News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it by Natsu on Tuesday October 20, 2015 @03:56AM (#10417959)
That depends on exactly what idea of determinism you have. If you mean something like phenomena can be described by the standard model, that's fine, but if it's something like local realism, that's been busted pretty hard. This might prove more interesting than the linked article, though it was on HN previously:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409791a...

Local realism is the idea that objects have definite properties whether or not they are measured, and that measurements of these properties are not affected by events taking place sufficiently far away1.

[...]

Many experiments1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 have since been done that are consistent with quantum mechanics and inconsistent with local realism. But these conclusions remain the subject of considerable interest and debate, and experiments are still being refined to overcome ‘loopholes’ that might allow a local realistic interpretation. Here we have measured correlations in the classical properties of massive entangled particles (9Be+ ions): these correlations violate a form of Bell's inequality. Our measured value of the appropriate Bell's ‘signal’ is 2.25 ± 0.03, whereas a value of 2 is the maximum allowed by local realistic theories of nature. In contrast to previous measurements with massive particles, this violation of Bell's inequality was obtained by use of a complete set of measurements. Moreover, the high detection efficiency of our apparatus eliminates the so-called ‘detection’ loophole.

Re:Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it by spacehome on Tuesday October 20, 2015 @05:00AM (#10418142)
The Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is consistent with local realism.
Re:Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it by Natanael_L on Tuesday October 20, 2015 @08:41AM (#10418768)
What would happen if a particle measurement had a probability with irrational numbers (in every base)? What would the outcome be?

And I feel that MW would need a pilot wave that carries the information for every parallel possible outcome for entanglement to work, wherein certain pilot waves cause universe splits starting from the point where they overlap and others merge - if you measure the spin of two entangled particles you get two waves that meet where X+X and Y+Y don't interact, but X+Y and Y+X does and thus create new universes. I don't see how the wave-less versions hold up when there for example are orientation-dependent probability and a ton of other crap like that. What else makes the particles interact with exactly the right universe?

Edit: Not to mention how complex MW would have to be to explain the delayed quantum eraser experiment.

Re:Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it by spacehome on Tuesday October 20, 2015 @12:27PM (#10420147)
You're thoroughly confused about what MW is.
Re:Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it by Natanael_L on Tuesday October 20, 2015 @01:14PM (#10420421)
In what way? There's no one canonical MW either way, my version with growing parallel universe bubbles that merge or split is just my interpretation, as the other versions I've seen seem to be unable to address various issues
Re:Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it by spacehome on Tuesday October 20, 2015 @01:45PM (#10420609)
There is a canonical MW interpretation. The MW hypothesis is just that reality is the evolution of the Schrodinger PDE on a configuration space with no other modification such as pilot waves or collapse required. The math is really quite simple (this simplest of any QM interpretation). It doesn't have parallel universes or bubbles as fundamental objects.
Re:Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it by Natanael_L on Tuesday October 20, 2015 @05:16PM (#10421868)
And by what mechanics does that happen? How do the universe "know" which particles should behave how in delayed eraser experiments, for example? It just... Happens? How are the particles "separated" and "merged" (in lack of better terms) in the configuration space?
Re:Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it by spacehome on Tuesday October 20, 2015 @05:55PM (#10422082)
Particles are not fundamental, either, and thinking in classical terms will yield only confusion. You'll find a good non-technical introduction to the MW interpretation here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/
Re:Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it by Natanael_L on Wednesday October 21, 2015 @01:51AM (#10423926)
My basic justification for my interpretation: either entanglement of two photons makes all of spacetime branch out into two instantaneously (however that's represented in the configuration space - Pluto wouldn't wait for the event to enter its light cone to now diverge into two "branches");

Or every point in the universe is essentially an independent configuration space, linked in a kind of matrix, in which the fact that the photon we sent to Pluto had spin X on measurement propagates outwards back to us and upon reaching us causes our configuration space to react accordingly in two different branches. After all the knowledge couldn't be available to you before it came back. Functionally equivalent to my bubble description above, only the terminology differs. Or is the configuration space infinite to the degree that all possible future outcomes is accounted for and represented in every point at once already, practically making it into a growing complex infinite web of interactions when following the time line forwards?

Re:Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it by Natsu on Tuesday October 20, 2015 @06:37AM (#10418389)
True, but it makes Occam spin in infinitely many graves.
Re:Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it by spacehome on Tuesday October 20, 2015 @12:21PM (#10420108)
I'm not sure why people believe this. I would address it here again, but better people than me have written on it: http://lesswrong.com/lw/q3/decoherence_is_simple/.