Triple Shot of Unnatural Nature

You understand perhaps, that there are at least some of us who enjoy your writings because we too, are already persuaded about much of what you say. For myself, I'm just satisfied to hear an 'establishment scientist' acknowledge that which is scientifically self-deprecating, at long as it is at least scientifically self-evident.

And even the public understands this, or at least it can be brought to understand this, eventually. Happiness is knowing who your adversary is. Sabine, If I read a tone of voice in between the lines, perhaps you lament how modern academic science rewards groupthink psudothinking and penalizes or handicaps independent real scientific thinking? Perhaps it happens primarily because they are scientists? And perhaps all this is because academia, as a system, is a sort of 'long-obsolete medieval guild', and has only hijacked science, for it's own social, economic, or even political ends.

Does your posture include the consideration of this kind of perspective? As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! I don't know about "supreme beauty" Crowell, but how about elegance? The first is to describe more graphically than has yet been done the elegance of the ancient technique of epicycleon-deferent. The second is to expose as erroneous an implicit contention of several historians - namely, that the inadequacy of Ptolemaic astronomy is somehow connected with its formally weak computational equipment.

But to reason thus is fallacious. Actually, these objectives will be achieved simultaneously - if they are achieved at all. To see the comprehensive theoretical power of this ancient geometrical device just is to see its elegance. In my experience, any appeal to the Copernican Principle in popular science writing is a red flag that this same error is being perpetrated.

Loved your book, and hope you've got another one in the works. One problem -- I haven't yet seen a decent definition of naturalness. Other than the requirement that physics be expressed in quantities roughly equivalent to 1, there are no metrics that adequately express the notion. For example, Planck's constant is incomprehensibly small in units we're familiar with, yet it must be "natural" since it's ubiquitous in physics. Have you recovered from the German elimination at the world cup, and realized that the universe is not so preety after all.

Tho you are still cute. I can provide links if you want. Mark, I am stuck somewhere between lament and cynicism and hope to eventually advance to not giving a fuck ; Yes, part of the problem is that scientists isn't currently well-organized. But there is also, I am afraid, a culture in physics where men go around and speak about their supposed insights into nature's beauty. I made fun of this in this song , but in hindsight I think most people who watched the video didn't get it. It's not a new problem of course. A pretty good recent summary is here.

Audiobooks

Well, for all we currently know the universe is approximately de Sitter. But you don't need an eternal de Sitter space-time to get a universe that's de Sitter for sufficiently long to look like ours. So that's a way out. I have no doubt that string theorists can make this work. Because theoreticians will find a way to make anything work if you give them enough time. If we discover tomorrow that the universe is Bianchi Type VII, I am sure string theorists will find that that's exactly what you get in string theory. Naturalness looks connected to the old Humean idea of the mistaken reliance on the uniformity nature.

My guess is scientists of today aren't much interested in this because it veers too close to philosophy and even worse, taboo philosophical scepticism! Why scientists of today have drifted so far from philosophy compared to their successful for-bearers I think has much to do with A: Remember, Einstein credited Hume's treatise as one of his single biggest inspirations for relativity theory.

I believe most university scientists today however, have never even read any philosophy. I can't be sure, but that's my guess. Liralen Bee is appalled that mathematically codified physics is empirically irrelevant. Physics' funding builds hierarchy not science. I decry chemistry being managed to death. The least defining entity is the lab coat. Physics or chemistry, the answer is lunch money diddling where the answer "cannot" be.

Scrap was larger than intraocular lens preforms, the result being dully twice FDA engineering specs Patent, plus a write-down for insubordination. What about using the naturalness of a thousands other natural-looking equations to obtain the probability distribution instead of lumping the whole theory of every single thing in the whole universe into one bucket? It is not hard to come to an estimate on the stability of the de Sitter spacetime that approximates the observable universe.

Now look towards the bottom of the first chart on https: This and my number are absurdly large, and there is not much point in quibbling over the difference. The low value of the cosmological constant is what makes for stability. This argues for why the cosmological constant for a real cosmology must be very small and why the vast number of these cosmologies in the multiverse are unstable and may only exist as off shell fluctuations The string has a one space plus time world sheet, and the bosonic string has a negative zero point energy.

As such quantum states or radiation emerges from them endlessly. Dyson wrote about how this could happen with QED if we made charge an imaginary number, and ignoring a lot of technical details that is in a way what this is.

Triple Shot of Unnatural Nature Livre audio | Tonia Brown | www.newyorkethnicfood.com

All of this is really good news. The dS vacuum us unstable, but for our concerns it is certainly stable enough. I would worry a whole lot more about dying by asteroid impact than the dS vacuum tunneling such that the universe we know ends. I don't lose sleep over asteroids. Pondering what you mean by "mathematically codified physics is empirically irrelevant. My favorite video game is Alpha Centauri https: I have not ruled out that we live in a system of multiple dimensions.

I just won't believe it until the facts support it. If I did, I'd be religious, not scientific. Which I am about some things, but not physics. Clarification with respect to "I have not ruled out that we live in a system of multiple dimensions". Add "that we have evidence for". Even if there is no guiding principle to intuit future physics we should still invest in a higher energy accelerator, as it's in the nature of our species to explore the unknown.

It's a shame that the tunnel dug in Texas for the Superconducting Supercollider was backfilled, after all the expense of its excavation. Surely, it's a golden opportunity for our Washington politicians to stop fussing with each other, unite behind a common, apolitical cause, and put that SSC back in the budget. Who knows, probing a much higher energy regime, than the current record, might lead to another "Who ordered that" episode when Isidor Rabi expressed his puzzlement to his fellow diner at a Manhattan restaurant about the newly discovered muon in I just finished your book and loved it.

My opinion of physics has been colored by the recent theoretical promises SUSY, dark matter, large extra dimensions, neutrinoless double The book seems very clean and well proofed. Will you have significant impact? You are ruffling too many feathers to be easily accepted, I am betting. Kuhn's book had some impact, but your critique is more immediate and operational in terms of current practices. I wish you good luck and I hope to be around long enough to see some positive effects. Look for the fine structure. We know so much about the black box.

I think it is not all that hard for 10, physicists to figure out. Liralen, If there were 8 dimensions and they were the following, would it be difficult to believe? Three dimensions of space R One dimension of time. R, moves forward only One dimension of spin. All integers divided by 2 One dimension of charge. All integers divided by 3 One dimension of particle.

Triple Shot of Unnatural Nature

Present, not present One dimension of energy-mass R To me, that set of dimensions is sort of mundane. Non-classical gravitations fail if the vacuum is minimum 0. Achiral isotropic vacuum GR and matter diffraction QM can common mode measurably fail in a commercial Brightspec microwave spectrometer. Math has its limits. I hope to some day, just not there yet! However baryogenesis is not that hard to imagine if there were only two fundamental particles coupled kinetically and electromagnetically and there was an asymmetry that inflated the orbit of one particle while shrinking the orbit of the other.

I mean there you have it. A source of higer order particles. Just imagining, but that is one heckuva lot easier to understand than QFT and paradoxes. A colorless triplet state entanglements of two gluons is analogous to, in fact has the same quantum numbers as, a graviton. The study of QCD glueballs has all sorts of interesting physics from IR confinement to analogues to quantum gravity. Uncle Al's comments always lift my spirits! I wasn't going to get into this, and Sabine may very well moderate my comment, but what I would like to see is a whole lot less science fiction and a whole lot more science and that's directed at Crowell!

Specifically, I would love to see the experimental community perform the modified Young experiments outlined in William Tiller's books and papers. There is a great deal more empirical data supporting the rational for these experiments than there has been for the SUSY stuff and they're a hell of a lot cheaper! Plus, Tiller's Psycho-Energetics IS a model - unlike String "Theory," whatever that turns out to be, and experimentally nailing down the alpha variable would effectively make Tiller's model a theory!

So here, I believe, is the problem. The part that I found stimulating was: Zeh an email through his website, linking to all of those pre-stimulus response experiments yeah, Crowell, the ones I linked to on your FQXi essay a few years ago and Tiller's paper outlining the Young experiments and I asked him, "Why haven't these seemingly simple experiments been conducted already? What, do you suppose, is the probability that he killed himself over this silly shit?

I would wager that it is pretty damn high and that makes me sad. I've done it, see the physics detective. I'm afraid to say there's rather more wrong than you might think. Quantum field theory went wrong from the off. In Lev Landau and Rudolf Peierls wrote their extension of the uncertainty principle to relativistic quantum theory. On page of the Oxford companion to the history of modern science, Silvan Schweber said the problem caused most of the workers in the field to doubt the correctness of QFT, and the many proposals advanced in the s all ended in failure.

Then came subtraction physics which turned into renormalization, but it didn't address the issue. Instead it made it worse. Apologies, I can't sign out of this google account called "The Universe". Lawrence C I get it. Physics has the black box surrounded in dimensions. Go back years and imagine a physical system that implements nature just right under the standard model. Throw away all the transcendental physics. Require a physical system. Hossenfelder, You write that "A lot of physicists, for example, believe that experiments have ruled out hidden variables explanations of quantum mechanics, which is just wrong experiments have ruled out only certain types of local hidden variable models.

One cannot, of course, rule out nonlocal hidden-variable models, as we have an explicit one that can reproduce quantum mechanics, namely Bohmian mechanics. But local hidden-variable models are as dead as anything can be in science. Mateus, Superdeterminism and retrocausality, but that wasn't the point of my statement. The point was that a lot of physicists believe hidden variables models have been ruled out period, without the qualifier "local" with which it would still be a wrong statement, but forgivably wrong for we can debate just exactly what is meant by local.

Sabine, Sure, that is just a mistake, but I'm taking issue with your statement that Bell experiments only rule out "certain" local hidden-variable models. It sounds as if there is some tenable local hidden-variable model left. As far as I know, retrocausality is just a vague proposal that hasn't been turned into an actual model by anybody, and superdeterminism is plain ridiculous. It goes against the basic notion of science, as it can reproduce not only quantum correlations, but any correlations at all. How can one hope to learn anything via experiment, if the system you are probing can change arbitrarily depending on which test are you going to make?

Mateus, I have heard these "objections" many times. But saying it's "ridiculous" isn't a scientific argument. Your claim that superdeterminism "goes against the basic notion of science" has no basis. Go and try to write it down. Retrocausality is a vague proposal because few people works on it. That doesn't mean it's ruled out, it means you want it to be ruled out. You are jumping to conclusions there, highlighting the very problem I was just pointing out.

I'm not jumping to conclusions. I have read dozens of papers about Bell's theorem, and wrote some myself. I spoke with 't Hooft about his superdeterministic model, and spoke with Leifer and Spekkens about their hope for a retrocausal model. One argument against superdeterminism is that it can reproduce any correlation at all. A theory that can explain anything is not a scientific theory. But the setting choices can be human choices, or light from far-away quasars, or pseudo-random numbers, all generated as far as we know independently from the physical system at hand.

But superdeterminism postulates anyway, by fiat, that they are correlated. Without proposing any mechanism to show how or why they should be so correlated. This is just ridiculous. If one would take seriously the superdeterministic explanation, it would stop you from making conclusions from any experiment. Are you trying to test whether smoking causes cancer? Well, maybe your decision to make the experiment is what made these smokers get cancer. Are you trying to measure the anisotropy of the CMB? Well, maybe the photons just change their frequency based on where you point your telescope to.

Are you trying to read what I wrote? Well, maybe the letters change based on which word you are trying to read. Mateus, Any theory with a Hamiltonian evolution can produce any correlation. All you have to do is take the present state and evolve it backwards. This will give you an initial state from which you get whatever you observe. Your criticism is hence unscientific itself. The relevant question you should ask is whether the theory has explanatory power. I am not a fan of 't Hoofts model for he fails to document that, but your argument doesn't hold water.

You could raise the same criticism against any deterministic theory, super or not. Also, let me note you didn't have any argument against retrocausality. No, you cannot have any correlation you want. You'll never beat Tsirelson's bound, for instance. And "superdeterminism" is a misnomer, it has nothing to do with the determinism. It is about the dependence of the system that you are measuring with with the choice your measurement. It can be true for for theories with randomness, and false for deterministic theories.

You have simply not understood what superdeterminism is. In the case of the Bell test done in the US, it is claiming that the state of each photon emmited by the source depended on which bit of "Back to the future" was going to the used in the measuring station. I haven't raised a specific problem with retrocausality because there is no concrete model to examine. But I'm afraid that any retrocausal model will suffer from the problem that it can explain anything at all.

I think a definition of "hidden variable" is also required, as is "local". First, why isn't potential energy a hidden variable, as you can only infer it? You cannot, in general, measure it. Also, locality cannot be precise for anything moving, through the Uncertainty Principle. Sabine, One way to look at this that I mentioned previously is to consider that probability distributions on parameters can, in theory, be derived from occam's razor. Unfortunately I cannot formalize this idea in a real case, and do not think the argument can be demonstrated precisely without a large amount of work.

Perhaps it can be done for toy scenarios. So, rather than insert new extra-empirical assumptions into theories, one can only formulate them as consequences of ones that are already there. Unfortunately, most physicists are not well aware of the foundations induction, so it is difficult to get this point across without covering ground that is closer to philosophy.

Then again, it seems to me that when using these kinds of criteria one is inevitably doing philosophy anyway, just not explicitly. Matthew, Yes, I know this "model" but I agree with Mateus, that it's vague to say the least. Mateus, What you say is just wrong. Works with any Hamiltonian evolution. There are of course states that are not possible because of consistency conditions like eg normalization.

Thanks, I know what the claim is of superdeterminism. You were trying to prove it's incompatible with science. Hope that settles it. Sabine, I enjoyed your book, Lost in math, very much. Reading it on a kindle-app makes it easy to go back and search. Most unnatural to me is the many worlds interpretation. Is it correct to assume that every chemical reaction includes several realizations of quantum probabilities? In all the copies of our universe? In that case the number of copies in a short time would have multiplied to a number exceeding the number of elementary things in our universe.

That is unnatural to me. In my opinion, as a professional chemist, the many world interpretation offers nothing to chemistry other than real difficulties. Chemistry certainly works on quantized action in stationary states, and there are some interesting issues, such as in an SN2 reaction, are the electron pairs acting as bosons, but the realization of quantum probabilities should not be one of the issues, unless you really are getting lost in more than maths. Some reactions do have the potential to make a number of different products, but that is because there are a number of potential activated states, and the random nature of molecular collisions means different parts of a more complicated molecule can receive the activation energy.

It has nothing to do with quantum probabilities, but definitely the more classical collisional probabilities. Sabine, Maybe you should then contact Tsirelson to tell him why his theorem is wrong? I'm sure he would be very interested. Or better, why don't you post an experimental proposal on the arXiv on how to produce any correlation at all?

Or maybe you should consider the possibility that you haven't proven the whole quantum information community wrong with a single blog comment, and are simply missing something. Mateus, I didn't say the theorem is wrong, I said that your claim is wrong. Your claim being that superdeterministic theories are not scientific because they "can explain anything.

The argument is hence absurd. I do not know why you repeat it. We both know it's not originally yours. Theorems are only as good as their assumptions. As I said above the problem with superdeterminism isn't that correlations come from the initial state - that's a perfectly fine assumption. The problem is to show that the theory has explanatory power.

Of course the statement "it's impossible to achieve in reality" is nonsense. It's difficult to achieve that the two are not correlated. That's why folks bend over backwards to come up with silly ideas to close the "free will loophole". And in any case, you don't "achieve" initial states, initial states are what they are. All you do is calculate what happens to them. In any case, I hope that in the future you'll no longer repeat the false statement that superdeterminism isn't scientific.

Sabine, Again, "superdeterminism" has nothing to do with determinism, the name is misleading you. I prefer it to simply call it "conspiracy" in order not to confuse people. Any deterministic theory that doesn't postulate a necessary correlation between what you are measuring and the choice of your measurement will not be "superdeterministic".

And pretty much all deterministic theories ever proposed are not superdeterministic except of course for the explicitly superdeterministic ones , and they cannot explain all correlations. In fact, the classical ones cannot even violate a Bell inequality! You are confusing the logical impossibility of closing the "free will loophole" which leads to all these contortions from the experimentalists trying make it less and less plausible , with actually using the "free will loophole" to fake a Bell violation. It can't be done. Just consider the most straightforward Bell setup, where the settings are generated by local QRNGs after the photon is emitted by the source.

How on earth are you going to make the state of the photon depend on the output of the QRNGs? In any case, I hope that in the future you'll no longer repeat the false statement that superdeterminism is scientific. While Sabine may decry beauty as a criteria for advancing our understanding of nature's inner workings, I must say her book "Lost in Math" is beautifully written.

Because of our week long oppressive heat wave reading the book has been slow. But yesterday found out something from the book I was not previously aware of - the Koide Formula. I immediately googled it and saw that quite a few papers followed on from Yoshio Koide's original discovery. Indeed, this discovery is reminiscent of the era when empirical formulas were devised for black body radiation, prior to Max Planck's correct formulation and revolutionary introduction of the quantum of action.

About 40 years passed between when Gustav Kirchoff first defined black body radiation and Planck's solving the black body radiation puzzle. Now 37 years have passed since Yoshio Koide's discovery. Perhaps a 21st century Max Planck will come along to illuminate this curious relationship from deeper principles, and break the current deadlock in the Standard Model. David Schroeder, I would think a heat wave would make progress on Bee's book faster, rather than slower. It did in my F world today. I am only starting to understand the complex set of factors leading to Bee's passion for understanding and challenging of how physics got to this rather bizarre state it is in now.

I too am fascinated. I have been working on a very physical TOE that goes back years, with first principles only, and symmetry with other nature we see at different scales orbits, spin, charge, spacetime, etc. I am drilling in top down from a vision unjaded by the last 40 years of physics I am not in the field. I am not adopting Copenhagen. I am requiring a kinetic or electromagnetic implementation for each characteristic, two fundamental particles, etc. Anyway, it is working out quite well at this point, and it seems to be heading to a physical explanation for Koide.

Mateus, Superdeterministic theories are deterministic. I am pointing out that your claim that they are not scientific has nothing to do with the additional ingredient that being the correlations between prepared state and detector but with the determinism per se. Hence, your argument that superdeterminism is not scientific also applies to all deterministic theories. It is hence absurd. You should no longer make it. I have no idea why you think I want to violate some bound. You brought up the example of the bound and proclaimed that it can't be violated. When prompted, you indeed managed to recall that this depends on assumptions about the initial state.

Your own conclusion should therefore demonstrate to you that your argument is simply wrong. You don't have to make them depend on each other, they do.

1. Shakespeares Taming of the Shrew for Kids (Playing with Plays).
2. Trust of Potential Buyers in New Entrepreneurial Ventures: An Analysis of Trust Drivers, the Relevance for Purchase Intentions, and the Moderating Effect ... or Service Qualities (Entrepreneurship).
3. Triple Shot of Zombies Audiobook | Tonia Brown | www.newyorkethnicfood.com!
4. Tunnel Rats (Stay Dead).
5. Doroga: Russian Language (Russian Edition).

They do, by assumption. Please note that I am in no way advocating superdeterminism as a useful interpretation of quantum mechanics, it does have its problems, but the problems are not the ones you and many others think they are. There is nothing fundamental about it, I can easily define a non-deterministic "superdeterministic" theory. I claim that they are not scientific because of the postulated correlations between state and measurement, and that has nothing to do with determinism. Do I need to repeat that classical mechanics is not superdeterministic, and hence cannot violate Bell inequalities?

I pointed out that Tsirelson's theorem implies a bound on the correlations that can be generated via quantum mechanics.

Get Your Free Audiobook

Therefore your claim is nonsense, and if you are serious about it, you should actually post a paper on the arXiv about how to violate Tsirelson's bound, and revolutionise the field of quantum information. You cannot violate them. If you seriously believe that you can, please post it on the arXiv. But look at it from the sociological side: And not only Tsirelson, several other people including me have worked hard to extend Tsirelson's theorem and characterize precisely the set of correlations that can be generated by quantum mechanics.

Do you think we are just crazy people talking about how many angels can dance on a pinhead? You claimed that you could generate any correlation at all by correlating the state of the photon with the detector settings. So you are no longer defending this claim? Earlier, I referenced a quote from my favorite video game, Alpha Centauri, https: It is all very well and good to pursue these high-minded scientific theories, but research grants are expensive.

You must justify your existence by providing not only knowledge but concrete and profitable applications as well. Although I wasn't an academic, but a government regulator. Mateus, Ok, so you seem to think that superdeterministic theories are not necessarily deterministic. That's bizarre to say the least. As to what you said or didn't say, here's the quote "superdeterminism is plain ridiculous. It goes against the basic notion of science, as it can reproduce not only quantum correlations, but any correlations at all" I told you several times now that any deterministic theory can reproduce any correlation provided the state is in the configuration space to begin with of course.

This is not specific to superdeterminism. For any deterministic theory you can put the correlation in the initial state, simply be evolving the correlated state back in time. What you say above is not the problem with superdeterminism. You now write "I claim that they are not scientific because of the postulated correlations between state and measurement, and that has nothing to do with determinism. There is nothing unscientific about this. Again, you are missing the point.

It's easy enough to get an initial state that results in any correlation you want to measure. I never said anything about "generating" correlations. I merely told you that for any correlation that you measure at a final time, you can evolve the state back in time and you will have an initial state that generates the correlation. Hence, there's an initial state that will produce the outcome. You seem to think that you somehow know which initial states are and aren't possible, but that's a postulate.

Your whole "argument" comes down by postulating that the correlations which you don't want to be there aren't there. You're putting in what you want to show. Sabine, " Ok, so you seem to think that superdeterministic theories are not necessarily deterministic. I know this is the case. That you don't know it only shows that your knowledge of superdeterminism goes little beyond the name. Superdeterminism is about the correlations between state and measurement, and they can exist independently of whether the theory is deterministic.

What I have been talking in the previous posts about the initial state necessary to violate Tsirelson's bound is precisely a superdeterministic version of quantum mechanics, which is obviously not deterministic. These correlations in the initial state would be precisely the superdeterministic correlations between state and measurement. You can't actually prepare such initial states. Are you aware that what you are saying would imply that classical theories can violate Bell inequalities? Do you realise the enormity of this claim? Do you realise that it would contradict decades of research in quantum information theory?

Forget Tsirelson's bound, I'm much more interested in your experimental proposal on how to violate Bell's inequalities with classical theories. If you claim otherwise, please tell me how to prepare them. I'd just like to point out that I'm not the one postulating this. Newtonian mechanics, electrodynamics, relativity, quantum mechanics, all of them were already developed before I was born, and none of them have these ridiculous correlations between state and measurement. I find Sabine's writing style superb. Her book is not only highly informative, but quite entertaining too; it's a fun read for a layperson like myself.

As I make my way through the book I'm also appreciating much more why she and others find fault in the path the physics community has chosen to further the Standard Model. Managed to google your theory-model, and it's quite intriguing. It's sounds far more ambitious than my own rather modest efforts. I've only read the abstract, not having opened the link yet.

Interestingly, your two fundamental particles share the same names as the particles in a model I conceived back in the 90's, but there the comparison ends. Without air-conditioning the full brunt of the heat wave was inescapable, and doing any physical or mental activity just made me hotter. It sounds like you live in the desert southwest, where the temp in Phoenix will be today.

But down there everybody has AC, so people are forced to stay indoors. Dozens of people in Quebec, hundreds of miles north of me, died from this latest heat wave. Mateus, "Superdeterminism requires a nonlocal correlation between the prepared state and the detector That's just to show how ridiculous your ad-hominem attacks are. But these correlations are a corrollary. It's what is required if you want to replace quantum mechanics with a deterministic theory. Of course the theory should then indeed be deterministic. That you think it may not be shows you don't even understand the whole point of the discussion.

As to the rest of your comment. I already told you why what you state is simply wrong. Scroll up to find it. Btw, thanks for demonstrating the problem I was writing about. David Schroeder, I am still relatively new in following Sabine, but I think I am starting to gain an appreciation for her approach and writing style: Facts, honesty, no deference to ANY ivory tower. I may be projecting to a degree. The established people being interacted with need to feel psychologically safe, otherwise the turbulence of facts and honesty can make them fear risk to their position, funding, knowledge, etc.

It is all much easier if we speak with finesse and diplomacy isn't it? I could never do that well, nor did I want to, although I am not sure which came first. I loved how Bee just powered through his attempts to curtail the interview. I see the book, so far, as a wakeup call for the siren call of QFT. I am hoping that in the remainder of the book is a recommendation for the agenda to sail towards more promising land.

Interestingly, as an amateur, I have found that physics is a walled garden, where amateurs can peek over, but are not to be interacted with. Yet, if Bee is correct, then amateurs may have a few advantages. We still know what a mirage is and will walk straight toward one in the desert, if that is the most promising path forward. And perhaps because we are not so cowed by the math and history, we are more willing to look for physical mechanisms that could fit the math and data.

We are going on our third day over F. Looks like it will be in the high 90's all week. Stay cool and hydrated! Sabine, I don't see the pointing of quoting yourself here. Are you trying to convince me that you know what you're talking about? There is nothing nonlocal about superdeterministic correlations. They are produced in the causal past of the experiment, and as such are perfectly local. Or nonlocality, but that is another subject. People that assume superdeterminism indeed do that because they want a deterministic theory, but that doesn't imply that superdeterminism itself implies determinism.

It is about the correlations between state and measurement, and they can also be postulated in a non-deterministic theory. You are repeatedly claiming that quantum mechanics and even deterministic theories! I'm claiming that this is nonsense, because this initial state is precisely one that has the superdeterministic correlations, and this cannot be done in reality. I'm then asking you to say how you would actually prepare such a state, and to that you have never responded, presumably because you know it is impossible.

This practice of assuming a probability distribution without any data started long ago, in the 18th century with the Bayesian theorem. The probabilities are just educated guesses. Mathematicians knew about this problem long ago. Lancelot Hogben FRS wrote a popular math book in the s I have a reprint in my bookshelf where he discussed this problem. He said this practice of assuming a probability distribution without data is sheer nonsense. So 80 years later we have the multiverse, naturalness and other wild guesses that are not even wrong.

Mateus, Yes, I see the need to quote my own papers because you keep making remarks like "You have simply not understood what superdeterminism is" and "your knowledge of superdeterminism goes little beyond the name". You do this in the attempt of reassuring your greatness to yourself while at the same time you go around declaring that superdeterministic theories may not be deterministic, demonstrating that you don't understand why people are even trying to close the free-will loophole, and now that you don't know in what sense superdeterministic correlations are non-local.

They may be come about from local interactions possibly in the future , but hey are nonlocal in the sense that Bell used the word. You are the only who is claiming that something is not possible about superdeterminism. You are the one who should be making an argument. You merely say it's silly. That's not an argument, that's pathetic. You have first proclaimed that quantum mechanics, or classical mechanics, and so on cannot produce these or that correlations. I told you why that's wrong.

You even agreed on it. But you still didn't get the point. You do not, and no one ever does, "generate" any initial states.

The universe is in one state and the initial state of any experiment is whatever it is. Choosing an initial state for the mathematical model is part of the prediction. Look, that you cannot show these states are impossible is the reason people have made these CMB-triggered tests and so on. Not that it actually rules out superdeterminism. In any case, as I have said a few times now, there is a good case to be made against superdeterminism but you aren't making it because you misunderstand the problem.

I explained the problem and its solution here. Sabine, You are shifting the burden of proof. You are the one making this absurd claim that any correlation at all can be produced. It's your job to support your claim by showing how, not my job to prove you wrong. And let me note that you again have failed to do so, presumably because you know it can't be done. Have you even written down the initial state that would be required?

Do you understand what would it take to produce such a state? It is about restricting superdeterministic models, not testing quantum mechanics. That quantum mechanics does not postulate superdeterministic correlations is blindingly obvious. In this case a link to the actual paper would have been more helpful. I presume you mean arXiv: You are claiming to test superdeterminism, which is fundamentally impossible, as you admit yourself, and instead propose a test of a contrived model you concocted yourself.

It will come as no surprise to me if it turns out that nobody bothered to do your experiment. Of course I understand why people are interested in the "free-will loophole" which is fundamentally impossible to close, by the way , and that the motivation for assuming superdeterminism is a desperate attempt to retain determinism and locality.

This doesn't change the fact that the assumption of superdeterminism itself doesn't imply determinism, which you have already understood but obstinately ignores. And the correlations are not nonlocal in the sense that Bell used the word. That applies to correlations of the form p ab xy. You are just being sloppy with language. Some classical theories, field theories like classical electromagnetism CM are superdeterministic as they do not allow the states of distant systems to be independent.

In order to justify this let us describe a Bell test from the point of view of CM. So, we have three systems: S the source of entangled particles - for CM is just a system of charged particles electrons and quarks 2.

Short Stories / Collections 2018 Voting

A Alice and her detector and whatever she uses to set that detector - another system of charged particles electrons and quarks 3. B Bob and his detector and whatever he uses to set that detector - another system of charged particles electrons and quarks Now, in order to determine the state of each system we need to calculate the electric and magnetic fields acting at the location of each particle that is contained in that system.

Or, to put it differently, a change of A without a corresponding change of B and S leads to states that are incompatible according to CM, therefore the states are not independent statistical independence requires the absence of incompatible states. In other words, CM, if taken seriously and not subjected to the normal approximations macroscopic objects are electrically neutral so there is no EM interaction is a superdeterministic theory.

Andrei, It is true that in general changing some arrangement of charged particles will create some stray electromagnetic fields that will influence the position of other charged particles, but this does not make classical electrodynamics a superdeterministic theory. First of all, in the loophole-free Bell tests, the generation of the detector settings was done with a space-like separation to the generation of the photon, so by relativity there couldn't possible be any stray electromagnetic fields perturbing each other.

This does not need bother us, though, as since CM is a deterministic theory, we could just locate the change in the states of S, A, and B in the intersection of their past light cones, so that relativity doesn't pose any obstacle there. To generate the settings, we cannot use a quantum random number generator, as we are in CM, so let's use a pseudorandom number generator instead.

So in this causal past we have some seeds for the pseudorandom number generators, that will determine the settings of Alice and Bob. But here the weirdness start. S must somehow have access to these seeds, even though they are in Alice and Bob's computers, and the electromagnetic fields produced by these seeds outside the computers are extremely weak. Even more, CM allows for arbitrarily good shielding of electromagnetic fields, so we could put S inside a Farady cage, so that the fields that come from Alice and Bob's computers are effectively zero.

But let's say that somehow S does have access to the seeds. Now it must somehow calculate how the seeds will produce the sequences of 0s and 1s that Alice and Bob are going to use, even though as far as we know S is just an antenna, not a classical computer. But let's say that somehow S has access to the sequences of 0s and 1s. Now it must produce four different electromagnetic waves, depending on which combination of settings Alice and Bob are going to measure in each round: Which is rather weird, as in a Bell test the source is configured to always emit the same state, and in the CM case as far as we can tell the antenna is in a fixed configuration, always emitting the same electromagnetic wave.

But this is what it takes to make CM a superdeterministic theory. It gets even worse if we want this superdeterministic CM to reproduce a violation of a Bell inequality compatible with quantum mechanics. Now it needs to emit four different electromagnetic waves that would precisely reproduce the quantum statistics, even though in principle it could produce any statistics at all.

And as far as we know this is just an antenna, that neither knows quantum mechanics nor that we are doing a Bell test. This is why I say that superdeterminism is just plain ridiculous. Mateus, "You are shifting the burden of proof. And that's despite me having told you several times I never said anything like that. We are having this exchange because YOU came here and made a claim: You then attempted to give a reason for it. I told you why this is wrong. Good, that should settle the case. Now why do you claim I have to "prove" something? I wasn't the one making the claim.

As to your bizarre statement that I do not know how to "produce the initial state" - I don't produce initial states, neither do you, unless you think you are God. You merely chose an initial state as part of your mathematical model to make a prediction. I have told you how to chose the initial state so you can predict whatever is the correlation. You evidently still haven't understood that you can always do this with any deterministic theory as long as the state is in the configuration space to begin with and hence is not a criterion by which you can decide whether the theory is scientific or correct, for that matter.

I used a reference to a published record to show your statement is false. Stop making false statements. You can only test models. I note in the passing that you attempt to publicly degrade my work without even a hint of scientific argument. So now you complain that on the one hand superdetermisim is "a desperate attempt to retain determinism and locality" but on the other hand it may not be deterministic. Do you even notice that you constantly contradict yourself?

Mateus, I just want to quote this from your reply to Andrei because it shows where your argument goes wrong: You will notice quickly that you can't do this without making assumptions about the probabilities of initial states which end up being assumptions about the initial state of the universe. It's the same mistake you already made above. You believe you know something that you cannot know. Sabine, " You continue to assign statements to me I have never made. Then what did you mean with these sentences: What I am interested in is in a real laboratory experiment, are you claiming that they can be produced or not?

If you are claiming that they can be produced, they you are wrong. Show how to do it or stop making these false statementes. If you are not claiming this, then I don't know what you are talking about, but my argument in any case holds: With my divine powers I can put a BBO in front of a laser to make an entangled state, and put waveplates in the path of the photons to change their polarisation. Mateus, I meant with these sentences exactly what they say.

You want them to mean something else. I don't know why. I find it outright bizarre that you quote a whole bunch of sentences that supposedly show I said something I didn't, but none of the sentences needless to say contains what I didn't say. What do you hope to achieve with that? That a reader who can't read accidentally thinks you make sense? Look, I don't want to argue with you about the meaning of the word "produce" - that seems a waste of time. Possibly I use it in a different way than you do. You seem to use it to mean that you or the experimenter is part of the configuration.

Or something like that, your statements don't make much sense to me, sorry. So let me assume that's what you mean. If you "produce" initial states in the sense of being part of the experimental arrangement you don't have to "produce" correlations. According to superdeterminism, the correlations are just there - have been there since the beginning of time.

I understand you don't like that and most other people besides possibly 't Hooft. But it takes more than saying that's "silly" to rule out the option. As I have told you above, it's trivial to see that these initial states do exist contrary to what you claimed earlier. You aren't delivering an argument for why these are not the right explanation for our observations. And to repeat this once again, I am not advocating that superdeterminism is correct, I am merely saying that the argument you have brought up does not work against it. Sabine, " You should try to quantify your statement about statistics.

I'm not going to describe what to do for the other settings, as it should be rather obvious. But where did I need to make assumptions about the probabilities of the initial state of the universe? We're not generating universes here, we are just describing how a deterministic theory could mimic Bell correlations. By default it just uses the seed "0", no probabilities here.

If you want slightly more interesting statistics you could seed it with the local time, but you can't get much better than that. We are talking about a deterministic theory after all. Mateus, Your picture of superdeterminism is indeed ridiculous, but it is nothing like I am arguing for. When I am claiming that classical electromagnetism is superdeterministic I am not speaking about a new theory, but about the same theory of Maxwell and Lorentz. So, let us agree on the following points: The experimental setup has to be translated into the "language" of the theory.

So, there are no computers, random number generators quantum or classical , cats, free-willed humans, etc. So, you can have everything you want as a device to set up those detectors, but as long as it is based on atoms I will describe it as a system of electrons and quarks, regardless of its macroscopic appearance. So, a human brain, a radioactive material, a computer are nothing but different configurations of electrons and quarks. There is no such thing as a "stray field". The only things that exist are: So, the evolution of your random number generator is fundamentally described as the motion of its constituent particles, and all the relevant information is available at S in the form of the magnitude of electric and magnetic fields generated by them.

This is implied by the theory, not postulated by me. It so happens that in our universe the charge is quantized so there is no way you can get an instantiation of that, otherwise correct, mathematical result. If we agree on this point we may discuss further if the formalism of QM can be recovered. Sabine, I felt the need to quote yourself because there is confusion about what is it that you are claiming. Saying that "I meant with these sentences exactly what they say. It would be helpful if you give me a straight answer to my question "Are you claiming that these correlations can be produced or not?

Or quantum mechanics, or classical electrodynamics, as you wish. Hopefully there is confusion about that. Is that what you are claiming? Again, I'm talking about reality, not superdeterminism. And for the umpteenth time: You may disagree with the argument, but you don't get to claim I'm not delivering an argument. It is necessary to build a picture of the universe from the elements of the "puzzle", each element of which consists of a set of interrelated facts and generalizations based on analogues and natural principles.

The form of a "puzzle" is that set of related facts in which a fragment of the universe is reflected, but which can be understandable, and perhaps not understandable at first sight. Then naturalness, elegance and beauty will be visible in a visual "image" of the overall "picture" of the universe. Then we can purposefully search for the missing element of the "puzzle" in the "picture" of the universe. Thus, it is possible to minimize the dependence of the research findings on the probability of obtaining a certain set of parameters.

To use only natural principles, it is necessary to introduce rigid selection for non-natural properties. For example, we all know that in the universe there cannot be ideal properties of matter and fields. Nevertheless, we use ideal properties for the elegance of laws, often without even realizing it, or simply because we do not know the real properties and laws. Relation to ideal properties, this is the main criterion of the naturalness of the theory and is a "sieve", through which it is necessary to sift all theories and generalizations.

I really enjoyed these short stories. They all have a spooky dark vibe about them with a twist ending. They have a definite Ray Bradbury feel and I make the comparison as a compliment. The story about the kids in the garden had a bit of a Stephen King, stand by me kind of feel in the beginning. The reading is very well done, dramatic without being melodramatic. Sound levels were fine which is a big deal.

What made the experience of listening to Triple Shot of Unnatural Nature the most enjoyable? Short and sweet made for an enjoyable listen. This review copy audiobook was provided by the author, narrator, or publisher at no cost. I enjoyed these short stories very much. As the reader started talking, I thought there was no way I could listen to her voice, but when she started the stories, she did well.

This audiobook was provided by the author, narrator, or publisher at no cost in exchange for an unbiased review courtesy of AudiobookBoom dot com. I really enjoyed the originality of these three stories. They were creepy and good and had character. Tonia Brown was very clever to write these.

My two favorites were the second two, 'Mrs. Anneliese Rennie's performance was terrific. Her voice fit each character of each story. For her voice, my favorite was the last story with her country accent. This was an overall fun and strange listen. There are 3 short stories. It was fun listen that can be enjoyed by all ages as many horrors cannot. I was given this free review copy audiobook at my request and have voluntarily left this review. I like the 3 different stories included in this audio book. The narration was great.

Anglais - Fiction Horror. Triple Shot of Unnatural Nature De: Tonia Brown Lu par: Gratuit pendant 30 jours, avec un titre au choix offert. Vous n'aimez pas un titre? Description Tonia Brown brings you three tales of terror from the wild outdoors. Ce que les membres d'Audible en pensent. Il n'y a pas encore de critique disponible pour ce titre. An enjoyable collection of very short stories This collection of three tales straddles the line of kiddy spook tales and mature storytelling.

Fun suspenseful book My preteen daughter listened to this and she really liked it and she thought that it was a good listen for her age group. A short taste of horror What made the experience of listening to Triple Shot of Unnatural Nature the most enjoyable? Enjoyable I enjoyed these short stories very much.