Warning: This “free will” post is for those interested in quantum mechanics, and who have a general understanding of the field and terms used within it.
If there was one theorem that has driven physicists to accept an indeterministic model of quantum mechanics the most, Bell’s theorem would be on the top pedestal. With the acceptance of such a theorem, certain quantum events simply cannot have a local “hidden variable”. This means that if one is to suggest a cause that we cannot “observe” for the event (a “hidden” variable), the cause has to be “non-local”. This idea of a non-local cause means that there is instantaneous action at a distance, something Einstein labeled as “spooky action at a distance”. And though quantum entanglement has been “demonstrated” (but with the loophole I’ll be discussing below), many physicists prefer different quantum interpretations that do not rely on non-local hidden variables, and tend to lean toward indeterministic models which says that there actually is nothing that determines the event. A less common leaning is toward a deterministic model that postulates an almost infinity of invisible worlds. The least common, though still accepted by many, are non-local hidden variable “deterministic” models such as pilot-wave theory (Bohmian Mechanics) – a model I have great appreciation for.
In the physics world, however, local hidden variable interpretations are seen as less than science, even though they would explain the “probabilistic nature” of events without the metaphysical problems of ontic probability, acausality, non-locality, or invisible worlds decohered from each other. These local accounts are looked down upon, spit on, kicked, and grounded into the dirt. The large bulk of the reasoning behind this rests on this important theorem by John Stewart Bell. This is because, per Bell’s theorem: “No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics”. It shows that any physical theory would require information to travel faster than the speed of light, a limitation put on speed in physics that is for the most part undeniable.
But is Bell’s theorem really this powerful, undefeated theorem that should be accepted no questions asked? Well, it is difficult to say if it should be accepted, but one thing is for sure, there are questions that need to be asked before it is!
Hey Bell’s Theorem, you got some ‘splainin’ to do!!!
Part of Bell’s theorem is Bell’s inequality, which addresses the relationship that needs to hold for measurements of particles given different setups. For Bell’s inequality to hold, however, an assumption needs to be made. In physics the assumption here is called “counterfactual definiteness”. This is one of those terms that are often confusing, but the key part of the term for this article is that it means “it is necessary to be able to speak meaningfully of what the result of the experiment would have been, had different choices been made”.
To put this in clear terms, it means that when we look at the results of an experiment, we need to also look at what results “would have been” had the experimenter “set up the experiment differently” in order for Bell’s inequality to fly.
You see, Bell’s theorem depends on an assumption of the type of free will that would not exist given causal determinism. It seems to be a little “cart before the horse”.
The problem with this sort of counter-factual is that it doesn’t really exist given most deterministic theory. In an entirely causally deterministic universe, the experiment that will be run is the experiment that causality dictates will be run. The other experimental setups were not a real possibility. The measurement that would be chosen by the experimenter is one that is dictated by the laws of physics (given determinism), therefore it is a mistake to speak about what the results “would have been” in any meaningful way
Bell himself discussed this loophole in the 1980’s:
There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the “decision” by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already “knows” what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.
What Bell calls “super-determinism” here is just the philosophical notion that all things are causally deterministic, including conscious thoughts and actions, and therefore there is no free will (in the sense of “could have done otherwise”). It’s also important to denote that “knows” is in quotes. It isn’t really that the universe “knows” but rather that the universe is in a state that follows to the very specific measurement that will entirely dictate an exact outcome of the experiment that could not be a different one.
So once determinism is assumed, it does seem that faster than light speed is not required, at least according to Bell. At the same time, however, Bell claims that this is implausible. According to him, even if the measurements performed are chosen by deterministic random number generators, the choices can be assumed to be “effectively free for the purpose at hand.” His rationale for this, something I find less than compelling, can be found in his book “Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics”. Here is an excerpt:
To me this explanation is insufficient. Why would he say that the millionth decimal place being odd or even would “unlikely be a vital piece for any distinctively different purpose” when in fact the output of either a or a’ relies entirely on it? It seems to me that there is absolutely no “forgetfulness” that can be equated here – not even an imaginary forgetfulness. It seems to me that the above excerpt just says “complexity therefore free enough” without any sufficient explanation. Perhaps there is more hidden here, but if so it is very elusive, and I have yet to find a good answer. I’m still searching though, so if there are any physicists out there that have answers I’m all ears.
Also, the fact that this sort of thing is used in the Clauser-Horne analysis doesn’t mean it is appropriate in that context either if causal determinism is the case.
To give more context to Bell’s position on his use of “free will” for the theorem, he says this:
In other words, for the very theorem, he is “entertaining the hypothesis that experimenters have free will”. According to him, he is simply pursuing his profession of theoretical physics.
But it is important to understand that when hypothesizing X we should not, in science or philosophy, just accept the Y that follows. Rather, the contingent “if” is a key factor that the conclusion should make every attempt to denote: “if X is the case, Y follows”. If “free will” is the case, then Bell’s theorem follows and local variables have been ruled out. Bell has done this to some degree, but I don’t think in a strong enough way.
When it’s just posited as an unlikely “loophole” by Bell, that is the very idea I would like questioned. Is it really “unlikely”? Can a deterministic pseudo-random number generator really accomplish the “freedom” required? Or is it really the case that it is unlikely that such pseudo-random number generator could accomplish the freedom involved? If so, isn’t the “free will” or even “true randomness” assumptions just begging the question in the first place?
Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, in her blog, suggests that with the removal of free will comes the removal of Bell’s theorem:
“Free will of the experimentalist is a relevant ingredient in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Without free will, Bell’s theorem doesn’t hold, and all we have learned from it goes out the window.”
Sabine’s post: Free will is dead, let’s bury it.
When ideas such as the freedom of the experimenter is just taken as a granted and the opposition to this is taken as “unlikely”, other scientists have a tendency to cease to look at X and just assume Y as a static given to base the rest of their work on. And though there are some who are working on a potential local story of causality in quantum mechanics, they are considered an almost obsolete fringe who are stuck in their “Newtonian mindset”, all due to metaphysical baggage laden assumptions in scientific theory. The irony, however, is that a true scientist doesn’t look at a theorem such as Bell’s as a scriptural fact, but rather as something to be challenged, especially if it assumes non-empirical baggage.
Luckily there are some who have proposed ways to test these ideas about “free will” in Bell’s theorem in order to “close the loophole”: Researchers propose using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem. Basically the test will be to use two distant quasars that wouldn’t have causal contact since the big bang, meaning one has no causal influence over the other for the particle detector settings. Per the article:
“The researchers reason that since each detector’s setting is determined by sources that have had no communication or shared history since the beginning of the universe, it would be virtually impossible for these detectors to “conspire” with anything in their shared past to give a biased measurement; the experimental setup could therefore close the “free will” loophole.”
We will we have to wait and see on this as these are long term and complicated initiatives. Physicists led by Dr. Kaiser and Alan H. Guth (M.I.T.), financed by the National Science Foundation, will attempt to accomplish an experiment that will insure greater independence of distant “objects” in 2016, and then attempt to capture the light from quasars “near the edge of the universe” in 2017 and 2018. It’ll be interesting to see if the results “close the loophole”. I do hope that these tests can be done in an entirely impartial light and replicated by others.
Until then, the conclusion that many scientists accept as almost written in stone, in particular regarding the “impossibility” of local hidden variables to account for the probability distributions we see in quantum mechanics, currently relies on an “if”. And it’s a big, scary “if” of “if free will exists” that just assumes that “super-determinism” (as suggested by Bell) isn’t the case, or assumes that a random generator can grant “enough freedom” without really explaining how pseudo-random but entirely deterministic complexity is really “more free” for the experiments than the most simple of causally deterministic mechanisms. If the loophole becomes closed through experimentation like the above quasar experiment, and that closer is sufficiently explained, then free will will not be required for Bell’s theorem to hold. If it doesn’t get closed, I think we should be a little more skeptical on accepting the theorem on it’s face, and open the door to more local variable possibilities.
This article in no way has the answers , but I do hope it at least gets people to question if Bell’s theorem is truly reliant on a notion of a 
“free will” of the experimenter. If it is, then that is just one more reason to explain why such free will is logically incoherent. If it isn’t really reliant on this free will and can be explained even given a “super-deterministic” universe using pseudo-random number generators, I’d like to see more information on that. And if it get’s sufficiently closed by using distant quasars that are causally disconnected since the big bang, I’d still suggest that a deterministic non-local hidden variable account of quantum mechanics is just as likely as any other interpretation (if not more likely than some), even if local accounts have been sufficiently ruled out.
Are you a quantum physicist or autodidact who has answers here about Bell’s theorem requiring “free will”? If so, comment below or shoot me an email! I’d love to make a new article on this subject in the future as I obtain further information.
'Trick Slattery
Latest posts by 'Trick Slattery (see all)
- Semantic Shift Day, August 31 – REMINDER! Mark your calendar! - August 1, 2020
- Debunking Dennettian Diatribe - May 2, 2018
- Compatibilism: A Parable (comic) - December 7, 2017
81 Responses to “Free Will Assumptions in Bell’s Theorem?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It seems to me what Bell’s theorem assumes is not actually free will. It is rather some degree of disconnection between the particle in the experiment and the device “choosing” the experimental setup. In the case of a random number generator, to break bell’s theorem, you have to assume the number generator is correlated to the particle in the experiment. Can you affirm this as plausible? Can it be practical in any way?
BTW, non-locality seems to be the best alternative to true randomness in quantum mechanics.
I think given determinism, a random number generator that interplay’s with the setup of the experiment would certainly have influence…but this is the part that is being questioned. Is Bell’s “superdeterminism” really any different than causal determinism in these regards? I think the quark experiments which attempt to use two distant events that aren’t causally intertwined other than being “from the big bang” could be helpful.
Also, it’s important to note that I’m agnostic on determinism or indeterminism, but just like to question certain underlying assumptions. I have much appreciation for non-local hidden variable accounts, but I’m also willing to accept “true randomness” if that happens (though I do not think that Copenhagen sufficiently accounts for it without huge problems).
Thanks for the response. 🙂
It’s the connection in the past light-cone of the elements in the experiment which is important. We know that there was a connection at the Big Bang (probably) and that is enough to undermine the idea of free will in the experiment.
What about the “free will” of the particles themselves? Since they are created with opposite angular momentums they can each, based upon their own position and momentum, pre-determine what the outcome of any measurement on the other will be.
Is their ability to “know” what the outcome of any measurement on each other will be “superdeterministic enough”? Is this ability “superdeterministic” with a lowercase “s”?
Willing implies consciousness, I wouldn’t say that a particle “wills”, and certainly not freely. It isn’t really “knowing” but rather a causal interaction. 😉
If wave-particle duality is a moving particle AND its associated wave then when one of the entangled pair are detected it could be the associated wave which causes the particle to be detected with a certain spin and the particle itself doesn’t contain hidden variables. The variables are exposed to the particle.
wave-particle duality means that sometimes it behaves like a wave, other times like a particle. It would matter not if it’s a particle or wave behaviour that has the non-local interaction….it would still be a hidden variable either way.
Wave-particle duality is a moving particle and its associated wave.
The notion of dark matter as a weakly interacting clump of stuff that travels with the matter is incorrect.
Dark matter fills ’empty’ space, strongly interacts with matter and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it, causing it to wave.
The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the strongly interacting dark matter which fills ’empty’ space.
In a double slit experiment the particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the dark matter which passes through both.
When an entangled pair are created the particles do not have a well defined spin. Due to conservation of momentum the associated waves in the dark matter which travel with the particles propagate with opposite angular momentums.
When the particle interacts with the detector the physical wave “collapses” which causes the particle to gain a certain spin. It is the local physical “collapse” of the associated wave as it interacts with the detector which determines the spin of the particle.
Sure, given a dark matter/energy speculative theory for the connection…but when one particle gains a certain spin (say spin up), the other entangle particle appears to gain the opposite spin (spin down) at the same time…no matter the distance between the two. If you are suggesting this is happening via the dark matter that fills the space, that would be hidden currently. Why the spin is immediate would be an interesting question. Does the “in-between” act as a sort of gear rather than domino chain? I have no clue, as we would be speculating on the hidden variable(s). And of course a dark matter explanation or an outside of space-time connection theory is speculative…but interesting to speculate on. 😉
One particle is detected. When this occurs the wave local to the particle “collapses” which gives the particle it’s spin.
An hour later the other particle is detected. The wave local to it “collapses” giving that particle it’s spin.
Measuring one particle does not affect the other.
The particles are always detected with opposite spins because the waves are propagating with opposite angular momentums. The waves “collapse” as exact opposites which cause the particles to be detected with opposite spins.
It is not until the particle is locally detected that it acquires its spin.
But the whole point of Bell’s theorem, if we are to accept it (which I’m questioning in this article), is that those variables being “in the individual particle or wave itself” are statistically ruled out. That a local hidden variable (which is what would exist in your wave config) is ruled out.
Here is a clear video in this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c
That being said, I’m skeptical on Bell’s theorem – as the article points out. 😉
Local hidden variables have to do with the particle, not the associated wave.
The only hidden variable associated with the waves is how they are propagating with opposite angular momentums. This is a singular hidden variable.
Everything in the video you linked to having to do with hidden variables is associated with the spins of the downconverted pair at the time of their creation.
Just as in quantum mechanics, I am suggesting the particles do not have well defined spins until they are detected.
I am also suggesting that the only thing hidden from us is the angular momentum of the associated physical waves. This angular momentum is what causes the particles to always be detected with opposite spins.
From what I understand local variables have to do with either the wave or particle….usually they refer to the wave or something in the wave itself (the specifics of something about the wave). For example, a hidden variable for the double-slit would be something within the wave that causes it to collapse at a specific location (in a local deterministic theory)….or something non-local that interacts with the wave (in a non-local deterministic theory).
I agree that the particles do not have a well-defined spin until detected. The question regarding entanglement has to do with what “causes” the specific angular momentum of the other. If you are suggesting it is a variable within the wave itself that causes the angular momentum, you are denoting a local hidden variable. If you are saying there is a connection between the two waves/particles in which, once one is detected the other converts in its opposite direction (the angular momentum converts), that is non-local. It’s the local account that Bell’s theorem (if accepted) says is not the case.
“A” hidden variable associated with the wave is the key. It’s singular, not plural.
Bell’s inequality has to do with hidden variables, plural with an “s”.
There aren’t hidden variables (plural with an “s”) associated with the wave. The only hidden variable associated with the wave is the angular momentum in which it propagates. It is a single hidden variable.
There isn’t a hidden variable associated with the wave which causes a certain spin to be detected along the x-axis and a hidden variable associated with a measurement along the y-axis and a hidden variable associated with a measurement along the z-axis.
There is only ‘the’ hidden variable associated with the waves propagating with opposite angular momentums which cause the particles to be detected with opposite spins.
Bell’s inequality doesn’t apply.to the pair because there is only ‘the’ hidden variable associated with the opposite angular momentum in which the particles propagate.
‘The’ hidden variable causes the particles to always be detected with opposite spins. When they are detected their associated wave locally physically “collapses” which determines their spins.
No need for hidden variable’s’. No need for non-locality.
Bell’s inequality does not apply to the pair because there is only ‘the’ hidden variable and the particle’s spin is determined locally.
Singular or plural make no difference here (whether one or many parts “causes” the angular motion or only the angular motion causes the spin is irrelevant to the question over locality). You are saying that, once entangled, the very specific angular motion is intrinsic at that point, and that causes the specific spin – regardless of the other. From what I can tell, according to what you just said you seem to take a local account of hidden variable theory and reject Bell’s inequality (if you say it does not apply to the pair, which of course Bell would not agree with).
That being said, I have appreciation for your position, hence the reason I wrote the article. 😀
The point of hidden variable theories is that the particles are created with well defined spins.
The spins being being caused by the detection by the angular momentum of the associated wave is what is different. The wave itself doesn’t require consisting of hidden variables.
I think trying to refute Bell’s inequality itself is a mistake. I think the solution is to understand a physical wave causing the spin of the particles does not require hidden variables.
Good luck.
I think you are kind of side-stepping a key component: that measurement can be seen as acting on the particle and will change the original property by some unknown amount (including the spin). It appears the other particle “knows” any change that occurs due to measurement of the other and adjusts accordingly.
Your theory is that the spin will always correlate with the angular momentum of the wave which is an effect of by the entangling process, regardless of how or when measurement “collapses” the wave of one or the other. If you have the mathematics and experimentation to prove this and show that this is all that is required and all variables are already there, you had better do it or find someone who can – as it would change the face of QM in very drastic ways!
Peace out. 😀
The particle doesn’t have to “know” the other one has been measured. Due to conservation of momentum the associated physical waves propagate with opposite angular momentums and cause the spins of the particles during measurement.
No hidden variables required.
Just to be perfectly clear what you are postulating: I am assuming when you say “propagate with opposite angular momentums” that you are saying:
1) That this “propagation” happens when the two are being entangled (e)…correct? Y/N
2) And that it is this property (p) (e.g. angular momentum) that is propagated within the wave that causes the specific spin when measured? Y/N
3) And that the measurement (m) itself (how it happens, when it happens, etc) cannot have any effect on the spin direction (sd) itself other than bring the specific direction already dictated by the property (p) to light on “collapse”? Y/N
In other words, e causes p, m causes “collapse”/spin, but only p causes sd?
1) Y
2) it’s not propagated “in” the wave. It’s the propagation of the wave.
You are insisting the angular momentum is “in” the wave in the same way the hidden variables would be “in” the particle.
This is what I am saying is not the case. The wave just propagates. Each wave just propagates with the opposite angular momentum of the other.
It is this singular property of the wave which causes the particles to always be detected with opposite spins.
So…to reiterate with adjusted language:
I am assuming when you say “propagate with opposite angular momentums” that you are saying:
1) That this “propagation” happens when the two are being entangled (e)…correct? You say Y
2) And that it is this property (p) (e.g. angular momentum) that is a propagation of the wave that causes the specific spin when measured? You say Y
The more important question then is #3:
3) And that the measurement (m) itself (how it happens, when it happens, etc) cannot have any effect on the spin direction (sd) itself other than bring the specific direction already dictated by the property (p) to light on “collapse”? Y/N
In other words, e causes p, m causes “collapse”/spin, but only p causes sd?
Why is question #3 so important? Because if you say Y to #3 then you are going against what most think, that “any measurement of a property of a particle can be seen as acting on that particle (e.g., by collapsing a number of superposed states) and will change the original quantum property by some unknown amount; and in the case of entangled particles, such a measurement will be on the entangled system as a whole.” If you say N to #3, then 1 and 2 no longer apply.
If you say Y, then this theory of yours: that the measurement itself brings forth the spin but has no say on the spin direction (which is already intrinsic given the p that has already been set up by e), if found true, would literally change the face of QM. It is the very local realist account that is found so problematic statistically given that #3 is not true.
Or at least so it seems. I could be missing something here.
“by collapsing a number of superposed states” is incorrect. There is only the state of each of the waves and that is that they are propagating with opposite angular momentums.
“such a measurement will be on the entangled system as a whole” is also incorrect. Each of the physical waves propagating with each particle exists locally with the particle only. They are two completely separated waves propagating with opposite angular momentums. When you detect one of the particles its local wave “collapses” which causes the associated spin of the particle. You could wait a week prior to detecting the other particle and that particle’s spin will not be defined until it is detected and its local physical wave “collapses”.
It is the local physical “collapse” of the wave propagating locally with the particle which determines the spin of the local particle.
It is the very local realist account of particles traveling with hidden variables (plural with an “s”) that is found so problematic. It is the particle’s traveling with hidden variables associated with any possible axis of detection which is so problematic.
The waves themselves do not consist of hidden variables associated with every possible measurement. The waves themselves propagate with opposite angular momentums. It is this propagation of opposite angular momentums which cause the particles to be detected with opposite spins no matter how they are measured. It is this singular property of the waves which causes the particles to always be measured with opposite spins.
There are no such things as hidden variables (plural with an “s”) when discussing entanglement.
Right, so you are going against the scientific consensus here (those things you are saying are “incorrect” are the consensus). I thought so but wanted to be sure. I have no problem with going against consensus btw. What you now need to do is create a peer reviewed paper with your theory and support for it, have others verify it experimentally….and change the face of quantum mechanics entirely.
You also keep avoiding the question about whether the measurement itself has any say on particle spin direction….because that is an important part. You are implying it does not, where as most physicists would disagree. You have to show how all of the experiments are concluding this incorrectly.
Personally I think it would be awesome if you could explain away all of these problems with your simplistic local theory. I’m, however, very skeptical that you actually could.
I also want to note that even if you are correct about the “week later” analysis, that doen’t matter if the act of measurement has any say on particle spin direction (as believed). The more important point if it does have a say is that the one configuration adjusts accordingly.
I don’t understand how you can say, “You also keep avoiding the question about whether the measurement itself has any say on particle spin“, when all I have been saying is that when the wave interacts with the detector the wave “collapses” which causes the particle to be measured with a certain spin. The particle does not have a well defined spin until it is detected. It is the “collapsing” of the associated local wave which gives the particle its spin.
Not “spin” but “spin direction“. Read #3 again.
3) And that the measurement (m) itself (how it happens, when it happens, etc) cannot have any effect on the spin direction (sd) itself other than bring the specific direction already dictated by the property (p) to light on “collapse”?
The only property (p) is the angular momentum of the waves associated with the particles. When the particle is measured along the x-axis, this singular property, causes the particles to be detected with opposite spins. When the particles are measured along the y-axis, this singular property, causes the particles to be detected with opposite spins. When the particles are measured along the z-axis, this singular property, causes the particles to be detected with opposite spins.
It is the consensus that the measurement of the first particle “will change the original quantum property (e.g. the angular momentum) by some unknown amount”. It seems to be your theory (but correct me if I’m wrong) that this is simply not true, that it has the same property (e.g. same angular momentum) all along (since entanglement). That the measurement itself has no say over the property and hence no say over the direction.
The measurement itself causes the associated physical wave to “collapse” a certain way. This “certain way” is exactly opposite for each wave. As the wave “collapses” it causes the particle to spin a certain way. Since the waves are collapsing in exact opposite manners the particles are always detected with opposite spins.
It is not the measurement of the particle which change “the original quantum property (e.g. the angular momentum) by some unknown amount”.
It is the measure of the particle which causes the angular momentum associated with the wave to give the particle a certain spin. Since the existing angular momentum of the wave are exact opposites for each particle the particles are always detected with opposite spins.
The cause of the spins always being detected as opposites is the opposite angular momentums associated with their local waves.
That the measurement itself has no say over the property and hence no say over the direction.”
The measurement itself has no say over the waves propagating with opposite angular momentums. The measurement itself causes the waves to “collapse” as exact opposites. As the waves “collapse” the cause the particles to spin in opposite directions.
The particles do not have well defined spin directions until they are detected. The spin directions of the particles are caused by the “collapse” of their associated waves during measurement.
Measurement causes waves to “collapse” as exact opposites.
Exact opposite “collapsing” of the waves causes the particles to spin in opposite directions.
1) “The particles do not have well defined spin directions until they are detected. The spin directions of the particles are caused by the “collapse” of their associated waves during measurement.”
Seems to be in conflict with
2) “Measurement causes waves to “collapse” as exact opposites.”
For one to say that the measurement causes waves to “collapse” as exact opposites means that they must have a well-defined spin.
You say “It is the measure of the particle which causes the angular momentum associated with the wave to give the particle a certain spin. Since the existing angular momentum of the wave are exact opposites for each particle the particles are always detected with opposite spins.” …but this very idea that they are configured as “exact opposites” ahead of time means that the measure itself cannot cause the angular momentum. You in turn are postulating another variable that causes “opposites” during the entangle process…but you cannot determine “opposites” if there is no well-defined angular-momentum / spin direction until measurement.
Or at least I’m not parsing what you are saying then. 😉
“For one to say that the measurement causes waves to “collapse” as exact opposites means that they must have a well-defined spin.”
Wave-particle duality is a moving particle AND its associated wave in the strongly interacting dark matter.
The waves are propagating with opposite angular momentums. The particles do not have well defined spins.
You are conflating the waves propagating with opposite angular momentums with the particles having well defined spins.
Think of the particles traveling with their associated waves as a knuckle ball thrown by a baseball pitcher.
Even though the associated waves propagate with opposite angular momentums their associated waves do not have well defined spins prior to detection.
Since the waves have opposite angular momentums when they interact with the measuring device they “collapse” as exact opposites along any axis. As they “collapse” they cause the particles to spin as exact opposites.
There are opposite angular momentums associated with the waves. There aren’t well defined spins associated with the particles prior to detection. The act of measurement causes the angular momentum of the wave to be given to the particle which causes the particles to be detected with opposite spins.
Correction:
Even though the associated waves propagate with opposite angular momentums their associated [particles] do not have well defined spins prior to detection.
If you are suggesting that the angular momentum is propagated on entanglement, then the angular momentum and the exact spin it drives are well defined prior to measurement and collapse.
If you are suggesting that the angular momentum is propagated on measurement, then the angular momentum and the exact spin it drives are not well defined prior to measurement and collapse – which means that opposites cannot be well-defined either.
To suggest opposites are intrinsic is to suggest an intrinsic well-defined angular-momentum and spin. You can’t have the notion of an “opposite” without a defined configuration. If you are suggesting that angular-momentum is that configuration, and you are suggesting it being a well-defined opposite of the other that causes opposite spins on measurement, then the spin itself is well-defined (there is a variable for it).
I am suggesting that the angular momentum of the wave is propagated on entanglement, and the spin of the particle is not.
But you are saying the spin direction is dictated by the angular momentum….so if the angular momentum is well-defined (which it must be if one is saying they are opposite), so must the spin direction.
But let’s keep in mind that it’s not a problem that it’s well-defined if you are giving a local causal account.
I am saying the spin direction is determined by the angular momentum upon measurement,
When it happens is irrelevant (on measurement), the direction itself is determined BY the angular momentum (per you).
When it happens is relevant. If it happens during measurement there is no need for hidden variables.
The direction itself is determined when the wave “collapses” during measurement.
Wave “collapse” causes the particle to have a well defined spin direction.
Prior to wave “collapse”: undefined spin direction.
After wave “collapse”: defined spin direction.
You said that the spin direction is determined by the angular momentum upon measurement. The angular momentum is a property that it has prior TO measurement (on entanglement per you), so the fact that measurement causes spin is irrelevant to what causes the spin direction. The spin direction is defined exactly by the angular momentum per you. It is your “variable” for direction.
The angular momentum is a property of the wave. The spin direction is a property of the particle.
During wave “collapse” the angular momentum of the wave is transferred to the particle which causes its spin direction.
Prior to wave “collapse”: well defined angular momentum, undefined spin direction
Post wave “collapse”: undefined angular momentum, we’ll defined spin direction
Sorry- but this just cannot be an undefined spin direction. The very transference makes it a well-defined variable for the direction.
Annnyway…no need to beat a dead semantic horse here. I think I get the unorthodox theory you are putting forth. Interesting thoughts. 😀
It makes spin direction a well defined variable post detection.
The variable for the direction exists pre-detection.
It’s not well defined therefore it’s not a hidden variable.
To suggest opposites is to suggest a well-defined variable in which one is opposite of the other.
I am suggesting the waves are propagating with opposite angular momentums. I am suggesting the particles are not.
In this scenario there is a particle AND A wave.
Clarification:
I am suggesting the waves are propagating with opposite angular momentums. I am suggesting the particles are not propagating with opposite spins.
Doesn’t matter. You are supplying the (well-defined) variable for the direction of spin on measurement….prior to measurement. The distinction between wave and particle matters not here. The opposite angular momentums are A) well-defined, and B) dictate spin direction via that definition.
I provide the well defined spin direction on measurement only.
Prior to measurement it is not well defined, not when wave-particle duality is a moving particle and its associated wave.
The variable (opposite angular momentum) defines the spin direction prior to measurement. The fact that spin doesn’t happen until measurement is irrelevant to what causally defines the direction. The only way out of this is to say that the opposite angular momentums have no say over direction upon measurement…in which case you are back to square one.
In order for there to be conservation of momentum all that us required is for the waves to propagate with opposite angular momentums. The particles can be traveling along with the waves like knuckle balls thrown by a baseball pitcher.
The particles are not traveling with hidden variables.
The wave “collapsing” causes the spin direction of the particle.
The waves propagating with opposite angular momentums is a hidden variable. It is a singular hidden variable at most.
First, there isn’t a particle that is moving along with a wave. The particle and the wave are the same. The more important point:
If it is just the wave “collapsing” that causes the spin direction, then angular momentum has no say over direction…only the collapse does. If that is the case then that is what action at a distance is postulated statistically….as opposites cannot be dictated by collapse alone when they are at a distance.
First, there isn’t a particle that is moving along with a wave. The particle and the wave are the same.
Why didn’t you say that yesterday? I would have stopped wasting my time.
Everything I have said is predicted on wave-particle duality being a moving particle and its associated wave.
In de Broglie’s double solution theory wave-particle duality is a moving particle and its associated wave in the “subquantic medium”.
The “subquantic medium” is the strongly interacting dark matter which fills ’empty’ space.
Everything I have been saying is predicated on the angular momentum being associated with the wave and the spin being associated with the particle.
What a colossal waste of time.
I had no clue you were saying this yesterday. You talk about the wave “collapsing”, this means it collapses from a wave to a particle. There is no “riding particle” in collapse theory…so perhaps you shouldn’t be using the word “collapse”. For pilot-wave theory there is NO collapse.
Regardless…none of this matters for the points I made. Even if we accept some dualistic notion of a separate particle on a wave…for your theory all variables are either there (well-defined)…in which case the spin direction is locally dictated…or the spin direction only comes about on measurement (and derived BY the measurement)…in which case for the opposite stats interaction appears to be needed. So regardless of this baseball theory my points stand and this should not be a “colossal waste of time”.
If it is just the wave “collapsing” that causes the spin direction, then angular momentum has no say over direction
The opposite angular momentums is what is causing the spins of the particles to be detected as opposites post “collapse” of the wave.
The only way to do this is if the opposite angular momentums dictates the spin direction in opposite directions….in which case that is the variable for the direction. But we are repeating. This is one of them “agree to disagree” moments it seems. It’s all good though…it was an interesting idea to ponder. 😉
Correct. The opposite angular momentums of the waves is the variable which causes the spin direction of the particles upon detection. Single variable. Not hidden variables (plural with an ‘s’).
Great! Finally clear on your position here. 😀
No difference….and still well-defined for the spin.
Anyway, I’m not trying to give you a hard time. I actually appreciate people who try to theorize against the scientific consensus (even if a pet theory). It breaks us away from being spoon-fed potentially bad ideas…especially when it comes to quantum physics where there are so many interpretations. Keep up the thoughts good sir…and don’t take my criticisms as me not appreciating your thought process. Later.
Not well defined for spin at the time of the creation of the entangled pair.
Based on the theory you gave- that is the part we’ll have to “agree to disagree” on.
The theory i gave has wave-particle duality as a moving particle and its associated wave.
That’s what we are agreeing to disagree about.
No, I said even if we accept that framework…the other things I said follows. That framework is fairly irrelevant to our discussion all along. I’m saying the spin direction is well defined even under that framework…given “The opposite angular momentums of the waves is the variable which causes the spin direction of the particles upon detection”. You seem to think that it’s “Not well defined for spin at the time of the creation of the entangled pair”…and that is where we need to disagree given the “variable” (opposite angular momentums) at creation of entangled pair that you postulate.
But I believe we will just go back and forth here so we should leave it at the “agree to disagree” mantra. 😀
Do you agree that the particles can travel like knuckle balls thrown by a baseball player prior to detection? Do you agree the particles can propagate without well defined spins prior to detection?
I’m willing to work within most frameworks. I’m not against the idea if that is what is being postulated.
Depends on the framework/interpretation and propagation theory. I’m saying under the propagation theory you provided the spin direction is well-defined from the onset of entanglement. I’m saying this should come as no surprise considering all variables (or if you prefer “the variable”) for the direction are (is) in place on entanglement.
In what I am proposing how is the spin direction well defined if I am saying the particles are traveling like knuckle balls thrown by a baseball pitcher?
If all variable(s) that account for the (very specific) spin direction already exist (on entanglement), that is what it means to be “well-defined”.
The only variable I am discussing is the waves propagating with opposite angular momentums. Do you agree this is a single variable?
Depends on what we are calling a variable, but whether we pack the wave into a single variable is irrelevant.
The waves have a single variable. There is not a variable associated with the wave collapsing along the x-axis and a variable associated with the wave collapsing along the y-axis and a variable associated with the wave collapsing along the z-axis.
There is only the variable associated with the angular momentum of the particles.
Correction/Clarification:
There is only the variable associated with the angular momentum of the waves associated with the particles.
The angular momentum is given by the vector product which is moment of inertia and velocity. It’s subject to the constraint of conservation of AM if no external torque, etc etc. The wave function is a complex-valued probability function. The Schrödinger equation determines how it evolves over time. Most do not say that they are “single variabled”. The quantum state has continuous variables. But again, whether it is 1,2, 10, or 100 variables that we are referring to is irrelevant here.
In de Broglie’s double solution theory there are two waves. There is the wavefunction wave which is statistical, non-phyiscal and is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments. It is a mathematical construct only. It doesn’t physically exist. Referring to it in this discussion is pointless.
I am discussing the physical wave in the strongly interacting dark matter.
It matters how many variables there are. If there is only the single variable, which I am proposing, then there aren’t the hidden variables associated with Bell’s inequality.
The wavefunction is what represents any ontological assessment of a wave. Without it discussing a “physical wave interacting in dark matter” (if you are assuming a deBroglie wave is or is similar to a gravitational wave in DM??)…in some extremely speculative theory (anything considering dark matter as the medium is very speculative) is pointless.
And no, it does not matter how many variables there are – as long as all local variables account for the behavior (whether that is 1 or 50). It does not follow that “If there is only the single variable” to “then there aren’t the hidden variables associated with Bell’s inequality”. One is sufficient (if you assume it’s one).
In terms of hidden variables theories there is a hidden variable associated with a measurement along the x-axis and a hidden variable associated with a measurement along the y-axis and a hidden variable associated with a measurement along the z-axis and so on.
If there is only the variable associated with the angular momentum of the associated physical wave then what is being discussed is not a hidden variables theory.
I’m done.
Take care.
You cannot just assert that an angular momentum configured on entanglement accounts identically for the spin direction without supplying an actual variable (or variables) of the angular momentum that can be assessed to occur at that point that points to the spin that always occurs…in which physicists have not yet accounted for (or are unable to account for – or more likely have already been ruled out given the assessment of property and direction change depending on measurement). Until it is accounted for in physics, it is hidden. And as soon as the variable (or variables) is accounted for and becomes “unhidden”…you have literally changed the face of QM forever. That is your mathematical and experimental task if you want your pet theory to go somewhere. Until then any variable or variables that you are asserting account entirely for the behavior of the spin direction that precede measurement are hidden to physicist in the field of QM, and assertions do not make them unhidden.
The question isn’t about if it’s “hidden” (currently it must be if we are giving a causal account), but rather local or non-local. If it wasn’t hidden then it wouldn’t even be a question.
Peace out good sir.
Probably you dont know that Bell theorem may not be proven if supplementary local parameters describing measuring devices are correctly taken into account. This is called: contextual loophole. It has been recently shown that statements based on Bayes theorem: : ”hidden variables depend on settings means that the experimenters have no a free will” are simply incorrect. arXiv:1602.02959 ; 1611.05021 . You may e-mail me.
Thanks Marian, I just downloaded your journal entry “EPR Paradox, Quantum Nonlocality and Physical Reality” and will for sure examine it. I find this conclusion in your abstract fascinating:
I do have a “lay-persons” appreciation for an ensemble or statistical interpretation of QM. Just browsing your paper, there is a whole lot I’d intuitively align with. It makes me wonder why so many physicists assume far more problematic quantum interpretations! Great work and thanks again.
Thanks . The mysteries sell much better !
Marian
This video may be relevant as well so posting it here until I get to it deeper:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-OFP5tNtMY&t=0s
In it Murray Gell-Mann talks about how the “Sum over Histories approach” removes “spooky action at a distance”.
His critics of a spooky action on a distance is correct but his arguments in favor of many worlds and consistent histories interpretation are in my opinion non convincing. We dont need these interpretations in order to understand quantum phenomena.The wave function of the univers it is a nonsense.
Yeah, a friend of mine showed me this one, but I’m unfamiliar with Gell-Mann’s full position. I suspect he’s not in the camp of ontological (real) worlds or histories given his stance here, but not entirely sure.