idea that model of classical physics can be derived from QM is at best controversial and at worst just wrong.

2. This is not superdeterminism. I can't give a precise definition since it changes as it encounters new problems. But the basic idea is: initial conditions conspire to give us the illusion that our Bell test samples are representative, when they are not. This explains how the local realistic limit is exceeded, even though we live in a local realistic world.

I say any such explanation is not science. No different than a religion.

I completely agree that superdeterminism is not scientific. What I say is that retrocausality and "adynamical global constraints" of RBW are no better than superdeterminism, i.e. they are based on philosophy that is inconsistent with scientific approach.

3. Sorry, I think you made my point for me. There is no actual (scientific) reference here. Just a few quotes/anecdotes from scientists who don't consider this as a valid issue:

"Although [Bell] acknowledged the loophole, he also argued that it was implausible."

I would take even stronger statement:
Abner Shimony, Michael Horne and John Clauser made a similar comment in replying to John Bell in their discussions in the Epistemological Letters: "In any scientific experiment in which two or more variables are supposed to be randomly selected, one can always conjecture that some factor in the overlap of the backward light cones has controlled the presumably random choices. But, we maintain, skepticism of this sort will essentially dismiss all results of scientific experimentation. Unless we proceed under the assumption that hidden conspiracies of this sort do not occur, we have abandoned in advance the whole enterprise of discovering the laws of nature by experimentation."

So I suppose we agree on that.

 

[forcefield]

Abner Shimony, Michael Horne and John Clauser made a similar comment in replying to John Bell in their discussions in the Epistemological Letters: "In any scientific experiment in which two or more variables are supposed to be randomly selected, one can always conjecture that some factor in the overlap of the backward light cones has controlled the presumably random choices. But, we maintain, skepticism of this sort will essentially dismiss all results of scientific experimentation. Unless we proceed under the assumption that hidden conspiracies of this sort do not occur, we have abandoned in advance the whole enterprise of discovering the laws of nature by experimentation."

I don't get how they go from supposedly randomly selected variables to dismissing all results of scientific experimentation.

 

[zonde]

I don't get how they go from supposedly randomly selected variables to dismissing all results of scientific experimentation.

In all experiments there are errors. Random errors can be estimated by statistically analyzing many repetitions of the same experiment based on assumption that random factors leading to random errors are ... well, random. If they are not, the errors are systematic and they can't be estimated with statistical analysis.
I suppose it's something like that. As I'm not experimentalist I don't dare to go deeper.

 

[forcefield]

In all experiments there are errors. Random errors can be estimated by statistically analyzing many repetitions of the same experiment based on assumption that random factors leading to random errors are ... well, random. If they are not, the errors are systematic and they can't be estimated with statistical analysis.
I suppose it's something like that. As I'm not experimentalist I don't dare to go deeper.

But if the errors are not significant, then I don't see a reason to dismiss the results.

 

[zonde]

But if the errors are not significant, then I don't see a reason to dismiss the results.

But there is no ready method how to estimate systematic error. That's the problem. You can not know if there is or there isn't significant systematic error just by looking at number of results.

 

[forcefield]

But there is no ready method how to estimate systematic error. That's the problem. You can not know if there is or there isn't significant systematic error just by looking at number of results.

Why does it always matter whether a small error is systematic or not?

 

[zonde]

Why does it always matter whether a small error is systematic or not?

If you want an example of how nasty systematic errors can be you can look at the case where OPERA experiment reported neutrinos traveling faster than light.