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/1511.03190https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03189http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7575/full/nature15759.htmlAll 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.
