gill1109 wrote:https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07292
Supermeasured: Violating Statistical Independence without violating statistical independence
T.N. Palmer, S. Hossenfelder, J.R. Hance
Bell's theorem is often said to imply that quantum mechanics violates local causality, and that local causality cannot be restored with a hidden-variables theory. This however is only correct if the hidden-variables theory fulfils an assumption called Statistical Independence. Violations of Statistical Independence are commonly interpreted as correlations between the measurement settings and the hidden variables (which determine the measurement outcomes). Such correlations have been discarded as "finetuning" or a "conspiracy". We here point out that the common interpretation is at best physically ambiguous and at worst incorrect. The problem with the common interpretation is that Statistical Independence might be violated because of a non-trivial measure in state space, a possibility we propose to call "supermeasured". We use Invariant Set Theory as an example of a supermeasured theory that violates the Statistical Independence assumption in Bell's theorem without requiring correlations between hidden variables and measurement settings.
I’ve challenged Sabine er al. to implement this model in a computer simulation and win 65 thousand Euro (and Nobel prizes)
Justo wrote:gill1109 wrote:https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07292
Supermeasured: Violating Statistical Independence without violating statistical independence
T.N. Palmer, S. Hossenfelder, J.R. Hance
Bell's theorem is often said to imply that quantum mechanics violates local causality, and that local causality cannot be restored with a hidden-variables theory. This however is only correct if the hidden-variables theory fulfils an assumption called Statistical Independence. Violations of Statistical Independence are commonly interpreted as correlations between the measurement settings and the hidden variables (which determine the measurement outcomes). Such correlations have been discarded as "finetuning" or a "conspiracy". We here point out that the common interpretation is at best physically ambiguous and at worst incorrect. The problem with the common interpretation is that Statistical Independence might be violated because of a non-trivial measure in state space, a possibility we propose to call "supermeasured". We use Invariant Set Theory as an example of a supermeasured theory that violates the Statistical Independence assumption in Bell's theorem without requiring correlations between hidden variables and measurement settings.
I’ve challenged Sabine er al. to implement this model in a computer simulation and win 65 thousand Euro (and Nobel prizes)
As I understand it from the abstract, they only propose a new interpretation for measurement independence violation. This should mean nothing to you since you believe that locality can be retained by rejecting CFD.
There is no doubt the inequality can be violated through violation of measurement independence.
Those who understand that rejection of realism doest not mean anything (be it CFD or something else, see my comment to Griffith) consider rejection of MI very seriously, for instance, Gerard t' Hooft.
By the way your challenge cannot disprove violation of MI.
minkwe wrote:The invariant set postulate on which they rely boils down to an affirmation of modal logic. The choice of the term "superdeterminism" is very unfortunate because it is actually very easy to understand. In the final analysis "superdeterminism" is just a rejection of counterfactual definiteness.
The modal logic states that if it is true today that tomorrow you will eat a banana, then tomorrow you will eat a banana and there is nothing you can do to change it. But You are also an absolutely free agent since it is the truth value of the statement which results from your choice to eat a banana tomorrow. The fact that in the future you chose to eat a banana, causes the statement that you would eat a banana tomorrow to be true. It is NOT the statement that you will eat a banana tomorrow which causes you to eat a banana tomorrow without regard for your freedom. In other words, the occurrence of events causes the statement of their occurrence to be true and not the reverse. Nothing is super determined. All that has happened is that you can't go back and change what has happened already. It doesn't mean you could not have chosen otherwise before.
Translating to the Bell situation, Alice and Bob can't go back and chose different settings. This does not mean they could not have chosen different settings to begin with. The set of choices already made in the past is invariant and separated from the set of choices not made.
minkwe wrote:The invariant set postulate on which they rely boils down to an affirmation of modal logic. The choice of the term "superdeterminism" is very unfortunate because it is actually very easy to understand. In the final analysis "superdeterminism" is just a rejection of counterfactual definiteness.
The modal logic states that if it is true today that tomorrow you will eat a banana, then tomorrow you will eat a banana and there is nothing you can do to change it. But You are also an absolutely free agent since it is the truth value of the statement which results from your choice to eat a banana tomorrow. The fact that in the future you chose to eat a banana, causes the statement that you would eat a banana tomorrow to be true. It is NOT the statement that you will eat a banana tomorrow which causes you to eat a banana tomorrow without regard for your freedom. In other words, the occurrence of events causes the statement of their occurrence to be true and not the reverse. Nothing is super determined. All that has happened is that you can't go back and change what has happened already. It doesn't mean you could not have chosen otherwise before.
Translating to the Bell situation, Alice and Bob can't go back and chose different settings. This does not mean they could not have chosen different settings to begin with. The set of choices already made in the past is invariant and separated from the set of choices not made.
gill1109 wrote:Superdeterminism means that experimentalists are deluded by thinking that they choose which experiments they will perform.
Physics is reduced to "what will happen, will happen".
God has determined everything according to his own unknowable wisdom, at the time of the big bang.
The idea that we can predict anything in the future by observing mere statistical regularities in the past is an illusion, since the future is already determined.
Suppose we perform a Bell experiment with Alice on Mars and Bob on Jupiter. Alice determines her measurement settings by literally tossing coins. Bob uses a state of the art pseudo random number generator with seed determined by his grandmothers birth date. According to Hossenfelder et al. the violation of Bell inequalities comes about because of an exquisite connection between Bob's grandmother's birthday and the prime numbers used in his RNG and Alice's photodetectors.
Joy Christian wrote:.
It looks like Sabine Hossenfelder has unfriended Richard Gill on Facebook after he spewed a huge amount of nonsense about her paper on Facebook.
.
Justo wrote:Joy Christian wrote:.
It looks like Sabine Hossenfelder has unfriended Richard Gill on Facebook after he spewed a huge amount of nonsense about her paper on Facebook.
.
Seems funny, how can we find those dicussions?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07292.pdf wrote:While Bell’s theorem is often said to imply that local causality (which is violated by standard quantum mechanics) cannot
be restored with a deterministic hidden variables theory, this is only correct if the hidden-variables theory respects Statistical
Independence. Violations of Statistical Independence are commonly interpreted as implying a correlation between the measurement settings and the hidden variables which determine the measurement outcomes. However, as we have shown here, one can
violate the Statistical Independence assumption in Bell’s theorem without any correlations between the measurement outcomes
and the hidden variables. The violations of Statistical Independence can instead come about by the geometry of the underlying
state space. We have argued that this is a simple way to see that violating Statistical Independence does not require fine tuning
minkwe wrote:https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07292.pdf wrote:While Bell’s theorem is often said to imply that local causality (which is violated by standard quantum mechanics) cannot
be restored with a deterministic hidden variables theory, this is only correct if the hidden-variables theory respects Statistical
Independence. Violations of Statistical Independence are commonly interpreted as implying a correlation between the measurement settings and the hidden variables which determine the measurement outcomes. However, as we have shown here, one can
violate the Statistical Independence assumption in Bell’s theorem without any correlations between the measurement outcomes
and the hidden variables. The violations of Statistical Independence can instead come about by the geometry of the underlying
state space. We have argued that this is a simple way to see that violating Statistical Independence does not require fine tuning
The conclusion from this paper sounds familiar. I wonder where I read something like this before.
Justo wrote:Joy Christian wrote:.
It looks like Sabine Hossenfelder has unfriended Richard Gill on Facebook after he spewed a huge amount of nonsense about her paper on Facebook.
.
Seems funny, how can we find those dicussions?
gill1109 wrote:Justo, become my FB friend and I can show you the discussions. The problem was, I think, that some of my "FaceBook friends" [incidentally, they are also FB friends of Joy!] started saying really nasty personal things about Sabine. I told them they should not do that but it was too late. Sabine was fed up, and rightly so. I've apologised to her.
Actually, I did not "spew a huge amount of nonsense" about her paper. I made some wise, critical comments. Unfortunately, some people take criticism of their work a bit too personally.
Justo wrote:gill1109 wrote:Justo, become my FB friend and I can show you the discussions. The problem was, I think, that some of my "FaceBook friends" [incidentally, they are also FB friends of Joy!] started saying really nasty personal things about Sabine. I told them they should not do that but it was too late. Sabine was fed up, and rightly so. I've apologised to her.
Actually, I did not "spew a huge amount of nonsense" about her paper. I made some wise, critical comments. Unfortunately, some people take criticism of their work a bit too personally.
I don't believe you, I believe Joy. You are just addicted to making personal attacks for no reason. One thing is to attack scientific ideas another is to insult people.
Justo wrote: You [Gill] are just addicted to making personal attacks for no reason.
gill1109 wrote:Justo wrote:gill1109 wrote:Justo, become my FB friend and I can show you the discussions. The problem was, I think, that some of my "FaceBook friends" [incidentally, they are also FB friends of Joy!] started saying really nasty personal things about Sabine. I told them they should not do that but it was too late. Sabine was fed up, and rightly so. I've apologised to her.
Actually, I did not "spew a huge amount of nonsense" about her paper. I made some wise, critical comments. Unfortunately, some people take criticism of their work a bit too personally.
I don't believe you, I believe Joy. You are just addicted to making personal attacks for no reason. One thing is to attack scientific ideas another is to insult people.
Dear Justo, I’m very sorry to hear that you feel that way.
Oh well, your remarks will delight Joy and several other people.
Joy Christian wrote:.
It looks like Sabine Hossenfelder has unfriended Richard Gill on Facebook after he spewed a huge amount of nonsense about her paper on Facebook.
minkwe wrote:I think it is possible to learn a thing or two even in old age … Stick to the analysis.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 10 guests