User Controls
The mind is a meat radio.
-
2017-02-09 at 2:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Now say there is a 25% possibility that the "pair" can be any one of these, but it is none of these up until the point where one is observed. So both are off 1 light year away, both can be any one of them, it's impossible for it to have been determined beforehand… but both collapse into corresponding states, always. Nobody really knows right now why, but we know that it's simply not a matter of some hidden force that obeys relativity. Somehow their probabilistic outcomes are linked inextricably to each other. We don't really have an explanation but that's what it is.
The probabilistic model doesn't really offer an explanation for why this is, but it says that it simply does, the QM model is complete in this regard, and here is how it fits with the rest of it. It is still useful, well evidenced and an important part of QM, and it helps us make predictions, albeit in general cases rather than specific cases.
Fine, so local hidden variable is out. But the probabilistic model seems to necessitate some kind of non-local force or exchange (or strange sorts of causality, which seems worse) which is no more than a deterministic model requires. Like relativity is out under a hidden variable model or a random one, so I'm not seeing Bell's theorem as being proof positive of quantum indeterminism.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Here it is explained by a smarter man than all of us, I think this will be of special interest to Lanny
ha ha, so funny -
2017-02-09 at 2:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon I actually thought you had an intelligent point until you linked Range 15 as an example of a good movie and realised, nope, your taste is simply shit.
my taste is impeccable. you're simply not on my level of nuanced awareness. range 15 is a masterpiece the likes of which has not come along since the godfather. -
2017-02-09 at 2:55 AM UTC
LLL
LOL
LLLThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-02-09 at 3 AM UTCRange 15 is objectively one of the shittiest movies of all time.
-
2017-02-09 at 3:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Range 15 is objectively one of the shittiest movies of all time.
sorry, you just don't know what you're talking about.
it's actually one of the best.
it's the kind of movie that will be taught in school in the year 4048 as an example of western dramatic theatre, like we learn of antigone from the the classical era. -
2017-02-09 at 3:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny But the probabilistic model seems to necessitate some kind of non-local force or exchange
Not really. There is no information travelling between the particles, no communication or contact. The states are simply correlatively linked, specifically in the fact that no matter what the probability is of them being in any particular states, there is a 100% chance that they will be in opposite states to one another. There is no hidden variable that tells us the specific state of the outcome but the act of entangling the two particles for example is... somehow what creates the fact that they always collapse into opposite states.
Anyway, entanglement is not what really matters here, Bell's theorem deals with it but the important thing it proves that is relevant to this discussion is that there is no hidden variable that determines the state that the particles ultimately are observed in. They are truly random, by mathematical necessity. -
2017-02-09 at 3:44 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Not really. There is no information travelling between the particles, no communication or contact. The states are simply correlatively linked, specifically in the fact that no matter what the probability is of them being in any particular states, there is a 100% chance that they will be in opposite states to one another. There is no hidden variable that tells us the specific state of the outcome but the act of entangling the two particles for example is… somehow what creates the fact that they always collapse into opposite states.
Their collapse doesn't seem to be probabilistic then. If a particle's state is determined by another particle's state then it won't probabilistically collapse, its collapse is a fact contingent on something else. It's like saying "there's a 50% chance that this coin will land on heads, except I'm going to actually set it down on tails so it just probabilistically landed on tails". I don't see how you can call something random when something else necessitates it.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-02-09 at 5:31 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Their collapse doesn't seem to be probabilistic then. If a particle's state is determined by another particle's state then it won't probabilistically collapse, its collapse is a fact contingent on something else. It's like saying "there's a 50% chance that this coin will land on heads, except I'm going to actually set it down on tails so it just probabilistically landed on tails". I don't see how you can call something random when something else necessitates it.
The very definition of quantum entanglement is essentially that both particles will always collapse into opposite states of each other, due to the conservation of energy. However the specific states that either end up in, although they will always be the opposite of one another, is determined completely probabilistically, like in the table I presented before. I'm not sure what part of that doesn't seem probabilistic to you. -
2017-02-09 at 6:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon I'm not sure what part of that doesn't seem probabilistic to you.
The part where on the one hand you're saying it's random which state a particle will be observed in and on the other you're saying it's determined by the state some other particle will be observed in. These seem contradictory. Maybe you're saying a pair must act in tandem but which particle receives which state is random, which OK, that's a conceivable probabilistic model but it seems to necessitate either exchange of information or information be carried before observation takes place, otherwise there seems to be no reason we should expect "coordination". -
2017-02-09 at 6:43 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny The part where on the one hand you're saying it's random which state a particle will be observed in and on the other you're saying it's determined by the state some other particle will be observed in. These seem contradictory. Maybe you're saying a pair must act in tandem but which particle receives which state is random, which OK, that's a conceivable probabilistic model but it seems to necessitate either exchange of information or information be carried before observation takes place, otherwise there seems to be no reason we should expect "coordination".
I don't see the problem at all. Both are correlated but have a given field of possibilities that constrain what random results can be produced as a result of conservation of energy. There's no necessity for there to be a transfer of information or any interaction. Although that is a broader discussion of the QM model. Suffice it to say that there are very good reasons why we have and use probabilistic models. -
2017-02-09 at 8:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon I don't see the problem at all. Both are correlated but have a given field of possibilities that constrain what random results can be produced as a result of conservation of energy.
I don't really know what to say. If spin of one particle is a deterministic function of the spin of its counterpart then it's not random. Like the meaning of randomness forbids it. If spin is indeterministic we shouldn't be able to point to anything in the world and say "that's the cause for this outcome" or "this outcome was knowable with certainty from some other face" but it seems to be exactly what we do when we observe an entangled particle's spin.Suffice it to say that there are very good reasons why we have and use probabilistic models.
To be clear I don't object to a probabilistic model, but it's one thing to say "our best model is probabilistic" and another to say "indeterminism is a physical reality". Like we model lots of things probabilistically that we assume to exist on a deterministic substrate which might be infeasible to model in totality. -
2017-02-09 at 8:13 AM UTCThat's a good point but if you consider the holistic electron then you'd realize it's inevitably going to enter into the quantum vortex, AKA 'the hole' which in layman's terms basically means that it's going to become convex and inevitably explode with any sort of radioactive tumult.
Now, this could be a good or a bad thing depending on how you look at it, but objectively it's also going to effect the amount of rotund particles within the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
To refresh, this can do one of two things: Either the mass becomes too much for itself and (again) you just end up with the afforementioned radioactive tumult, OR (unlikely) what Captain Falcon said happens and we end up with infeasible substrate and overall spin on reality. -
2017-02-09 at 8:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I don't really know what to say. If spin of one particle is a deterministic function of the spin of its counterpart then it's not random. Like the meaning of randomness forbids it. If spin is indeterministic we shouldn't be able to point to anything in the world and say "that's the cause for this outcome" or "this outcome was knowable with certainty from some other face" but it seems to be exactly what we do when we observe an entangled particle's spin.
I'm not sure if you're trolling me or what but do you not see how the specific spin configurations can be random while also being 100% the opposite of each other? The spin of one particle is not a deterministic function of its counterpart any more than the heads side of a coin being up is not the function of the tails side being down; both are necessarily coincident with each other. More importantly, even accepting that f(particle 2) = -1(spin of particle 1), if the "input" (particle 1) is completely randomly created, I don't see how that makes the outcome deterministic.To be clear I don't object to a probabilistic model, but it's one thing to say "our best model is probabilistic" and another to say "indeterminism is a physical reality".
The distinction is so minute as to be meaningless in this case. Perhaps I'm not the best equipped to fully explain it but to deny it at this point is only marginally less of a tall order than denying global warming. There is overwhelming scientific consensus on the fact that the universe simply is not deterministic.Like we model lots of things probabilistically that we assume to exist on a deterministic substrate which might be infeasible to model in totality.
It's not a matter of there being a deterministic substrate that's simply infeasible to totally model; the concept of there being a deterministic substrate is mathematically and logically impossible. From that point, it is not a matter of whether or not there is a fundamentally random basis to it, it simply a matter of resolving how we define and model it. -
2017-02-09 at 3:25 PM UTCi want to die
-
2017-02-09 at 11:21 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-02-10 at 3:36 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon I'm not sure if you're trolling me or what but do you not see how the specific spin configurations can be random while also being 100% the opposite of each other? The spin of one particle is not a deterministic function of its counterpart any more than the heads side of a coin being up is not the function of the tails side being down; both are necessarily coincident with each other.
It seems perfectly fair to say a coin being heads up is a function of it being tails down and vice versa, one fact is reducible to another. If a coin is in the heads down state this entails it must also be in the heads up state.More importantly, even accepting that f(particle 2) = -1(spin of particle 1), if the "input" (particle 1) is completely randomly created, I don't see how that makes the outcome deterministic.
That's true, is that the position you want to take? That together the state of two entangled particles represents one "roll of the dice"?The distinction is so minute as to be meaningless in this case.
Why in this case? Do you think that a best current model should always be considered a physical reality or do you think there's something special about this case? If the latter, what is it?Perhaps I'm not the best equipped to fully explain it but to deny it at this point is only marginally less of a tall order than denying global warming. There is overwhelming scientific consensus on the fact that the universe simply is not deterministic.
I can't speak to scientific consensus. I can say that Bell's Theorem alone certainly doesn't close the book on the subject, at minimum it has nothing to say about non-local deterministic models. Can you point to any evidence that there is in fact "overwhelming scientific consensus" that I could consult without reading a bunch of back issues of journals of physics? I'm not trying to be facetious, if there really is that degree of consensus on the subject I'd like to be able to say I know that from some source other than some guy on the internet (to put it charitably) -
2017-02-10 at 6:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny It seems perfectly fair to say a coin being heads up is a function of it being tails down and vice versa, one fact is reducible to another. If a coin is in the heads down state this entails it must also be in the heads up state.
Yes but it's a matter of coincidence rather than cause. One could model one as a function of the other, but the context in which you said that implied that one determined the outcome of the other, but I don't think it's useful or even accurate to say that the heads side is up *because* the tails side is down; one simply accompanies the other.That's true, is that the position you want to take? That together the state of two entangled particles represents one "roll of the dice"?
To the best of our knowledge, they are both independent "rolls", which are 100% guaranteed to be the opposite of each other.Why in this case? Do you think that a best current model should always be considered a physical reality or do you think there's something special about this case? If the latter, what is it?
I think when the alternative explanation is literally impossible without tossing out the established workings of mathematics and principles of logic, I think it's as close to being a physical reality as possible.
However, even if we move past that, you could make this argument for anything, it's simply not useful; how can you make a strong positive statement that evolution is real and anthropogenic climate change is actually happening? You can't deductively prove them. But when we're like 99.99% sure, I think there needs to be some evidence of the remaining 1% before we stop and give it any consideration in the discussions we base upon the conclusions drawn from the outcome. At every branch up the tree of knowledge, I could point out 1000 different explanations from established science. But we still talk about the established science in the context of our discussions of science, because it's as close to the truth as it gets.I can't speak to scientific consensus. I can say that Bell's Theorem alone certainly doesn't close the book on the subject, at minimum it has nothing to say about non-local deterministic models.
True. But two points:
1. The idea of a non local variable being responsible for the seemingly random outcome of quantum events is such an overwhelmingly huge special case that would require tearing down many, many walls of already established, mathematically and experimentally supported science upon which we have built existing science. For example, the entire relativistic model of physics. And you'd need to have some pretty compelling evidence of it existing before it's worth entertaining the thought.
2. The non-local hidden variable, if it indeed exists, also cannot be the explanation for why a particle's wave function collapses in a specific way. Even a non-local variable would fall into the same trap. There is room for a non-local variable explanation for entanglement but resorting to an explanation that violates locality is even more difficult to justify, specially since we literally have no reason to believe it, and lots and lots of reasons not to.Can you point to any evidence that there is in fact "overwhelming scientific consensus" that I could consult without reading a bunch of back issues of journals of physics? I'm not trying to be facetious, if there really is that degree of consensus on the subject I'd like to be able to say I know that from some source other than some guy on the internet (to put it charitably)
No, you're being 100% reasonable. I've kept in the loop because of a personal interest in the sciences and it wouldn't be fair to expect you to take me at my word. I can say with confidence that the Copenhagen interpretation is what we use in almost every capacity in the modern day for science, but it's reasonable to expect my to give evidence that it is in fact overwhelmingly the most accepted and used view of QM. But I'll have to search for it, I don't imagine it's very common for someone to make the statement that a particular view is the consensus, specially since physics as a field almost never makes positive statements about something not being true, or being impossible. -
2017-02-10 at 8:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Yes but it's a matter of coincidence rather than cause. One could model one as a function of the other, but the context in which you said that implied that one determined the outcome of the other, but I don't think it's useful or even accurate to say that the heads side is up *because* the tails side is down; one simply accompanies the other.
To the best of our knowledge, they are both independent "rolls", which are 100% guaranteed to be the opposite of each other.
I think when the alternative explanation is literally impossible without tossing out the established workings of mathematics and principles of logic, I think it's as close to being a physical reality as possible.
Although the indeterministic/coincidence model you've advanced might not be logically impossible it's a weak gain on it, it's so vanishingly unlikely without some kind of coordination as to be trivially dismissable. The probability of this coincidence holding are so close to 0 and get worse with each experiment conducted. In fact it's probably more likely that each measurement taken was a statistical anomaly as to violate Bell's inequality as it is that entangled particles are just coincidentally observed as being in opposite states which this degree of consistency. The article you linked actually mentions this:There is another objection to the experimental tests that, at least so far, nobody has managed to get totally around. We measure a spin combination of, say, zero degrees and 45 degrees for a collection of electrons and then measure another spin combination, say 45 degrees and 90 degrees, for another collection of electrons.
1. The idea of a non local variable being responsible for the seemingly random outcome of quantum events is such an overwhelmingly huge special case that would require tearing down many, many walls of already established, mathematically and experimentally supported science upon which we have built existing science. For example, the entire relativistic model of physics.
True, but there's really no way to accept experimental results in QM without overturning some element of orthodoxy in physics, indeterminism certainly does and at least as presented it doesn't seem to offer any satisfying explanation.2. The non-local hidden variable, if it indeed exists, also cannot be the explanation for why a particle's wave function collapses in a specific way. Even a non-local variable would fall into the same trap.
Why not? As I understand it Bell's theorem operates on the assumption that we can measure spin at two different angles independently (without one measurement affecting the other), if there is a non-local variable we can explain the violation as being a result of measurement: measuring spin at one angle changes measurements of an entangled particle's spin at a different angle.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-02-10 at 5:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Although the indeterministic/coincidence model you've advanced might not be logically impossible it's a weak gain on it, it's so vanishingly unlikely without some kind of coordination as to be trivially dismissable.
Not really. In fact, it is incredibly statistically unlikely that the QM descriptions are wrong. As I said, there is a reason why the Copenhagen interpretation is simply how we do QM in the modern day; it works. The suggestion is that QM is incomplete, but so far there has been no evidence whatsoever of a non-local variable, a local variable is impossible and a simple probabilistic models explains everything it needs to explain. The dualistic nature of quantum mechanical "animals" means they specifically demonstrate properties of waves that exist in a probabilistic space. Again, I think you are getting too caught up on trying to wrangle with how entanglement works, when the basic outcome sets are demonstrably proven to emerge from a probability space rather than a variable set.
Pretty much the only explanation left outside of probabilistic explanation is the concept of a non-local variable, and there is simply no reason to believe it unless you're too dogmatically tied to the idea of determinism.The probability of this coincidence holding are so close to 0 and get worse with each experiment conducted.
It is a coincidence that they necessarily coincide, not a matter of luck that they happen to coincide. Entanglement produces a 100% probability (I.e. one could even say it... determines) that both particles will collapse into the opposite states of each other. But it does not and cannot determine how specifically this will happen.In fact it's probably more likely that each measurement taken was a statistical anomaly as to violate Bell's inequality as it is that entangled particles are just coincidentally observed as being in opposite states which this degree of consistency. The article you linked actually mentions this:
Not at all. Let's just be clear; both articles I linked are introductory texts. There is no room for objection any further
https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03190
https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03189
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7575/full/nature15759.html
All that remains is the idea of a non-local variable, which we have no reason or evidence to believe exists.True, but there's really no way to accept experimental results in QM without overturning some element of orthodoxy in physics, indeterminism certainly does and at least as presented it doesn't seem to offer any satisfying explanation.
QM may not give an intuitive answer but it gives a "satisfying" one, in that there are no phenomena that are unaccounted for. The problem is honestly just approaching it with a philosophical mind rather than a mathematical one.
And again, unless you are simply dogmatically tied to the idea of some deterministic substrate being completely necessary, there's not really a reason to believe in it right now; there is an unexplained phenomenon, but there is plenty of evidence to back up relativity and none to warrant abandoning it simply because we don't have a causal reason behind it.Why not? As I understand it Bell's theorem operates on the assumption that we can measure spin at two different angles independently (without one measurement affecting the other), if there is a non-local variable we can explain the violation as being a result of measurement: measuring spin at one angle changes measurements of an entangled particle's spin at a different angle.
A deterministic non-local variable can be responsible thus for the 3spoopy5me part where measuring one particle affects the other but it still cannot affect the specific outcomes of the wavefunction collapse, otherwise the inequality would still not be violated. -
2017-02-10 at 5:22 PM UTC
