Some questions about "superdeterminism" and Bell's Theorem

[Lord Jestocost]

Einstein may have been motivated by the desire for a deterministic theory, but I think that the interpretation of quantum mechanics has more daunting problems than lack of determinism.

I agree!

“Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned.“ (S. Gröblacher et al., “An experimental test of non-local realism,” Nature (London), 446, 871 (2007))

 

[1977ub]

To me, some form of superdeterminism is the most logical. If one believes in cause-and-effect, then there are no "dice of god", no random number generators to inject randomness into the universe. I like this anonymous guy's thinking about determinism & superdeterminism. A determinist doesn't believe in some random free will to whimsically move the apparatus measuring angles either. These are events in the warp and woof of the universe.

Just search on the net for
"Von Neumann's Postulate and Bell’s Freedom"

 

[Zafa Pi]

With all due respect, I don’t get the point. At the same time, other physicist were already looking much further ahead in their thinking than Einstein. Maybe, you should read Heisenberg’s memories of his talks with Einstein (in “Der Teil und das Ganze” by Werner Heisenberg).

Do you have a link to an English translation of Heisenberg's memories not behind a paywall? I would be curious to read his recollections from decades earlier. You are most likely aware that Bohr disputed Heisenberg's account of conversations.

Many luminaries today not only consider Einstein's perspectives on QM were mistaken, but those of Bohr, Schrodinger, von Neumann, Planck, Rosen, Podolsky, et. al. as well. And there is much disagreement still, as this very forum reveals. That's why I like it.
It's a shame the brilliant Heisenberg didn't come up with Bell's argument in 1935 so we could have heard Einstein's reaction.

 

[Lord Jestocost]

Do you have a link to an English translation of Heisenberg's memories not behind a paywall?

No.

Many luminaries today not only consider Einstein's perspectives on QM were mistaken, but those of Bohr, Schrodinger, von Neumann, Planck, Rosen, Podolsky, et. al. as well. And there is much disagreement still, as this very forum reveals. That's why I like it.

Maybe, the paper "A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics" by Maximilian Schlosshauer, Johannes Kofler, Anton Zeilinger might be of interest: https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069

 

[Zafa Pi]

Ontology. Even if physical theories are just a thinking tool and not a description of true reality, physicists like to think in terms of concepts which they imagine they are there even if they don't measure them. In that sense ontological models may be better thinking tools than non-ontological ones.

How philosophical, how Platonic! OK, hidden variables are a fluffy/dubious ontological thinking tool in the service of Einstein's "elements of reality". But your "true reality" is an even more gossamer ontological thinking tool in the service of allowing you to call out fluffy ontological thinking tools of others. :-)

 

[Blue Scallop]

Ok, thanks. I am aware that QM admits neither hidden variable theories nor predictive determinism. My question is: are all hidden variable theories by nature deterministic. Or are there some that do allow indeterminacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

"Although determinism was initially a major motivation for physicists looking for hidden variable theories, non-deterministic theories trying to explain what the supposed reality underlying the quantum mechanics formalism looks like are also considered hidden variable theories; for example Edward Nelson's stochastic mechanics."

So non-deterministic hidden variables are valid and not cooked up only as figment of imagination or thinking tools... but maybe it is valid to argue why call it hidden variables if it is non-deterministic.. so if you read some papers that give solid arguments for either.. do drop us a line.. thanks..