Science Einstein wrong, spooky action at distance is real - One step closer to the warp drive

I am admittedly trying to figure out what all they are talking about here, so I may be wrong. Feel free to correct me, but the basic gestalt I am gathering is that this test proves that photons can become entangled at a distance, and that the act of measuring them effects their behavior. Further, the "action" that occurs is transmitted through the quantum entanglement at a speed faster then light. In order to prove this they had to add the human element of "free will" into the procedure, as even a computerized random number generator would be manipulated by the phenomenon. Spooky stuff.

http://www.sci-news.com/physics/einsteins-principle-local-realism-big-bell-test-05998.html

Global Experiment Challenges Einstein’s Principle of Local Realism: BIG Bell Test

A Bell test, named for the Northern Irish physicist John Stewart Bell, is a randomized trial that compares observations against the philosophical worldview of local realism, in which the properties of the physical world are independent of our observation of them and no signal travels faster than light. On November 30, 2016, more than 100,000 people contributed to the so-called BIG Bell Test. Using internet-connected devices, volunteers generated more than 90 million binary choices, which were directed via a scalable web platform to 12 labs, where experiments tested local realism using photons, single atoms, atomic ensembles and superconducting devices. The results are reported in the journal Nature.

The BIG Bell Test was an incredibly challenging and ambitious project,” said Dr. Carlos Abellán, a researcher at the Institut de Ciencies Fotoniques at the Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology in Spain.

“It sounded impossibly difficult on day zero, but became a reality through the efforts of dozens of passionate scientists, science communicators, journalists and media, and especially the tens of thousands of people that contributed to the experiment during November 30, 2016.”

In a Bell test, pairs of entangled particles such as photons are generated and sent to different locations, where particle properties such as the photons’ colors or time of arrival are measured.

If the measurement results tend to agree, regardless of which properties we choose to measure, it implies something very surprising: either the measurement of one particle instantly affects the other particle (despite being far away), or even stranger, the properties never really existed, but rather were created by the measurement itself.

Either possibility contradicts local realism, Einstein’s worldview of a universe independent of our observations, in which no influence can travel faster than light.

The BIG Bell Test asked volunteers to choose the measurements, in order to close the so-called ‘freedom-of-choice loophole’ — the possibility that the particles themselves influence the choice of measurement. Such influence, if it existed, would invalidate the test; it would be like allowing students to write their own exam questions.

This loophole cannot be closed by choosing with dice or random number generators, because there is always the possibility that these physical systems are coordinated with the entangled particles.

Human choices introduce the element of free will, by which people can choose independently of whatever the particles might be doing.

The BIG Bell Test participants contributed unpredictable sequences of zeros and ones (bits) through an online video game.

The bits were routed to state-of-the-art experiments in Brisbane, Shanghai, Vienna, Rome, Munich, Zurich, Nice, Barcelona, Buenos Aires, Concepción Chile and Boulder Colorado, where they were used to set the angles of polarizers and other laboratory elements to determine how entangled particles were measured.

The participants contributed with 97,347,490 bits, making possible a strong test of local realism, as well as other experiments on realism in quantum mechanics.

The obtained results strongly disagree Einstein’s worldview, close the freedom-of-choice loophole for the first time, and demonstrate several new methods in the study of entanglement and local realism.

Each of the 12 labs carried out a different experiment, to test local realism in different physical systems and to test other concepts related to realism.

“Our team explores the Bell’s inequality with partial perfect randomness input,” said researchers from the CAS Center for Excellence and Synergetic Innovation Center in Quantum Information and Quantum Physics at the University of Science and Technology of China (CAS-USTC).

“Analyzing the random numbers contributed by the volunteers, we may find the human random number are not perfectly random, and tend to produce patterns. However, the human generated randomness is highly attractive because of the element of human free will.”

“True randomness, which is not controlled by hidden variables, exists in between the human choices. Remarkably, it is able to say how well the hidden variable would have to control the human choices.”

“This is made possible by using a special type of Bell inequality, the measurement dependent local (MDL) inequality.”

In the experiment, a 780 nm pump laser focused on a periodically poled potassium titanyl phosphate (PPKTP) crystal to create photon pairs at 1560 nm via spontaneous parametric down conversion. The down-converted photon pairs interfere at the polarizing beam splitter (PBS) in a Sagnac based setup to create entangled pairs.

The entangled state is adjusted to be a special non-maximum entangled state for the inequality.

“The photon pairs are then sent to two measurement stations that are 90 m away for measurement. This spatial separation makes sure the measurement in Alice’s lab will not affect that in Bob’s lab, and vice versa,” the scientists said.

“The random numbers contributed by the participants control the Pockels cell to set the measurement basis for each pair of photons.”

“The photons are finally detected with superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors.”

The violation of the MDL Bell inequality gives the bound of the input human randomness to rule out local realism. With around 80 Mb random numbers contributed by the volunteers, the MDL Bell inequality violation is decided to be l = 0.10 ± 0.05.

“Although there are numerous Bell test experiments, the ‘free will’ loophole is still not closed,” said Professor Jian-Wei Pan, a researcher at CAS-USTC.

“This experiment is a very interesting and important try. In the future, with the help of space station, one may close both ‘collapse locality’ and ‘free will’ loopholes in one experiment.”
 
But that rumination is a result of physical processes. Reading inputs from the senses (eyes, ears, feel). Neurons firing. All of which have a deterministic basis.

If you have deterministic process foo, and deterministic process bar, and you chain them together with a deterministic input, "foo(bar(deterministic_input))", the end result is deterministic. It doesn't matter how tall the stack gets, non-determinism can't sneak in anywhere but at the bottom.

So the question becomes "are the processes in the human body deterministic?" and are the inputs, our universe, deterministic?

I think that seems to be the case for both, but ultimately we can never know for certain.
Yes I think that's what I was trying to get across. Our ability to integrate decisions is based on our biology and as such is deterministic but in order to allow for behavioural plasticity we have enough neural plasticity to allow our choices, whilst still biologically based to be more complex than say the mating migrations of birds. I think this is only at odds with the idea of free will if you take a dualist approach. If you accept everything about yourself is a ball of biological matter, like if you say 'I am a ball of biological matter and the biological matter decides what happens' that is the same as 'I decide what happens'. If I consider *me* to be separate from the biological matter then yes we don't have free will but if you are the biological matter then you do or at least you don't not because you are part of the decision process even if it is deterministic. Maybe.
 
Yes I think that's what I was trying to get across. Our ability to integrate decisions is based on our biology and as such is deterministic but in order to allow for behavioural plasticity we have enough neural plasticity to allow our choices, whilst still biologically based to be more complex than say the mating migrations of birds. I think this is only at odds with the idea of free will if you take a dualist approach. If you accept everything about yourself is a ball of biological matter, like if you say 'I am a ball of biological matter and the biological matter decides what happens' that is the same as 'I decide what happens'. If I consider *me* to be separate from the biological matter then yes we don't have free will but if you are the biological matter then you do or at least you don't not because you are part of the decision process even if it is deterministic. Maybe.
I don't think I follow.

You can only have free will if you take the dualist approach. Because if "you" and your body are one-in-the-same, and your body is deterministic (neurons act according to how those proteins will act in a given situation), then your decisions are deterministic.

"More complex" doesn't mean not deterministic. It just means that the calculations necessary to determine the output are more complex. Still deterministic though, and thus not free will.
 
I don't think I follow.

You can only have free will if you take the dualist approach. Because if "you" and your body are one-in-the-same, and your body is deterministic (neurons act according to how those proteins will act in a given situation), then your decisions are deterministic.

"More complex" doesn't mean not deterministic. It just means that the calculations necessary to determine the output are more complex. Still deterministic though, and thus not free will.
Yeah that's what I'm saying just not saying it well. I don't take a dualist approach so I don't think I have free will but I don't think I don't have free will either because I am the deterministic machine. I wasn't implying when I say more complex that they were not determinsitc I was implying that our perception of free-will is part of our neural apparatus which lets us carry out more complex tasks.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin
I don't think I follow.

You can only have free will if you take the dualist approach. Because if "you" and your body are one-in-the-same, and your body is deterministic (neurons act according to how those proteins will act in a given situation), then your decisions are deterministic.

"More complex" doesn't mean not deterministic. It just means that the calculations necessary to determine the output are more complex. Still deterministic though, and thus not free will.
If I'm following correctly, is this where so-called "hidden variables" come into play? Because it sounds like the free will wishers are speculating there may be some quantum-level unobservable phenomenon that governs decision-making and consciousness.

That's probably a preschool-level summation of it, but do I have the basics correct?
 
If I'm following correctly, is this where so-called "hidden variables" come into play? Because it sounds like the free will wishers are speculating there may be some quantum-level unobservable phenomenon that governs decision-making and consciousness.

That's probably a preschool-level summation of it, but do I have the basics correct?
Yeah.

On the macro level, general relativity (and actually, a lot of the time, just newtonian physics) do a pretty good job of predicting what we see. The rules always work. As this applies to free will, we can peel open someone's skull and apply electrodes to their brain, and zap their limbs into moving. Like a meat puppet.

So if neurons are deterministic, then our thoughts are deterministic (heh, including us pondering about determinism right now). So people holding out for free will need to find some random source that we can't predict yet. So they're looking at quantum mechanics.

Although I want to emphasize "yet". Some people say "aha, there does exist true randomness" and they point to quantum mechanics. Just because we don't have an explanation now, doesn't mean we'll never get an explanation. (But of course, if we do crack that nut, I'm sure there'll be a new, sub-quantum level to investigate.)
 
Yeah.

On the macro level, general relativity (and actually, a lot of the time, just newtonian physics) do a pretty good job of predicting what we see. The rules always work. As this applies to free will, we can peel open someone's skull and apply electrodes to their brain, and zap their limbs into moving. Like a meat puppet.

So if neurons are deterministic, then our thoughts are deterministic (heh, including us pondering about determinism right now). So people holding out for free will need to find some random source that we can't predict yet. So they're looking at quantum mechanics.

Although I want to emphasize "yet". Some people say "aha, there does exist true randomness" and they point to quantum mechanics. Just because we don't have an explanation now, doesn't mean we'll never get an explanation. (But of course, if we do crack that nut, I'm sure there'll be a new, sub-quantum level to investigate.)

I still think we're deterministic machines but actually the thing about electrode stimulation making people move like puppets isn't actually true. It evokes an urge to move which can be suppressed. Some neurophilosophers talk about 'free won't' instead of free will but that's just semantics really.

EDIT: I may have come to Kiwi Farms with a biased view of the place, but when I logged in to see what Chris had done this week, I didn't expect to have this chat.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin
I still think we're deterministic machines but actually the thing about electrode stimulation making people move like puppets isn't actually true. It evokes an urge to move which can be suppressed. Some neurophilosophers talk about 'free won't' instead of free will but that's just semantics really.
Well then move the electrodes down to where the specific nerve branches off the spine. The brain itself is more complicated, yeah.
EDIT: I may have come to Kiwi Farms with a biased view of the place, but when I logged in to see what Chris had done this week, I didn't expect to have this chat.
We're a very :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: crowd here.
 
More likely than not the scientific method has limitations that will make it incapable of ever explaining every phenomenon in the universe, much to the anger of Niel Degrasse Tyson and other neckbears
 
  • Feels
Reactions: VoreDoggy
Although I want to emphasize "yet". Some people say "aha, there does exist true randomness" and they point to quantum mechanics. Just because we don't have an explanation now, doesn't mean we'll never get an explanation. (But of course, if we do crack that nut, I'm sure there'll be a new, sub-quantum level to investigate.)
Sounds like a "god of the gaps" fallacy, just missing the god.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin
Back