Superdeterminism

From Wikipedia:

Gerard 't Hooft (above) has disputed the validity of Bell's theorem on the basis of the superdeterminism loophole and proposed some ideas to construct local deterministic models.

Superdeterminism is one of a few attempts to show that a local hidden variable theory can reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics, which if proven, would create a theoretical escape route from Bell's theorem.

Bell's theorem assumes that the types of measurements performed at each detector are chosen independently of each other and of the hidden variable being measured. But in a truly deterministic theory, this would not be the case. Although the experimenters might believe they are making a free and independent choice, their choices are really predetermined by the laws of physics. Since the types of measurements at each detector can be known in advance, the results at one detector can be affected by the type of measurement done at the other without any need for information to travel faster than the speed of light.

Bell acknowledged the loophole, but argued that it was improbable. 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," because the machine's choice is altered by a large number of very small effects. It is unlikely for the hidden variable to be sensitive to all of the same small influences that the random number generator was.

Bell discussed superdeterminism in a BBC interview:

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.

The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of states, collapse of the wave function, and spooky action at a distance, is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a dilemma. I think it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things.

A Third Second Law of Thermodynamics

Coming to Perimeter:


PIRSA:10050003
Title: Maxwell and a Third 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Speaker(s): Wayne Myrvold - University of Western Ontario
Abstract: It has long been recognized that there are two distinct laws that go by the name of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The original says that there can be no process resulting in a net decrease in the total entropy of all bodies involved. A consequence of the kinetic theory of heat is that this law will not be strictly true; statistical fluctuations will result in small spontaneous transfers of heat from a cooler to a warmer body. The currently accepted version of the Second Law is probabilistic: tiny spontaneous transfers of heat from a cooler to a warmer body will be occurring all the time, while a larger transfer is not impossible, merely improbable. There can be no process whose expected result is a net decrease in total entropy. According to Maxwell, the Second Law has only statistical validity, and this statement is easily read as an endorsement of the probabilistic version. I argue that a close reading of Maxwell, with attention to his use of "statistical," shows that the version of the second law endorsed by Maxwell is strictly weaker than our probabilistic version. According to Maxwell, even the probable truth of the second law is limited to situations in which we deal with matter only in bulk and are unable to observe or manipulate individual molecules. Maxwell's version does not rule out a device that could, predictably and reliably, transfer heat from a cooler to a warmer body without a compensating increase in entropy. I will discuss the evidence we have for these two laws, Maxwell's and ours.
Date: 11/06/2010 - 11:00 am
Series: Quantum Foundations
Location: 405
URL: http://pirsa.org/10050003/

Puzzle # 2

Identify this diagram.
.

The Most Wonderful Person on Earth, 2010

The Somerset Institute for Advanced Logic announced today that Edward Witten narrowly beat out runners-up Gerardus 't Hooft, Richard Branson, Mike Lazaridis, Elon Musk, Woit'n'Smolin, Stephen Hawking, Steven Weinberg, the Verlinde twins, the Ghost of Évariste Galois, Phil Warnell, Gore Vidal, and the irrepressible Leonard Susskind to win the coveted, and inaugural, Most Wonderful Person on Earth Award for 2010.



I see no reason to list Witten's accomplishments, as it would make for redundant reading. For details, read Peter Woit's book: Not Even Wrong.

Rather, I would like to acknowledge as to WHY he won, because there are so many reasons to pick from.

The reason, simply, is his diplomatic skills in achieving parity in the ongoing Superstrings Civil War.

For those unaware, Superstrings Theory has split into two camps: One headed by Leonard Susskind of Stanford and allied by Joe Polchinski who support Anthropic, the other by David Gross of The Kavli Institute and just about everyone else at Ed Witten's The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, who reject Anthropic.

Witten, true to his genius form, counsels open-minded fairness regarding "Ships were made to house barnacles" Theory, and refuses to be pegged to either side of the on-going argument.

For meritorious conduct in diplomacy and logical thinking, we are pleased to announce that Edward Witten is the unanimous choice and therefore the winner of The 2010 Most Wonderful Person on Earth Award.

So let it be witten, so let it be done.

Topological Quantum Field Theory

I call attention to a recent blog article by Peter Woit at his/Columbia Math Dept.'s website: Not Even Wrong, here, in particular Peter's next-to-last bullet point, which links to a discussion at n-Category Cafe regarding TQFT, or "Topological Quantum Field Theory", here, with Frank Quinn's claims thoughts and the reaction to TQFT.

I'm not sure what to make of it. It seems to me that SuperStrings Theory was always TQFT. I suppose some wish to generalize.

That's great.