Hi Everyone.

I know that the current state of knowledge is, that it is proven by the Bells unequality, that hidden variables can't be the explanation of entanglement. However I was not yet able to follow through with this proof and I understand that it is a really hard one to get around. So I am still free to speculate about it not being true

I am a programmer and my first question is if this statement is true:

"If there exists a function for a digital computer, that emulates the response of detectors, only based on the state of the detector, the state of the detected particle and a finite number of hidden variables imprinted into the particle, so that two supposedly entangled particles behave in the simulated detectors the same as they do in reality in any possible configuration, then it would prove the possibility that hidden variables exist."

My second question is:

How can the effect of "Spooky action at a distance" be instantaneous in a universe guided by relativity that does not have something like simultaneus events?

There can be configurations, where one observer argues that particle A got messured first, and another that argues with the same justification that particle B got messured first. So how can a measurement of A effect particle B in a relativistic universe?

Edit: Bell not Bernoulli ofc. Sorry.

My view is that there is no effect. There is a correlation, but it's causal. The basic mistake is wanting to believe that, ultimately, the universe is classical with cause and effect, and it isn't. It's a reasonable approximation for large quantum numbers.

Now, since you are a programmer, as I am, I suggest thinking along the lines of error techniques that you use when data are quantized, such as Bresenham's algorithm and various stochastic techniques applied in numerical integration. Overall, in sum, they can produce results that work much closer to continuously, using only fairly coarse representations of data.

Have a shufty at Brian Greene's excellent Fabric of the Cosmos, that contains the most elegant description of Bell Inequalities I've come across. Oh, and it's got Mulder and Scully in it.

epepke wrote:My view is that there is no effect. There is a correlation, but it's causal. The basic mistake is wanting to believe that, ultimately, the universe is classical with cause and effect, and it isn't. It's a reasonable approximation for large quantum numbers.

Why assume that QM undermines the 'God did it' deterministic viewpoint? This isn't the place to discuss this, but I did want you to think about what you've said. After all, it should be expected that the energy/actions of a God [with free will] would be utterly indeterminable; but the progressive effects of such energy/action should be expected to be progressively more determined. Imo, QM fits perfectly with theism. Of course, I have no wish to derail the thread, so if you want to discuss the matter in any detail then take it to the philosophy forum. Otherwise, pardon me for bothering you with 'wibble'.

jamest wrote:

epepke wrote:My view is that there is no effect. There is a correlation, but it's causal. The basic mistake is wanting to believe that, ultimately, the universe is classical with cause and effect, and it isn't. It's a reasonable approximation for large quantum numbers.

Why assume that QM undermines the 'God did it' deterministic viewpoint?

Well first of all, no one mentioned a god type entity, for the simple reason that such an entity is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant, and indeed this is the case even in classical physics, let alone quantum mechanics.

Second, if outcomes of particle interactions aren't deterministic intrinsically, this poses a large problem for any assertion to the effect that such interactions are purportedly deterministic. It's the reason why particle accelerators are operated with large numbers of particles at once, so that when one has enough particles, this increases the expectation of seeing events with low probabilities. The mere fact that such outcomes are modelled very effectively by probability distributions, in itself tells us that the interactions are not deterministic, but stochastic. This is a consequence of the fact that for numerous interactions between particles, a multiplicity of relevant wave functions arise from the Schrödinger Wave Equation, each with a probability assigned thereto. In general, the more energy that is required to generate a particular solution, the lower the probability, low-energy solutions being the most favoured. In order to increase the probability of high-energy solutions emerging, particle accelerators operate by supplying as much initial energy as possible, which is why particles are accelerated to over 99% the speed of light. The total energy of the particles thus becomes a combination of the rest mass-energy and the imparted kinetic energy. It's one of the reasons we had to wait so long for robust evidence for the Higgs Boson, as this particle is associated with an energy of around 127 GeV - for comparison, a proton only has an associated energy of 938 MeV - the Higgs Boson requires 135 times the energy input in order to manufacture it. Additionally, the formation of an observable isolated Higgs Boson is a low-probability event even when one has a large energy input, which is why we had to wait for CERN to rebuild its accelerator to be capable of at least 7 TeV operation.

jamest wrote:This isn't the place to discuss this

I would have thought that the physics forum was the place to discuss quantum indeterminacy. Especially as it has a rigorous mathematical basis, as I've just explained.

jamest wrote:but I did want you to think about what you've said.

This is why we let physicists write the textbooks on the subject.

jamest wrote:After all, it should be expected that the energy/actions of a God [with free will] would be utterly indeterminable;

First you have to establish that such an entity even exists. All else is mere speculation and fantasy in the absence of evidence of existence.

jamest wrote:but the progressive effects of such energy/action should be expected to be progressively more determined.

Why should this be so?

As far as real physics is concerned, we have a rigorous mathematical basis for the emergence of solutions asymptotically tending toward the classical limit, when dealing with large numbers of particles in a system, or large quantum numbers - the wavefunction solutions consist of functions with extremely tightly constrained probability amplitudes. This is not the case with small numbers of particles, or small quantum numbers, which have solutions involving multiple probability amplitude peaks and wide spreads. It's a consequence of the behaviour of any system compatible with Schrödinger's Wave Equation. No magic man needed.

jamest wrote:Imo, QM fits perfectly with theism.

Go pick up an actual physics textbook, and learn why your wishful thinking is woefully misplaced.

jamest wrote:Of course, I have no wish to derail the thread

So why did you?

jamest wrote:so if you want to discuss the matter in any detail then take it to the philosophy forum.

And what can we learn from yet more blind assertions, that we can't learn from actual empirical physics?

jamest wrote:Otherwise, pardon me for bothering you with 'wibble'.

The physics textbooks are over there on that shelf. Read them.

jamest wrote:

epepke wrote:My view is that there is no effect. There is a correlation, but it's causal. The basic mistake is wanting to believe that, ultimately, the universe is classical with cause and effect, and it isn't. It's a reasonable approximation for large quantum numbers.

Why assume that QM undermines the 'God did it' deterministic viewpoint? This isn't the place to discuss this, but I did want you to think about what you've said. After all, it should be expected that the energy/actions of a God [with free will] would be utterly indeterminable; but the progressive effects of such energy/action should be expected to be progressively more determined. Imo, QM fits perfectly with theism. Of course, I have no wish to derail the thread, so if you want to discuss the matter in any detail then take it to the philosophy forum. Otherwise, pardon me for bothering you with 'wibble'.

Are you afraid of starting your own thread that you'll abandon anyway?

jamest wrote:

epepke wrote:My view is that there is no effect. There is a correlation, but it's causal. The basic mistake is wanting to believe that, ultimately, the universe is classical with cause and effect, and it isn't. It's a reasonable approximation for large quantum numbers.

Why assume that QM undermines the 'God did it' deterministic viewpoint?

I don't assume things. I study them. Assuming things is your schtick.

As an aside, I have to say that "entablement" is a great way to spell it.

epepke wrote:

jamest wrote:

epepke wrote:My view is that there is no effect. There is a correlation, but it's causal. The basic mistake is wanting to believe that, ultimately, the universe is classical with cause and effect, and it isn't. It's a reasonable approximation for large quantum numbers.

Why assume that QM undermines the 'God did it' deterministic viewpoint?

I don't assume things. I study them. Assuming things is your schtick.

There is no evidence (including QM) that the universe is not deterministic. The source of your studies is flawed.

So you haven't actually been reading the thread then? The evidence is cited in the first fucking line of the OP.

Always fun when a lint-astronomer wanders into the physics forum to expose his ignorance.

hackenslash wrote:So you haven't actually been reading the thread then? The evidence is cited in the first fucking line of the OP.

Bell's conclusion applies to physical causes only.

jamest wrote:

hackenslash wrote:So you haven't actually been reading the thread then? The evidence is cited in the first fucking line of the OP.

Bell's conclusion applies to physical causes only.

Which is what we're talking about here, in case you hadn't read the opening post properly.

Do take your "mind" fantasies back to the wibble playpen where they belong, and leave discussion of the actual physics to those of us who paid attention in class.

There's no physics involved in asserting that the universe is indeterministic, which was the original point I had countered. But I can see that your feathers are ruffled, so I'll move on.

Cock. Bell Inequality violations demonstrate that the universe is indeterministic.

Learn stuff: Stuff good.

jamest wrote:There's no physics involved in asserting that the universe is indeterministic

Tell that to Colin Bell. And every other physicist on the planet. We'll enjoy the chorus of laughter that ensues.

jamest wrote:which was the original point I had countered failed to address.

Fixed it for you.

jamest wrote:But I can see that your feathers are ruffled

If in doubt, resort to amateur Freudian analysis to avoid addressing the data that says you're not even competent enough here to be worthy of being wrong.

jamest wrote:so I'll move on.

Do so. Preferably to the physics section of your local library.

Calilasseia wrote:

jamest wrote:There's no physics involved in asserting that the universe is indeterministic

Tell that to Colin Bell. And every other physicist on the planet. We'll enjoy the chorus of laughter that ensues.

Colin Bell?

I think you might have meant John Bell!

Heh. My mistake. That'll teach me to post on an empty stomach.

Wow, 17 posts and no real answer to my original questions yet...

epepke wrote:My view is that there is no effect. There is a correlation, but it's causal. The basic mistake is wanting to believe that, ultimately, the universe is classical with cause and effect, and it isn't. It's a reasonable approximation for large quantum numbers.

Now, since you are a programmer, as I am, I suggest thinking along the lines of error techniques that you use when data are quantized, such as Bresenham's algorithm and various stochastic techniques applied in numerical integration. Overall, in sum, they can produce results that work much closer to continuously, using only fairly coarse representations of data.

I don't see how this answers my questions, but still this at least feels like it tries to be one. So thx.

hackenslash wrote:Have a shufty at Brian Greene's excellent Fabric of the Cosmos, that contains the most elegant description of Bell Inequalities I've come across. Oh, and it's got Mulder and Scully in it.

Thanks for this tip, I will certainly check it out

CySlider wrote:
"If there exists a function for a digital computer, that emulates the response of detectors, only based on the state of the detector, the state of the detected particle and a finite number of hidden variables imprinted into the particle, so that two supposedly entangled particles behave in the simulated detectors the same as they do in reality in any possible configuration, then it would prove the possibility that hidden variables exist."

I think the function on a digtal computer is a red herring, because to construct such a function, by which I assume you mean "program", you would first have an algorithm which your program was implementing. This algorithm would be based on the usual formulas containing the hidden variables and it would attempt to reproduce the results of the appropriate experiments. If it did this successfully, then yes, hidden variables are fine otherwise no. The existence of the computer model adds nothing to the original argument.

CySlider wrote:
My second question is:

How can the effect of "Spooky action at a distance" be instantaneous in a universe guided by relativity that does not have something like simultaneus events?

There can be configurations, where one observer argues that particle A got messured first, and another that argues with the same justification that particle B got messured first. So how can a measurement of A effect particle B in a relativistic universe?

There is no "spooky action at a distance". In these EPR experiments, all you observe are correlations. i.e. something explodes and sends some shit off in two directions. Measure some shit at A, whilst another dude measures some shit at B. Dude A and B then get together in the pub over a pint and discuss the data. They find things like "oh look, when I was getting x, 90% of the time you were getting y etc etc". These are correlations, and not surprising, because the system was originally "together" before it flew apart, so correlations are no big deal. (Bigger deal is the "rotating the basis" thing, but that's not what you were asking - you were concerned only about Bertlemann's socks)

twistor59 wrote:
I think the function on a digtal computer is a red herring, because to construct such a function, by which I assume you mean "program", you would first have an algorithm which your program was implementing.

So also a quantum computer can't simulate entanglement? I was not sure about that and wanted to exclude these type of computers from my definition, just to be clear.

twistor59 wrote:
This algorithm would be based on the usual formulas containing the hidden variables and it would attempt to reproduce the results of the appropriate experiments. If it did this successfully, then yes, hidden variables are fine otherwise no.

Thanks, thats what I hoped to hear. I am currently under the impression that I have found such a function for photon polarization entanglement. At least for the part to simulate them going through simulated polarization filters. I am still refining it, but I might throw it at you all at some point to find the error in it

twistor59 wrote:
There is no "spooky action at a distance". In these EPR experiments, all you observe are correlations. i.e. something explodes and sends some shit off in two directions. Measure some shit at A, whilst another dude measures some shit at B. Dude A and B then get together in the pub over a pint and discuss the data. They find things like "oh look, when I was getting x, 90% of the time you were getting y etc etc". These are correlations, and not surprising, because the system was originally "together" before it flew apart, so correlations are no big deal. (Bigger deal is the "rotating the basis" thing, but that's not what you were asking - you were concerned only about Bertlemann's socks)

Ok, so if I understand you correctly, it is perfectly fine for two people in different inertial frames to disagree about which event has lead to the collapse of a wave function?