Entanglement Could Be a Deterministic Phenomenon

KentuckyFC writes "Nobel prize-winning physicist Gerard 't Hooft has joined the likes of computer scientists Stephen Wolfram and Ed Fredkin in claiming that the universe can be accurately modeled by cellular automata. The novel aspect of 't Hooft's model is that it allows quantum mechanics and, in particular, the spooky action at a distance known as entanglement to be deterministic. The idea that quantum mechanics is fundamentally deterministic is known as hidden variable theory but has been widely discounted by physicists because numerous experiments have shown its predictions to be wrong. But 't Hooft says his cellular automaton model is a new class of hidden variable theory that falls outside the remit of previous tests. However, he readily admits that the new model has serious shortcomings — it lacks some of the basic symmetries that our universe enjoys, such as rotational symmetry. However, 't Hooft adds that he is working on modifications that will make the model more realistic (abstract)."

Comments

I knew it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Free will is a sham. Of course, believe whatever you will. It's not like you have a choice.

Re:I knew it.

[sexconker]

It may be, but science has not even attempted to define who I, my conscious self, am.

How does a lump of grey matter result in a singular consciousness?

All you other fuckers, you're just deterministic machines. I could model you perfectly given enough time.

But me? I'm something...else.

His model is all wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

In his model of the universe, everyone has a beard or goatee.

Dammit, there goes the planet.

[BigGar']

If Stephen Wolfram turns out to be correct, his ego will collapse into a singularity form the rapid mass inflation it will under go, taking the Earth with him.

Re:"Backwards" Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no idea what any of that means but I am so going to memorize it for the next time I need to have a fake cell phone conversation in public!

I have free will

[kiick]

...because I choose to believe that I have free will.

If you don't believe in free will, then there's no use arguing with me, because it's been pre-determined that I will believe in free will.

PS:
Isn't trying to change someone's mind pretty much a futile gesture to a determinist?

Re:"Backwards" Causation

[lpp]

Given that Bell's inequality has been violated routinely

Aren't there laws against that?

Re:Hidden controlled by Hidden

[mfnickster]

> The hidden variable itself could be dynamic controlled by another hidden variable.

You can't fool me, young man! It's variables ALL the way down! :)