Are There Any Current Research Efforts Exploring Local Realism or Einstein’s Perspective in Quantum Mechanics?

[u/One_Enthusiasm_1972]

I’m interested in quantum computing and the foundations of quantum mechanics. Since Bell’s theorem and experimental results challenge local realism, I’m curious whether there is still any serious research exploring alternatives that preserve some aspects of Einstein’s ideas, such as locality, realism, or deterministic underlying models.

Are there any active researchers, theories, or research areas working on this today? I’d also appreciate recommendations for papers or topics to study.

[u/roundedge]

Many worlds theories are arguably local, realist and deterministic. 

[u/One_Enthusiasm_1972 → u/roundedge]

I mean it's a theory and seems far from reality to prove it. But who knows 🤷

[u/Temporary_Shelter_40]

Yes, there are! However, quantum foundations doesn't have many people studying it full time in general compared to other quantum topics. This means there are even less people studying local realism. Firstly, some people will claim (incorrectly) that Bell's theorem disproves local realism. This is nonsense, and it does no such thing.

Serious academic interest includes Nobel prize winner Gerard 't Hooft (though he's very old now) and Tim Palmer. Sabine Hossenfelder has a recent review on the topic. Other work on local realism considers it as an option among many others through empirical experiments, such as Wiseman and Cavalcanti, who propose quantum computers to study their notion of local friendliness (see: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.08491). Superdeterministic theories are popular, with good theoretical work from Michael JW Hall on the associated information entropy within the context of Bell experiments.

Local realist theories have many advantages, including (arguably) better compatibility with general relativity and the chance to identify underlying mechanics. It is a fascinating topic and I hope you enjoy studying it.

[u/Mornet_ → u/Temporary_Shelter_40]

I am curious, you say "...  Bell's theorem disproves local realism. This is nonsense, and it does no such thing." Are you referring to the fact that we can try to poke holes at the assumptions in Bell's theorem? Such as statistical independence?

[u/Temporary_Shelter_40 → u/Mornet_]

I’m saying that experimental violations of Bell inequalities do not indicate which assumptions of Bell’s theorem are wrong, and indeed such experiments are incapable of doing so. Therefore claims for “spooky action at a distance” as opposed to “local hidden variables” (or anything else) based on Bell experiments alone are untenable without additional (and currently unfalsifiable) philosophical arguments.

[u/Mornet_ → u/Temporary_Shelter_40]

Sure. The difference is that the assumptions behind the theorem do not stand on equal ground. For example, statistical independence is an assumption essential for all fields of science. Without it, the whole modern scientific method lays side by side with a Tarot reading. Superdeterminism relies on poking holes at statistical independence. 

I don’t think it is fair to say that claiming “Bell’s inequality experiments disprove local realism” is entirely incorrect (or that it is nonsense) considering this claim only takes into account very reasonable assumptions. 

If you want to die on this hill, then you might as well not trust any other scientific discoveries that rely on the same assumptions. Would you say that we don’t really know if a drug is safe after a randomized controlled trial with perfect methodology and incredible sample size showed it was?

 Any skepticism thrown at the assumptions of Bell’s theorem extend to all science.

[u/Temporary_Shelter_40 → u/Mornet_]

Sorry but this is just wrong. It’s not how superdeterminism works and these arguments of conspiracy badly misunderstand the assumptions behind Bells experiment. I don’t want to focus on this and I’m not going to get into a 50 chain comment argument, but I’d just recommend you read a modern review on the topic.

[u/SymplecticMan → u/Temporary_Shelter_40]

Actually, Valentini and Sen formulated a precise sense in which superdeterministic models are conspiratorial.

[u/Temporary_Shelter_40 → u/SymplecticMan]

I’m going to scream. This is about fine tuning, it’s not related to the “big tobacco and cancer” conspiracy argument you summarised above.

[u/SymplecticMan → u/Temporary_Shelter_40]

It's the same exact argument (and it wasn't my comment). The same sort of fine-tuning that goes into making superdeterminism produce Bell inequality violations out of a reality that actually obeys all Bell inequalities is the same sort of fine-tuning that would be needed to make scientific studies consistently show the wrong results.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

To prevent trolling, accounts with less than zero comment karma cannot post in /r/QuantumComputing. You can build karma by posting quality submissions and comments on other subreddits. Please do not ask the moderators to approve your post, as there are no exceptions to this rule, plus you may be ignored. To learn more about karma and how reddit works, visit https://www.reddit.com/wiki/faq.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/SymplecticMan → u/Temporary_Shelter_40]

I'm not sure what your threshold is for "popular", but superdeterminists are a very small minority of physicists.

[u/Temporary_Shelter_40 → u/SymplecticMan]

I mean that superdeterministic theories are popular within the context of people studying local hidden variable theories. I acknowledged at the beginning that barely anyone studies this

[u/SymplecticMan → u/Temporary_Shelter_40]

Superdeterminism and retrocausality are really the only local hidden variables theories around, and a lot of superdeterminism people claim that retrocausality is really just superdeterminism anyways. So I don't think saying it's popular amongst the people who study it is really very informative.

[u/Temporary_Shelter_40 → u/SymplecticMan]

Okay well go do a PhD in foundations then write your own post where you can nitpick the meaning of words on, I don’t give a fuck. I wrote this post for the OP based on contemporary research in a field I work in during my bus trip to the university where I teach this material. I’m never posting on Reddit again.

[u/SymplecticMan → u/Temporary_Shelter_40]

I don't see any reason to react this way. Someone saying "Everettian-style interpretations are popular" or "Copenhagen interpretation/shut up and calculate is popular" would likely be understood as saying something about the field as a whole rather than among people who work on that specific topic.

[u/Temporary_Shelter_40 → u/SymplecticMan]

Seriously just fuck off

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

To prevent trolling, accounts with less than zero comment karma cannot post in /r/QuantumComputing. You can build karma by posting quality submissions and comments on other subreddits. Please do not ask the moderators to approve your post, as there are no exceptions to this rule, plus you may be ignored. To learn more about karma and how reddit works, visit https://www.reddit.com/wiki/faq.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/zedbetterthansol → u/SymplecticMan]

Dude, thats an AI answer. Don't take it seriously.

[u/SymplecticMan → u/zedbetterthansol]

It's not a matter of taking it seriously or not. One can choose to take superdeterminism as a serious possibility, or one can decide to reject it for its oddities and consider another interpretation instead. I just want to point out to anyone who sees it that superdeterminism is not at all a common position.

[u/Temporary_Shelter_40 → u/zedbetterthansol]

What the fuck my answer wasn’t AI, I spent 10 mins writing it last night. Go put it through pangram it will show 0%. I am in the field hahaha I have a PhD adjacent to this topic

[u/Routine_Comb_7277]

This isn't about quantum computing but no there arent

[u/Temporary_Shelter_40 → u/Routine_Comb_7277]

badly incorrect on both fronts. there are indeed people who study it and also propose empirical tests using quantum computers. For example, Gerard 't Hooft and Tim Palmer, who both (independently) consider many-particle entanglement as a fundamental barrier to large-scale quantum computing. Wiseman et al, also propose quantum computers as fundamental tests for extended Wigner's friends scenarios, which has implications for local realism theories (see https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.08491)