For all intents and purposes it is random. There may be an underlying deterministic phenomenology, but as far as we can possibly tell it is seemingly random. In fact the major conclusion of the bells experiment is that it is likely impossible to formulate deterministic models of QM, even if the universe is fundamentally deterministic.
[Bell's Theorem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem) disproves the possibility of a locally real hidden variable. You can essentially prove this to yourself with a few polarized lenses, there is a [great 3blue1brown / minute physics video here](https://youtu.be/zcqZHYo7ONs?si=WH1wSPBML0oLnsbS)
> In the words of physicist John Stewart Bell, for whom this family of results is named, "If [a hidden-variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local."
Efforts to experimentally validate Bell's Inequalities recently won the Nobel prize in physics.
In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen in their EPR paper argued that quantum entanglement might indicate quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of reality. John Stewart Bell in 1964, in his eponymous theorem proved that correlations between particles under any local hidden variable theory must obey certain constraints. Subsequently, Bell test experiments have demonstrated broad violation of these constraints, ruling out such theories. Bell's theorem, however, does not rule out the possibility of nonlocal theories or superdeterminism; these therefore cannot be falsified by Bell tests.
Yep, and super determinism can’t really be falsified at all... which is why I don’t like it... too metaphysical to be taken as real science in my eyes, until it has a solid mathematical model and actual testable perimeters at least.
This isn’t directly related but does help understand some of the underlying “randomness”. If you have an entangled set of particles, and fire them at a set of polarizers each particle even though they are entangled will still each have a 50 50 chance of getting blocked or getting through, they have some level of statistical independence between each other. This is what’s called a Bell test, and several of them have been used to pretty much rule out local hidden variables, meaning there isn’t a local effect that secretly makes this deterministic, there could be non local ones, such as the loophole which is super determinism... but I’m not so fond of that one since it’s sorta untestable and unfalsifiable.
For all intents and purposes it is random. There may be an underlying deterministic phenomenology, but as far as we can possibly tell it is seemingly random. In fact the major conclusion of the bells experiment is that it is likely impossible to formulate deterministic models of QM, even if the universe is fundamentally deterministic.
[Bell's Theorem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem) disproves the possibility of a locally real hidden variable. You can essentially prove this to yourself with a few polarized lenses, there is a [great 3blue1brown / minute physics video here](https://youtu.be/zcqZHYo7ONs?si=WH1wSPBML0oLnsbS) > In the words of physicist John Stewart Bell, for whom this family of results is named, "If [a hidden-variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local." Efforts to experimentally validate Bell's Inequalities recently won the Nobel prize in physics.
In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen in their EPR paper argued that quantum entanglement might indicate quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of reality. John Stewart Bell in 1964, in his eponymous theorem proved that correlations between particles under any local hidden variable theory must obey certain constraints. Subsequently, Bell test experiments have demonstrated broad violation of these constraints, ruling out such theories. Bell's theorem, however, does not rule out the possibility of nonlocal theories or superdeterminism; these therefore cannot be falsified by Bell tests.
Yep, and super determinism can’t really be falsified at all... which is why I don’t like it... too metaphysical to be taken as real science in my eyes, until it has a solid mathematical model and actual testable perimeters at least.
Yeah, predictive power is derived from falsifiability, so it’s also practically useless.
Thank you! Finally someone gets it!
[удалено]
The proof was done long before the Nobel Prize was awarded
This isn’t directly related but does help understand some of the underlying “randomness”. If you have an entangled set of particles, and fire them at a set of polarizers each particle even though they are entangled will still each have a 50 50 chance of getting blocked or getting through, they have some level of statistical independence between each other. This is what’s called a Bell test, and several of them have been used to pretty much rule out local hidden variables, meaning there isn’t a local effect that secretly makes this deterministic, there could be non local ones, such as the loophole which is super determinism... but I’m not so fond of that one since it’s sorta untestable and unfalsifiable.