Timeline for If correct, Bell's Theorem rules out local variables and suggests a superdeterministic for to the Universe?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 18, 2022 at 5:31 | answer | added | Valter Moretti | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 18, 2022 at 5:01 | answer | added | flippiefanus | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 18, 2022 at 2:06 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Oct 14, 2022 at 16:44 | answer | added | TKoL | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 4, 2018 at 20:47 | comment | added | WillO | Any post that begins "If Bell's theorem is correct..." is going to (justifiably) set off a lot of crackpot alarms. If you're really suggesting that there might be an error in an exceptionally simple and well vetted argument, you'd better start by a) pointing to the specific "error" and b) acknowledging that it's 99.9999% sure you've failed to understand something. When I encounter a post that starts "If it's really true that 2+2=4....", that's where I stop reading. This is no different. | |
| Jan 7, 2018 at 0:51 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/949805709910315008 | ||
| Jan 6, 2018 at 21:19 | history | reopened |
John Rennie Mark H N. Virgo Martin BowlOfRed |
||
| Jan 6, 2018 at 18:13 | comment | added | Marcus de Brun | @lala Whats the reason for the harsh words 'trying to promote your paper'? I am using this forum like anyone else, and am trying to think about ideas that Bell's inequality points to. There is little to be gained by such an aggressive post. There are multiple sources for Bells statement. You can find them on the net, even wiki under superdeterminism. |Do you actually have a scientific or philosophical view on the matter or do you have other reasons for posting? Bell himself suggests that his theorem can be explained by Superdeterminism, hence the original question posted here. | |
| Jan 6, 2018 at 14:47 | comment | added | Steve | @lalala, the link I've given quotes it as a radio 3 interview, and provides a book source. There's no reason to disbelieve these sources surely? | |
| Jan 6, 2018 at 14:11 | comment | added | lalala | @Steve well, the BBC attribution is not precise enough to locate it, isnt it. | |
| Jan 6, 2018 at 13:40 | comment | added | Steve | @lalala, the OP gives a reference for the comments - a BBC interview with Bell. I also did a brief search that gives a similar referenced source for Bell's comments and quotes him verbatim: informationphilosopher.com/freedom/superdeterminism.html | |
| Jan 6, 2018 at 11:43 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 6, 2018 at 10:17 | comment | added | lalala | I just think.you want to promote your paper... btw any source (verifiable) for bells quote? | |
| Jan 6, 2018 at 10:07 | history | edited | Mark H | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jan 6, 2018 at 3:01 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jan 6, 2018 at 21:19 | |||||
| Dec 31, 2017 at 16:42 | comment | added | Marcus de Brun | vzn Determinism is certainly not 'half thought out', it is one of the primary sources of Philosophical debate. I think the most interesting development in Physics this century is the reality that Philosophy and Physics are upon an very real and serious collision course. The impact will certainly result in a Big Bang and possibly the next great Scientific Paradigm shift. If you have time, maybe you might read my paper on the question and let me know what you think? | |
| Dec 31, 2017 at 5:51 | comment | added | vzn | have not encountered bells idea of "superdeterminism" in his writing, it seems like a half-thought out idea, maybe someone can find/ cite something more specific/ academic. somehow superdeterminism as a concept has to account for the key idea of (non)locality. fyi wikipedia has more. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism have not heard of much research building on it. btw another new/ related area of study in this area is called "emergent QM" and has several years of conferences at this pt... | |
| Dec 30, 2017 at 20:48 | comment | added | Marcus de Brun | @vzn: How do you equate super determinism and local hidden variable theory? Super-determinism would hardly appear to be local to anything other than itself? | |
| Dec 30, 2017 at 18:55 | comment | added | vzn | sounds vaguely similar to bohms idea of the implicate vs explicate order. also a natural question is how "super determinism" is different from a "local hidden variable theory". my feeling is that early on the concept of "observation" got mixed up in QM interpretation wrt human vs apparatus. there is some research into so-called "superclassical" theories. further discussion here chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/9446/theory-salon. also would suggest the math concept of locality is not strictly matching the intuitive concept due to very tricky subtleties in formalism... | |
| Dec 28, 2017 at 19:20 | comment | added | Marcus de Brun | WillO: I am suggesting that QM cannot and should not be permitted to continue with the assumption of local variables. If these are dispensed with, we might move forward with the more likely explanation that is offered by a Super-determined Universe, regardless of its unpalatable nature and or the fear it might strike into the heart of Physicist and Philosopher alike. I would like to hear of any substantial evidence to contradict the Super-determinist position. | |
| Dec 28, 2017 at 16:49 | comment | added | Stéphane Rollandin | This may be of interest: arxiv.org/abs/1011.3440 | |
| Dec 27, 2017 at 23:28 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Dec 28, 2017 at 23:14 | |||||
| Dec 27, 2017 at 23:24 | comment | added | Marcus de Brun | John: Sincere apologies for the lack of clarity. I have reworded the question as requested. Marcus | |
| Dec 27, 2017 at 23:10 | history | edited | Marcus de Brun | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1097 characters in body
|
| Dec 27, 2017 at 14:19 | comment | added | WillO | Are you suggesting that Bell's theorem might not be correct? What step in the proof do you find unconvincing? | |
| Dec 27, 2017 at 12:56 | history | closed |
John Rennie ACuriousMind♦ |
Needs details or clarity | |
| Dec 27, 2017 at 12:56 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | It's unclear what you're asking. Bell's theorem implies there is no local and realist interpretation of quantum mechanics, but does not directly imply superdeterminism. | |
| Dec 27, 2017 at 12:25 | comment | added | Stéphane Rollandin | What is the Universal Construct? | |
| Dec 27, 2017 at 12:17 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 27, 2017 at 13:00 | |||||
| Dec 27, 2017 at 11:59 | comment | added | John Rennie | This is an awfully broad question. You're basically asking for a review of current progress in superdeterminism. I think you really need to be more specific what you are asking. | |
| Dec 27, 2017 at 10:14 | history | asked | Marcus de Brun | CC BY-SA 3.0 |