[HN Gopher] Chaos theory eliminates quantum uncertainty ___________________________________________________________________ Chaos theory eliminates quantum uncertainty Author : bookofjoe Score : 55 points Date : 2022-10-16 13:18 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (iai.tv) (TXT) w3m dump (iai.tv) | mg wrote: | The article seems to distill the concept of quantum uncertainty | into this statement: there is an inherent | uncertainty about what happens to a quantum | system when we attempt to observe it | | Is this a good way to put it? | | I'm not sure if with "quantum uncertainty", they refer to the | same thing as Wikipedias "uncertainty principle" page: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle | | The Wikipedia page sounds somewhat different (and harder to | grasp) to me. It talks about predicting future states of pairs of | physical quantities after knowing the initial conditions. | Filligree wrote: | Not at all. There's no uncertainty, even. | | Unless we're talking subjective uncertainty, in which case | yeah, not literally everyone has landed on many-worlds yet. | bookofjoe wrote: | One word: 'Devs' | Comevius wrote: | This argument by Tim Palmer is in line with our intuitions, and | his expertise while we are at it, but I'm pretty sure it's wrong. | Quantum uncertainty is due to how quantum reality works, we just | don't know exactly how quantum effects result in our classic | reality, namely general relativity. I'm pretty sure the answer to | that is something way less intuitive than chaos theory. I think | Tim Palmer have spent his life chasing determinism in dynamical | systems, and now everything is a nail to his hammer. | mistermann wrote: | It also overlooks that humans exists in reality, and humans run | on consciousness (so they say), and consciousness (and the | motion and causality that _emerges_ from it) remains somewhat | of a black /invisible box to scientists. | Comevius wrote: | That doesn't have anything to do with it, classical physics | (for example gravity) exists independently from us. | mistermann wrote: | If scientists were to explicitly state that they are only | describing _a subset of reality_ (the physical /material | realm), I would be more forgiving. | | But rather, they typically speak like this (from the | article): | | "Quantum mechanics is usually described as a theory of | atoms and sub-atomic particles, but in truth it is believed | to be a theory that underpins everything in the world, | including the weather and the galaxies - all of reality." | | Based on my observations, there seems to be a set of topics | whereby most instances of human mind lose their ability to | desire to know what is true. It if often easy to see this | flaw in others (for example: non-theists observing | theists), but seeing similar flaws in oneself is far | trickier (say: materialists contemplating metaphysical | ideas). | | (Note: this phenomenon applies to me as well, although I | suspect not to the same degree as most.) | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | I like the idea of digging deeper into counterfactuals at | foundational levels. Science that has any use needs valid | counterfactuals. It tells us that if we arrange stuff just like | so, we can engineer things. Or that no matter what action we | take, the heat death of the universe will happen. | | But counterfactuals and foundations don't mix easily, especially | in QM where "what if I had measured X" isn't a really valid | question in the standard view (the quantum zeno effect is an | example of how hypothetical measurements and actual measurements | _aren 't_ the same in QM). | dvt wrote: | In one of his papers ( _Undecidability, Fractal Geometry and the | Unity of Physics_ , 2020), he dismisses Schrodinger's equation as | being problematic for his theory (because it's linear so I guess | "easy" to work with). And I'm no physicist, but I don't really | get it: isn't the equation essentially the culmination of the | physical _reality_ of particles having complementary properties? | | So in that sense, isn't uncertainty baked into our reality (and | thus still ontological)? Even ignoring all the weird stuff that | happens with entangled particles, spooky action at a distance, | and all that. I literally _cannot_ measure both the momentum and | the position of a particle to an arbitrary position | simultaneously. | ogogmad wrote: | Is it possible to have a quantum theory where there is no | "measurement"? The universe simply evolves according to the Dirac | or Shroedinger equations, and the phenomenon that we call | measurement is an emergent, statistical property? | | The motivation for the question is that in quantum physics there | are two phases: | | 1. The phase where everything is quantum, and things evolve | according to Dirac or Schroedinger. The state of a system at any | given time then determines its state at all times in the future | _and_ in the past. Everything is in all possible classical states | at once. | | 2. Some measurement happens that is irreversible. The quantum | state collapses, and information about the quantum state before | the collapse is lost. The result is a single classical state. | | I haven't read TFA, but having something like phase 2 be emergent | from phase 1 seems like a major breakthrough. Phase 2 is then an | illusion. This seems better than the status quo. (I am not a | physicist). | gus_massa wrote: | Yes. | | My preferred version is something-something-decoherence | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence The people | that work in that are call it "Decoherence", but it's not | finished, there are still a lot of details to fix, and perhaps | it will need still like 50 or 100 years of hard work before | it's completed. So it's too green and I prefer a funny name | like "something-something-decoherence" to avoid confusion. And | perhaps it's the wrong explanation. | sampo wrote: | > Is it possible to have a quantum theory where there is no | "measurement"? The universe simply evolves according to the | Dirac or Shroedinger equations, and the phenomenon that we call | measurement is an emergent, statistical property? | | Doesn't the many-worlds interpretation fit your description? It | of course has it's own weirdness. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation | ogogmad wrote: | Is MWI (which appears to only assert that there is a | wavefunction for the whole universe) a form of | superdeterminism? | nathias wrote: | if this is true and the experiment can be explained away, this | would not tell us anything about the world, but shift the | question about ontological determinism back to metaphysics and | outside of the reach of empirical knowledge | motohagiography wrote: | I had the impression it was set up mainly to assert a | metaphysical position by inventing uncertainty about quantum | physics' certain-uncertainty. I like outsider ideas more than | most people, but this one seemed like a pitch for something | self-centering. A lot of ideas about uncertainty are mainly | rhetorical devices for neutralizing concrete arguments and | opposition to the speakers underlying ideology, so personally I | read the article as a kind of propaganda. | [deleted] | naasking wrote: | > if this is true and the experiment can be explained away, | this would not tell us anything about the world | | Actually, it would tell us something very important, namely | that at the quantum level measurements are not statistically | independent. | | > shift the question about ontological determinism back to | metaphysics and outside of the reach of empirical knowledge | | Assuming by "ontological determinism", you mean to what extent | we can truly discover natural laws, I don't know why anyone | thinks this is a problem. Turing machines are simple and | deterministic and yet have undecidable problems; and yet we can | create a Turing machine that can enumerate the space of all | possible programs. It trivially follows that humans obviously | have enough degrees of freedom to enumerate all possible | theories that can explain some set of observations, so this | objection is a total nothingburger. | photochemsyn wrote: | I don't think Palmer has ever published anything on quantum | mechanical systems, so this claim seems questionable and might be | some kind of ideological viewpoint. Seems to wander well beyond | the author's sphere of expertise. | | Palmer has nevertheless done a lot of interesting work in | atmospheric and oceanic systems. Here's one, which also explains | why current warming trends would persist for decades even if we | halted all fossil fuel use tomorrow, something many seem to not | have grasped: | | "Uncertainty in Weather and Climate Prediction", Slingo & Palmer | (2011) | | > "In terms of seasonal to decadal prediction, the predictability | of the system resides primarily in the oceans, where the greater | thermal capacity and the much longer dynamical time scales for | adjustment impart a memory to the coupled ocean-atmosphere | system, which exceeds that for the atmosphere alone by several | orders of magnitude. Nevertheless, the ocean, like the | atmosphere, is a chaotic, nonlinear system, and so an ensemble | approach to seasonal to decadal prediction is fundamental to | forecasting on these time scales also." | | https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.201... | | Anyone wanting a solid introduction to the notion of chaos in | fluid dynamics should look at work of the original researcher who | discovered the phenomenon, Ed Lorenz (1995) The Essence of Chaos. | | https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/154291.The_Essence_of_Ch... | naasking wrote: | > I don't think Palmer has ever published anything on quantum | mechanical systems, so this claim seems questionable and might | be some kind of ideological viewpoint. | | People are so quick to dismiss without any evidence. Why not | look at his actual publications: | | https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/our-people/palmer/publications | | Some choice excerpts: | | * Bell's theorem, non-computability and conformal cyclic | cosmology: A top-down approach to quantum gravity, | https://avs.scitation.org/doi/10.1116/5.0060680 | | * Supermeasured: Violating Bell-Statistical Independence | Without Violating Physical Statistical Independence, | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-022-00602-9 | | * Discretization of the Bloch sphere, fractal invariant sets | and Bell's theorem, | https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2019.035... | | * The Invariant Set Postulate: a new geometric framework for | the foundations of quantum theory and the role played by | gravity, | https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2009.008... | | The last is when he first started publishing about quantum | mechanics back in 2009, in which he described "invariant set | theory" as a new approach to quantum foundations that was well | received. He actually worked with Stephen Hawking on developing | supergravity before he switched to climate modelling. | photochemsyn wrote: | I guess that's what I get for only looking at the top page of | Google Scholar results for 'Palmer quantum chaos climate'. | However, Palmer's view on quantum systems does seem to be | pretty set and fairly ideological in nature (i.e. | experimental verification doesn't seem to be much of a | concern). For example: | | (2005) "Quantum Reality, Complex Numbers, and the | Meteorological Butterfly Effect " | | https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/86/4/bams-86. | .. | | > "By considering an idealization of the upscale cascade | (which provides a novel representation of complex numbers and | quaternions), a case is made for reinterpreting the quantum | wave function as a set of intricately encoded binary | sequences. In this reinterpretation, it is argued that the | quantum world has no need for dice-playing deities, undead | cats, multiple universes, or "spooky action at a distance."" | | At this point, I think anyone pushing this view of how QM | works without experimental results to back it up is just | tilting at windmills. | naasking wrote: | > However, Palmer's view on quantum systems does seem to be | pretty set and fairly ideological in nature (i.e. | experimental verification doesn't seem to be much of a | concern). | | I don't understand this objection. Palmer's theory would | have to be consistent with all existing evidence for | quantum mechanics. There's a rich unexplored area in | quantum foundations (superdeterminism), and he's found a | novel, plausible model for how it could work, so why | wouldn't he explore it fully until it's been contradicted? | | A different interpretation on QM might also imply some | _new_ experiments that orthodox QM wouldn 't consider | interesting. For instance, Hossenfelder has suggested that | there might be some unusual regularities in repeated low | temperature experiments if superdeterminism is true, | regularities that would be implausible if reality is | actually indeterministic. Palmer's theory has testable | predictions for large-scale cosmology, so it's not like his | ideas are unfalsifiable in principle. | | Furthermore, Palmer is a theoretician not an | experimentalist. Bell created his theorem but | experimentalists designed and ran the actual experiment. | lisper wrote: | >I don't think Palmer has ever published anything on quantum | mechanical systems, so this claim seems questionable and might | be some kind of ideological viewpoint. Seems to wander well | beyond the author's sphere of expertise. | | Indeed. | | The question of whether quantum uncertainty is epistemological | or ontological is formally undecidable (on the assumption that | quantum mechanics is actually true). For starters, there | already exists a quantum interpretation where uncertainty is | ontological: Bohmian mechanics. But you don't even need that. | All you need is to hypothesize a "cosmic Turing machine" | computing the digits of pi or some other normal number and the | stipulation that every time you do a quantum experiment the | result is the next digit that the TM writes to its tape. That | is an ontologicical interpretation of QM that is every bit as | valid as Bohmian mechanics, and every bit as useless. | | It doesn't _matter_ whether quantum uncertainty is ontological | or epistemological. What matters is that the outcomes of | quantum measurements are fundamentally unpredictable _for the | entity conducting the experiment_. It doesn 't matter whether | the information generated by the experiment was pre-existing or | somehow magically came into existence by wave function collapse | or whatever, what matters is that the outcome is _not | predictable even in principle_. And so it doesn 't matter what | mathematical model you put underneath this unpredictability. It | can be axiomatic, it can be chaotic, or it can be a cosmic | Turing machine computing the digits of pi. It doesn't matter | because one of the things we cannot know, even in principle, is | which of these hypotheses are correct. It's a non-scientific | question. | | [UPDATE] The general principle is that quantum experiments | produce an unbounded amount of information which cannot be | predicted from the finite information available to any observer | before those observations are made, so there has to be an | unbounded amount of "hidden" information "out there" somewhere | that in inaccessible except by performing quantum experiments. | Different interpretations hide this inaccessible information in | different places. Copenhagen hides it in wave function | collapse. Bohm hides it in the particle positions, which are | posited to be real numbers, every one of which contains an | infinite amount of information. Chaotic dynamics hides it in | the initial conditions which, like Bohmian positions, are real | numbers which contain an infinite amount of information. If you | look at how the math plays out, they are _literally_ reading | out digits of real numbers as if they were written on a TM | tape. | | I think physics would benefit from the study of information | theory. | guerrilla wrote: | > It doesn't matter whether quantum uncertainty is | ontological or epistemological. What matters is that the | outcomes of quantum measurements are fundamentally | unpredictable for the entity conducting the experiment. It | doesn't matter whether the information generated by the | experiment was pre-existing or somehow magically came into | existence by wave function collapse or whatever, what matters | is that the outcome is not predictable even in principle. And | so it doesn't matter what mathematical model you put | underneath this unpredictability. It can be axiomatic, it can | be chaotic, or it can be a cosmic Turing machine computing | the digits of pi. It doesn't matter because one of the things | we cannot know, even in principle, is which of these | hypotheses are correct. It's a non-scientific question. | | Thanks. That was actually really insightful. I never thought | about it like that. It's beyond the scope of science and what | models are _for_. We 'd be switching purposes at that point. | The tools only do what they are meant to: predict; it doesn't | make sense to them for to do something else (unless we | specify that new purpose), especially when we do so as if | we're not. | hackandthink wrote: | "It doesn't matter whether quantum uncertainty is ontological | or epistemological" | | It matters for a lot of people, they want to know und | understand. And maybe somebody comes up with an experiment. | | "What Bell's Theorem really shows us is that the foundations | of quantum theory is a bona fide field of physics, in which | questions are to be resolved by rigor- ous argument and | experiment, rather than remaining the subject of open-ended | debate. | | In other words, it is a mistake to crudely divide quantum | theory into its practical part and its interpretation, and to | think of the latter as metaphysics, experimental or | otherwise." | | Matt Leifer: "Is the Quantum State Real?..." | | https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1570.pdf | lisper wrote: | > maybe somebody comes up with an experiment. | | Yes, it all turns on that. But the point is that coming up | with an experiment would in and of itself falsify QM. To | call that a major breakthrough would be quite the | understatement, and so I predict with great confidence that | it is not going to happen any time soon. | | > it is a mistake to crudely divide quantum theory into its | practical part and its interpretation | | That's true, but I am not dividing it crudely. I am simply | pointing out things that are logically implied by the | mathematical structure of the theory, and one of those | things is that quantum measurements bring new information | into the world. If anyone figures out a way to access the | source of that information, that information would no | longer be new, and that would falsify the theory. That is, | of course, possible. But again, I'll give long odds | against. | naasking wrote: | > And so it doesn't matter what mathematical model you put | underneath this unpredictability. It can be axiomatic, it can | be chaotic, or it can be a cosmic Turing machine computing | the digits of pi. | | I don't think this is correct. Each formal model will allow | you degrees of freedom that are ruled out by other models | because the axioms differ. This is why a quantum field theory | for Bohmian mechanics has been much harder to formulate than | it was for Copenhagen, for example. | | Unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity could | actually be easier under a "fractal model" of quantum | mechanics than it is with Copenhagen. | | Edit on your [update]: | | > [UPDATE] The general principle is that quantum experiments | produce an unbounded amount of information | | That doesn't sound correct either. No experiment can produce | an unbounded amount of information. I'm not sure where you're | getting this idea. | lisper wrote: | > Each formal model will allow you degrees of freedom that | are ruled out by other models because the axioms differ. | | Nope. All QM interpretations produce the same predictions. | They are formally equivalent in the same sense that lambda | calculus and TMs are equivalent. | | The reason it is hard to unify Bohm and relativity to | produce a Bohmian quantum field theory is that Bohm is | committed to an intuitionistic metaphysics that requires | there to be an answer to which measurement of an entangled | system was performed first, and so it requires the | imposition of an arbitrary foliation of space-time. This is | a _metaphysical_ requirement, not a physical one. That is | what makes it hard to extend Bohm to a field theory. | | > No experiment can produce an unbounded amount of | information. | | No _single_ experiment can, but over time you can do an | unbounded number of experiments. Note that I am | deliberately using the term "unbounded" rather than | "infinite". These are not the same. An unbounded quantity | is finite at any given time, but it can keep growing | without an upper bound. | | (In actual fact all of these numbers are probably finite | and bounded because the observable universe is finite and | the second law of thermodynamics puts a limit on how many | experiments you can do.) | naasking wrote: | > Nope. All QM interpretations produce the same | predictions. | | Correction: the same _observable_ predictions in the | domains we 've tested. They all have different | metaphysical implications which impact the plausibility. | | > They are formally equivalent in the same sense that | lambda calculus and TMs are equivalent. | | No, that's not strictly correct. Bohmian mechanics allows | the existence of quantum non-equilibrium, as but one | example. Isomorphism is fine as an informal analogy, but | it's not strictly true. | | > This is a metaphysical requirement, not a physical one. | That is what makes it hard to extend Bohm to a field | theory. | | The axioms of _every_ interpretation are metaphysical. | The axioms are what let you make certain steps in one | interpretation that cannot be done in another. This is | why unifying GR with Bohmian mechanics is hard but isn 't | with Copenhagen, which is exactly what I said. | lisper wrote: | > Correction: the same observable predictions | | "Observable" is redundant. A prediction in science is | understood to mean a prediction about the outcome of an | experiment, i.e. a prediction about an observation. | | > in the domains we've tested. | | No. The predictions of all QM interpretations are the | same, full stop. If this were not the case we would not | be having this conversation at all, we could determine | which interpretation was correct by doing an experiment. | | (There is one exception to this, and that is GRW | collapse, which predicts that there is some macroscopic | scale at which systems stop exhibiting quantum behavior | because of internal spontaneous collapse. But so far all | experiments have falsified this.) | | > The axioms of every interpretation are metaphysical. | | No, that's not true. Bohmian positions are physical. | Collapse is physical. Multiple worlds are physical. | | The thing that makes Bohmian foliations metaphysical is | not that they are unmeasurable, it is that they are | _arbitrary_. You cannot tell which foliation is correct | _even in principle_. | naasking wrote: | > If this were not the case we would not be having this | conversation at all, we could determine which | interpretation was correct by doing an experiment. | | No, that's not correct. Again, Bohmian mechanics allows | for quantum non-equilibrium, but we're not yet sure how | to create such a state. So it is does make observably | different prediction, in principle. This prediction is | just not within experimental reach at the moment. | | Most interpretations make equivalent predictions, but not | all. Those predictions that differ are outside of domains | we've tested. | | > No, that's not true. Bohmian positions are physical. | Collapse is physical. Multiple worlds are physical. | | They are physical by virtue of metaphysical assertions | about what does and does not exist, ie. the axioms. | | > The thing that makes Bohmian foliations metaphysical is | not that they are unmeasurable, it is that they are | arbitrary. You cannot tell which foliation is correct | even in principle. | | A preferred foliation can be derived from the wave | function in Bohmian mechanics. You can arguably do | without one. Both references are cited here: | | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10955-015-1369 | -8 | lisper wrote: | > Bohmian mechanics allows for quantum non-equilibrium, | | Yes, of course. In Bohmian mechanics, particles have | actual locations, and so _of course_ those locations | cannot be required to obey the Born rule except by | hypothesis. But it does not follow that... | | > it ... does make observably different prediction, in | principle | | > but we're not yet sure how to create such a state | | > This prediction is just not within experimental reach | at the moment | | It is not just that we "don't know" how to create these | non-Born states, it is that creating such a state would | _falsify quantum mechanics_. Creating such a state would | necessarily involve some physical process that violates | the Schroedinger equation. No such process has ever been | observed. It is possible that this could change, but it | 's extremely unlikely. And there is absolutely no reason | to believe that such a new process, were it to ever be | discovered, would have anything to do with Bohmian | mechanics. It is as likely that we will discover a | violation of conservation of energy or the second law of | thermodynamics as we are to discover a violation of QM. | | > They are physical by virtue of metaphysical assertions | about what does and does not exist, ie. the axioms. | | Well, yeah. The whole _idea_ of "physical" is itself a | metaphysical assertion. We could be living in a | simulation. | | > A preferred foliation can be derived from the wave | function in Bohmian mechanics. You can arguably do | without one. | | OK, that's news to me, but I don't have time to read that | paper right now. I'll put it on my reading list. | | [UPDATE] They want $40 to access that paper. If you want | to send me a copy I'll read it, but I won't pay that much | for access to one paper. Sorry. | mistermann wrote: | > and there is absolutely no reason to believe | | Logic and epistemology seem to often take a backseat when | the mind comes in close contact with the unknown. | | > Well, yeah. The whole idea of "physical" is itself a | metaphysical assertion. We could be living in a | simulation. | | Similarly, when it finds itself in these circumstances, | it can often be observed flipping between 100% certainty | and 100% uncertainty (the middle ground, _the unknown_ , | seems a "highly undesirable" place to be). On one hand, | you might say this is "just people being people", but I | am suspicious whether it is actually that simple. | | It's called the _Hard_ Problem of Consciousness for good | reason, I think. | sampo wrote: | > I don't think Palmer has ever published anything on quantum | mechanical systems, so this claim seems questionable and might | be some kind of ideological viewpoint. Seems to wander well | beyond the author's sphere of expertise. | | I don't think anyone can be an that much of an expert in | quantum foundations. It's a research topic full of questions | and not much answers, so you don't need deep expertise to grasp | the current situation and the limits of current knowledge. In | that sense, it should be a free game for almost anyone with a | PhD in physics. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foundations | MontyCarloHall wrote: | Chaotic systems are deterministic, but so sensitive to initial | conditions that even slight perturbations will lead to wildly | different, seemingly random outcomes. But if you could prepare | two chaotic systems with _exactly_ the same initial conditions, | they would both follow the same trajectory. In practice, this is | often impossible to do, since it requires drawing two real | numbers within some absurdly small epsilon of each other (for the | trajectories to be equivalent within some delta of each other, on | some finite timescale Delta t. epsilon - > 0 as delta -> 0, Delta | t -> infinity). | | We think of quantum randomness as truly random because the states | are quantized, so it's easy to initialize a system with the exact | same starting conditions and watch it follow unpredictable | trajectories. | | Is this basically arguing that if we treat the entire universe as | some macroscopic quantum state, comprising all the individual | states of each discrete quantum, it would evolve | deterministically? However, since we are only powered to observe | a few quanta at a time, they appear to evolve completely | randomly, but only because we are not privy to the states of | every other quantum state in the universe? | defrost wrote: | The Lorenz Attractor pictured is a trajectory through pase | space for a single initial condition; the key result from | Lorenz (and from Smale with his Horseshoe maps) is that for ANY | absurdly small epsilon you can find two initial positions | within that epsilon that end up seperated down the track in | time ... | | ergo, your: > since it requires drawing two real numbers within | some absurdly small epsilon of each other. | | just won't do. | MontyCarloHall wrote: | Yup, I was sloppy with my writing. I just clarified it. | wodenokoto wrote: | Sixty symbols did a video on spooky actions at a distance | coinciding with the Nobel prize this year for the same thing. | | It explains why we can show that it cannot be hidden variable / | immeasurable initial state that causes the randomness. | | Basically we can change the probabilities of experiment B, made | on particle B, by changing the experiment we do on particle A. | | I suppose that entanglement could still live in a deterministic | world. E.g, given initial state/variable and interaction with | entangled particle A, B will behave so and so. I'm sure you | could work out a number of initial states for A and B and how | each set of states react to each other, that could give the | same proportions as the probabilities mentioned in the video. | | But given that initial states cannot be measured, is it really | a better explanation? | | https://youtu.be/0RiAxvb_qI4 | zmgsabst wrote: | I'm curious why non-local hidden variables aren't a bigger | topic, given that we know there's non-local quantum numbers, | eg those carried by anyons. | | If we believe reality is non-local, then why would we also | believe it's non-determinate? | deng wrote: | > Is this basically arguing that if we treat the entire | universe as some macroscopic quantum state, comprising all the | individual states of each discrete quantum, it would evolve | deterministically? | | Yes, I think in the end he is arguing for Superdeterminism, | although for some reason he does not mention that concept in | his article. | mistermann wrote: | > Chaotic systems are deterministic | | _By definition_ , chaotic systems "are" deterministic, but it | does not necessarily follow that all systems that have had a | label of "chaotic" attached to them are necessarily | deterministic. It can certainly cause them to take on that | appearance from certain frames of reference though. | [deleted] | layer8 wrote: | > the states are quantized, so it's easy to initialize a system | with the exact same starting conditions | | That doesn't seem right. Position, velocity and momentum etc. | are not discrete values in quantum mechanics. It is not | practically possible to repeatedly put particles into the same | exact state. | thrown_22 wrote: | >since it requires drawing two real numbers within some | absurdly small epsilon of each other. | | Not small, zero. | MontyCarloHall wrote: | Definitely, if we care about the outcome of the trajectories | as t\to\infty. | | For certain systems, at smaller timescales, merely an absurd | amount of precision will suffice [0,1]. | | [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyapunov_exponent | | [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyapunov_time | zmgsabst wrote: | I think that last paragraph is right. | | If everything shares some weak correlation with the stuff | around it, then it might experience 10^-6 or whatever | perturbation experiment to experiment, and accordingly the runs | deviate according to some statistics about the system. Or the | state of the early universe. Or something we don't understand. | nobodyandproud wrote: | > We think of quantum randomness as truly random because the | states are quantized, so it's easy to initialize a system with | the exact same starting conditions and watch it follow | unpredictable trajectories. | | With hidden variables--which by all accounts haven't been ruled | out--it means we cannot do this. | | That is to say, there's no way you can tell you've set the same | initial conditions. | guerrilla wrote: | > With hidden variables--which by all accounts haven't been | ruled out--it means we cannot do this. | | Local hidden variables have been ruled out. So it's not | really like chaotic systems at all, whose development is | internal. | shadowgovt wrote: | The development of a fractal isn't internal. Its shape is | completely predetermined by its mathematical description. | | I think what the author is trying to say is that we could | imagine the universe is a massively hyper-dimensional | fractal that we are utterly hopeless to determine the | initial starting point on. I can't immediately see a reason | that model wouldn't work, but its descriptive power | (relative to QM) is basically nil... To be consistent with | the observations that demanded a quantum mechanical | understanding of the universe, we have to introduce the | idea that we can't know where we are on the fractal, so | this is more a philosophical pondering than a physical one. | nobodyandproud wrote: | Non-local hidden variables have not. | guerrilla wrote: | So it's not really like chaotic systems at all, whose | development is internal. | nobodyandproud wrote: | Can you explain why non-locality means non internal? | sampo wrote: | > Local hidden variables have been ruled out. | | Superdeterminism is a local hidden variable theory, that | has not been ruled out. Superdeterminism circumvents the | Bell's theorem, by extending determinism not only to the | things being measured, but also to the entities doing the | measurements. | texaslonghorn5 wrote: | For the last part, I think so. You could imagine the universe | as being operated on by some giant Hamiltonian operator with a | basis of eigenstates, and then the amplitudes will just | deterministically evolve according to the Schrodinger equation. | superb-owl wrote: | I can't get past the paywall, but I'd be curious to know what his | solution to the violation of the Bell inequality is. | bookofjoe wrote: | https://archive.ph/6kaJc | lupire wrote: | "Counterfactual Fractal Geometry" , so Bell's inequality only | applies in a reality that is different from our true reality. | | > We have to suppose that the whole universe, and literally | everything there is in it, is collectively a chaotic system | evolving precisely on some cosmic fractal geometry. " | | I guess one way of trying to make it make sense is that he | believes in global hidden variables (non-locality), which | reduces physics to "things are exactly this kind of weird | because all the complexity of the universe is encoded in one | giant number present at the big bang that is available to every | particle forever. | EGreg wrote: | He explains it in the article. Questioning one of the | assumptions in the Bell theorems | naasking wrote: | Indeed, he's on the superdeterminism train with Sabine | Hossenfelder: | | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139. | .. | fsh wrote: | I am not aware of any superdeterministic theory that can | explain the violation of Bell's inequality. They only argue | that a violation of Bell's inequality is _not impossible_ | in a superdeterministic local hidden variable theory (but | no such theory has been formulated). I suspect this is why | Hossenfelder just knocks down a few strawmen in her video | on superdeterminism [1], instead of addressing the elephant | in the room (experimental violations of Bell 's | inequality). | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytyjgIyegDI | rafaelero wrote: | Accepting the very simple assertion that the thing being | measured is not independent from the act of measurement | already renders the bell inequality invalid. | naasking wrote: | Of course there are: | | * Hossenfelder's own toy model, | https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.01327v5 | | * Gerard 't Hooft's cellular automata model: https://webs | pace.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gthpub/FFP11_2010.p... | | * https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/714819 | | Models that violate Bell's theorem are in fact simple to | construct. Everyone agrees that superdeterminism can | evade Bell's theorem, the key is making this evasion as | plausible or more plausible than accepting many worlds or | the absence of counterfactual definiteness. | | Given so little effort has been expended in this | direction because of incorrect assumptions of | superdeterminism, it's not surprising that these models | are still rudimentary proofs of concept, but the notion | that Bells' theorem is some insurmountable obstacle is | just incorrect. | gus_massa wrote: | > _Of course, this is such a startling conclusion that physicists | have looked for other ways to explain Bell's theorem. There is | indeed an alternative interpretation, but it is too weird to be | plausible. It assumes that the settings for the apparatus that | measures the spin of one of the entangled particles somehow | influence the measurement outcome for the other particle. It is a | weird explanation because it implies what Einstein called "spooky | action at a distance" - the idea that what happens to one | particle can instantaneously influence another, distant particle. | Einstein didn't like spooky action at a distance, and neither do | I, nor indeed most physicists I know._ | | I agree, nobody likes any of the current explanations. | | > _But to understand this, we have to think big, very big indeed. | We have to suppose that the whole universe, and literally | everything there is in it, is collectively a chaotic system | evolving precisely on some cosmic fractal geometry. In this | picture, there is no guarantee that hypothetical counterfactual | worlds that you simply cooked up in your head, will lie on this | fractal geometry. If they don't, then these counterfactual worlds | will be inconsistent with the assumed geometric laws of physics._ | | So the proposal is even worse. There are some universes that are | possible and some universes that are impossible in spite they | locally look good and you changed just a tiny thing from a | possible universe. It's even more unintuitive and horrible that | all the current proposals. It looks like a hidden global variable | theory, but I'm, not sure. | | I don't understand all the digression about chaos and fractals. | If you assume that the possible universes is a dense subset of | the imaginable universes (like the rational numbers in the real | numbers), it will make the trick. Also any manifold would be | probably fine. | texaslonghorn5 wrote: | If you have a red ball and a green ball, and you put each in a | box, and you randomly pick one of the boxes and give the other | to your friend, and you travel a trillion miles away and open | the box, you instantly know what color ball your friend has. | This is just classical correlation. | | Or a more entanglement-like example, you randomly pick a pair | of red socks or green socks from your drawer but don't know | what you picked. Then put the socks you picked into two boxes | and give one box to your friend. If you go a trillion miles | away and look at your sock then your friend is guaranteed to | have the same color. This isn't quite entanglement or the Bell | pair since it's a mixed state, but the same idea of classical | correlation holds and so these kinds of "action at a distance" | scenarios aren't impossible from a classical perspective. | gus_massa wrote: | What you are describing is a "hidden variable" theory. They | are disproved by the experiments of the Bell's inequality. | It's more weird, much more weird. | | Let's continue with your experiment about the pair of red or | green socks. If you and your friend measure if they are red- | or-green, both will get the same results. This can be | explained with a classical theory. Nobody disagree with that. | | The weird part is that you can measure if they are 50%red and | 50%green! Can I call it yellow? This makes no sense with | classical socks and colors, but it makes sense for quantum | particles and other properties. | | But there are two ways to combine 50%red and 50%green, the | technical notation is (R+G)/sqrt(2) and (R-G)/sqrt(2), one | with a plus and one with a minus. Can I call them good-yellow | and bad-yellow? Or you prefer yellow and blue? In one of the | experiments, red means vertical and green horizontal, so one | of the combinations is a 45deg diagonal like this / and the | other is a 45deg diagonal like this \\. You don't need fancy | equipment to measure the combinations, it's just a polarizer | rotated 45deg. Can I call them yellow and backyelow? I prefer | good-yellow and bad-yellow because it's more clear that | something weird is happening. | | If you measure red-or-green and your friends measures good- | yellow-or-bad-yellow, then the results will not be | correlated. If you got "red", your friend has a 50% | probability of getting good-yellow and a 50% probability of | getting bad-yellow. There is nothing to explain here. | | If you and your friend measure if they are good-yello or bad- | yellow, both will get again the same results. This can be | again explained with a hidden variable theory. Both socks | "know" what to say if they are asked if they are red-or-green | and what to say if they are asked if the are good-yellow-or- | bad-yellow. | | It get's more interesting when you pick more combinations, | like 90%red and 10%green. Can I all it orange? And you can | pick 10%red and 90%green. Can I call it lemon? If you measure | red-or-green and your friends measures orange-or-lemon, then | if you got red, your friend will get orange 90% of the time. | | And there are good-orange, bad-orange, good-lemmon and bad- | lemmon. And there are many more shades of orange-yellow- | lemon. But this is getting too long. | | You can have very smart socks that know what to answer for | every possible combination of colors. So if you and your | friend ask for the same color, whatever it is, both get the | same result. | | The problem is when you and your friend measure many times | using the correct shades of orange and lemon. So the results | don't agree 0% neither 100%. You can count how many times you | get each combination of results, like (red-vs-dark-orange, or | green-vs-bright-yellow), and then add and subtract some of | them. | | If you assume the socks can's communicate with the other | socks before answering, then the result of the calculation is | smaller then some number. But in the experiments disagree. | | There are some videos with all of this, with a better and | longer explanation by MinutePhysics and 3Blue1Brown | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs and | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzRCDLre1b4&t=0s | chatterhead wrote: | Quantum parallax with observer based views creates an infinite | series of state changes. | lupire wrote: | This is a climate scientist saying (without justification) that a | century of physicists missed the obvious trivial explanation. A | little humility is in order. | | The whole crux of QM, as shown by actual experiments in lab, is | that it really is different from just really complicated | classical mechanics. | sampo wrote: | > This is a climate scientist saying (without justification) | that a century of physicists missed the obvious trivial | explanation. | | As far as I understand, and even though the article doesn't | call it by name, he is making a case for superdeterminism. | Which hasn't been missed, but has it's own Wikipedia article. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism | | In fact, Bell (of Bell's theorem fame) himself discussed | (super)determinism as a way to escape Bell's theorem. | naasking wrote: | > This is a climate scientist saying (without justification) | that a century of physicists missed the obvious trivial | explanation. A little humility is in order. | | He's a mathematical physicist [1] that happens to work on non- | linear dynamical systems that apply to climate models. You | know, like the non-linear dynamics seen in a quantum | measurement. Maybe don't be so dismissive. He won the Dirac | gold medal for theoretical physics in 2014, for instance. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Palmer_(physicist) | kcexn wrote: | This is a wild over simplification of what 'chaos' theory is | actually studying and the statements it makes. | | Chaos theory in general states that for some deterministic | systems, small changes in the initial conditions can lead to a | wildly different deterministic outcome. | | A closer metaphor than the butterfly metaphor is a car on a wet | road. | | Think of driving your car on a wet road. This is a completely | deterministic system, there is nothing we don't know about how | cars handle on wet roads. When you take that one corner too fast | however, your car loses traction on the road, whether your car | spins out or just fish tails for a bit before straightening out | depends a great deal on the speed and angle that you entered the | corner at. If you don't know the speed or angle that you entered | the corner accurately, you don't know if you can bring the car | back under control again or not. | | I don't think anybody in the field of Quantum Mechanics doubts | that it is possible for Quantum effects to be entirely | deterministic. But it may be so sensitive to small changes in | initial conditions (which may be as far back as the birth of the | universe), that even if we knew the exact deterministic equations | to solve for Quantum Mechanical systems, they would never make an | accurate prediction. | stephc_int13 wrote: | What seems clear, so far, is that our models are still not | perfect and can't describe all of our observations or | experiments. | | We're talking about the map, not reality. | | Given that after quite a bit of time we have almost reached | scientific consensus, but not quite, I think humility is | required. | | There are a few hints showing that QM is not the end game. | FridayoLeary wrote: | Science was pretty much agreed upon in the Middle Ages. Most | philosophers agreed that Aristotle and the Greeks had pretty | much worked everything out. Point is a consensus can be very | far from the truth. As it stands the Standard Model is, to | quote somebody 'a hideous cludge'. It relies on many invisible, | undetectable entities such as 'dark matter', 'dark energy' all | kinds of subatomic particles, yet it cannot explain gravity. It | also introduces concepts such as inflation. Worse still, it is | contradicted by qm! | | I think it's still possible that the entire standard model | might still be uprooted in favour of something simpler. | vecter wrote: | Curious, what are those hints? | sampo wrote: | Do the double slit experiment in a non-uniform gravitational | field. Nobody knows how to calculate that. | | We have two perfectly good and internally consistent | theories: Quantum mechanics and general relativity. But they | are inconsistent with each other. | vecter wrote: | Ah yes. My understanding is more that we have to make | gravity fit within QM as opposed to the other way around, | but perhaps a unified theory would require changes to QM | also? | senko wrote: | Gravity | scythe wrote: | >In a series of technical papers I have developed a mathematical | model where the counterfactual worlds which arise when you try to | prove Bell's theorem do not lie on the assumed fractal geometry | of the universe. | | If I'm reading this correctly, the author is describing a model | of superdeterminism -- although it's not clear where fractal | geometry comes into play. | drdec wrote: | > If I'm reading this correctly, the author is describing a | model of superdeterminism -- although it's not clear where | fractal geometry comes into play. | | My (limited) understanding was that the fractal geometry was | part of the hidden variable system which is limiting the | possible universes. The idea being that if a potential universe | needs to correspond to a point in a fractal, then making a | small change (via a counterfactual) could easily result in a | universe which is not a point in the fractal. | roywiggins wrote: | It kind of smells like superdeterminism? In which the universe is | conspiring to make you choose the correct measurements during | Bell tests to result in the observed correlations. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism | rafaelero wrote: | Or the observed correlations are caused by the measurement? | naasking wrote: | It is superdeterminism. "Conspiracy" is a feature of some | superdeterministic theories, but not all. | n4r9 wrote: | Do you mean "theories" or "models"? If the former, please | could you provide an example of a superdeterministic theory? | naasking wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33224172 | sampo wrote: | > It kinds of smells like superdeterminism? | | Yes. From your link: _Physicists Sabine Hossenfelder and Tim | Palmer have argued that superdeterminism "is a promising | approach not only to solve the measurement problem, but also to | understand the apparent non-locality of quantum physics"._ | | (Tim Palmer is the author of the posted article.) | nyc111 wrote: | "Philosophers call this "epistemological" uncertainty - | uncertainty to do with lack of knowledge." | | Nature is self-similar. If we observe epistemological uncertainty | in the macro world, the same will be true for the micro world. | | This is an example of physicists appropriating a philosophical | question and trying to solve it by data analysis. | Robotbeat wrote: | Physics is just "natural philosophy." ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-16 23:00 UTC)