More Quantum entanglement mind fuckery

[polymath257]

It's nice that this video made a subtle suggestion at 3:11
Well not too subtle

The thing is our occasionalism theologians like Ghazali already proposed this idea in the medieval times, we are just discovering a hint of it in the quantum world.
A "hidden variable" controls and manipulates the behavior of sub atomic particles.

Then there are virtual particles that pop in and out of existence. All of this is theoretical and as the video suggested we simply don't have the tools, knowledge, ability or even imagination to understand these things.

It made the suggestion and then proceeded to show why it fails.

Hidden variables are disallowed because of the results of Bell's theorem. This is what the video is attempting to explain. Clearly, it failed to get the message across in your case.

We *do* have the tools to understand this. Those tools are the tools of quantum mechanics. This provides an understanding, but it is not in terms of classical constructs. But that is to be expected: the classical descriptions and notions are wrong.

There is a tremendous issue with attempting to explain quantum mechanics in terms of classical ieas. It is misguided from the start: you don't explain the new theory in terms of the old, but rather the other way around.

[Cherub786]

It's nice that this video made a subtle suggestion at 3:11
Well not too subtle

The thing is our occasionalism theologians like Ghazali already proposed this idea in the medieval times, we are just discovering a hint of it in the quantum world.
A "hidden variable" controls and manipulates the behavior of sub atomic particles.

Then there are virtual particles that pop in and out of existence. All of this is theoretical and as the video suggested we simply don't have the tools, knowledge, ability or even imagination to understand these things.

It made the suggestion and then proceeded to show why it fails.

Hidden variables are disallowed because of the results of Bell's theorem. This is what the video is attempting to explain. Clearly, it failed to get the message across in your case.

We *do* have the tools to understand this. Those tools are the tools of quantum mechanics. This provides an understanding, but it is not in terms of classical constructs. But that is to be expected: the classical descriptions and notions are wrong.

There is a tremendous issue with attempting to explain quantum mechanics in terms of classical ieas. It is misguided from the start: you don't explain the new theory in terms of the old, but rather the other way around.

The hidden variables it disproved is only that there are other properties of photons which we are unaware of that explain why photons apparently act in a way we cannot explain.
What it is really suggesting is that the behavior of photons cannot be explained in the framework of the laws of physics.

I suggest that since we don't have the tools we will never be able to explain under any new theory or potentially new theory why sub atomic particles act the way they do.

[polymath257]

It made the suggestion and then proceeded to show why it fails.

Hidden variables are disallowed because of the results of Bell's theorem. This is what the video is attempting to explain. Clearly, it failed to get the message across in your case.

We *do* have the tools to understand this. Those tools are the tools of quantum mechanics. This provides an understanding, but it is not in terms of classical constructs. But that is to be expected: the classical descriptions and notions are wrong.

There is a tremendous issue with attempting to explain quantum mechanics in terms of classical ieas. It is misguided from the start: you don't explain the new theory in terms of the old, but rather the other way around.

The hidden variables it disproved is only that there are other properties of photons which we are unaware of that explain why photons apparently act in a way we cannot explain.
What it is really suggesting is that the behavior of photons cannot be explained in the framework of the laws of physics.

I suggest that since we don't have the tools we will never be able to explain under any new theory or potentially new theory why sub atomic particles act the way they do.

But they *are* explained by the laws of physics! Quantum mechanics *is* a set of laws of physics! It *is* the explanation of why subatomic particles act the way they do. To expect a classical description is the mistake here.

And no, Bell's theorem doesn't just disallow the *known* hidden variables: it disallows *all* hidden variables.

[bennyboy]

Mmm. . . I'm not sure that "explained" and "enumerated" are the same thing. An explanation of a physical change in state should describe process.

[polymath257]

Mmm. . . I'm not sure that "explained" and "enumerated" are the same thing.  An explanation of a physical change in state should describe process.

That seems like you are making an assumption that there *is* a process. That seems to be a false assumption in the case of many quantum systems.

One aspect of this is what it means to 'explain' something. Typically, it means detailing why more fundamental things or processes lead to the phenomenon in question.

Typically, an explanation carries with it an assumption that classical notions are appropriate: we can 'explain' by seeing how things collide, or affect each other in some mechanical way.

But the classical ideas are *wrong*. That is one of the big lessons of quantum mechanics. The idea of classical particles colliding and producing observed effects just isn't how the universe works.

Instead, there are *quantum* particles that operate via probabilities and that don't have well-defined properties at all times. So, classical realism is simply false.

That means that we have explanations involving the properties of quantum particles: these explanations involve how the probabilities are changed in various situations and how we can use these intuitions on probabilities to understand what we observe.

But, just like collisions in the classical explanations are seen as basic, the probabilities in the quantum world are seen as basic. That means that *quantum* explanations don't have some of the characteristics that *classical* explanations do.

Also, there is the issue that *fundamental* properties cannot, by definition *have* a deeper explanation. If they did, they would not be fundamental.

So, to explain what a car engine works, we can rely on mechanics and chemistry to explain why the gas, air, etc are brought to the cylinder, ignited and how that leads to an expansion of the gas, etc.

But, to go to the next level would be to explain why the chemistry works the way it does, or why the forces produce the motions. The chemistry is explained in terms of the motion of atoms and the motions in terms of forces.

But, at some point, you get to a *lowest* level of explanation: a fundamental level that *isn't* dependent on a lower level of explanation. Things at that level can *only* be enumerated. We can observe how things are interconnected but only enumerate those interconnections. if it is truly a fundamental level, there can be no more fundamental level and so no 'deeper' explanation.

So, yes, quantum mechanics *does* explain what we observe. It shows how to calculate, in any given situation, the probabilities for different outcomes, it shows how to find what the possible outcomes can be, and it uses those calculations to show why we observe what we do.

How is that *not* an explanation, as opposed to simply an enumeration?

[bennyboy]

Hmmmm. Cherub is saying that you can't really explain elemental phenomena. You are saying they cannot "by definition *have* a deeper explanation"-- i.e. that you can't explain them.

Don't believe me? Why do photons behave the way they do? Your answer is "they just do." That's an enumeration, rather than an explanation.

[polymath257]

Hmmmm.  Cherub is saying that you can't really explain elemental phenomena.  You are saying they cannot "by definition *have* a deeper explanation"-- i.e. that you can't explain them.

Don't believe me?  Why do photons behave the way they do?  Your answer is "they just do."  That's an enumeration, rather than an explanation.

And again, why is an explanation in the classical sense to be expected? We *can* and do explain the behavior of photons in terms of quantum waves and how they interact with other quantum waves (like those for electrons). The 'explanation' is given by an interaction term in a Lagrangian, which might be 'explained' by certain symmetries in the E&M force.

An alternative is to point out that photons are *defined* to be the quantum particles that interact in certain ways (as given in the Lagrangian). Is that an explanation?

[bennyboy]

Nono, I'm not trying to say QM is wrong or champion classic physics explanations or anything. Qm entanglement gives me a hard-on, especially the stuff they did with larger atoms.

I find QM's descriptions of the observer effect, QM entanglement, the quantum eraser and so-on compelling. I was just agreeing with Cherub to the degree that we may not ever have access to that layer of observation which would explain WHY any of that stuff is the way it is. As I said, we can describe it, but we may never really get to look under the hood.

Friends?

[Angrboda]

Nono, I'm not trying to say QM is wrong or champion classic physics explanations or anything.  Qm entanglement gives me a hard-on, especially the stuff they did with larger atoms.

I find QM's descriptions of the observer effect, QM entanglement, the quantum eraser and so-on compelling.  I was just agreeing with Cherub to the degree that we may not ever have access to that layer of observation which would explain WHY any of that stuff is the way it is.  As I said, we can describe it, but we may never really get to look under the hood.

Friends?

That's making an assumption that there even is an "under the hood." I think his point is that you're trying to force a classical paradigm onto quantum phenomena, and it's just inappropriate.

[Fireball]

It has been a civil discussion so far, which is somewhat of a rarity on the internet. I also haven't seen any flaming of each other during this discussion, which is pretty refreshing.

One thing though- if one wants a "why" question, looking at physics or math (or any other hard science) won't give it to you. They are only going to give you "how", to a reasonable approximation. The "why" question is part of what drives religion (IMO). And there, most of the shit is made up by people who don't understand the "how" part, either willfully or by sloth. Can't fault the "sloth" too much. Those are called "hard" sciences for a reason.