arXiv:2108.08144v1 [quant-ph] 18 Aug 2021 (where ftaetre nteivratstwe hs odtosa conditions these when set met. invariant not the on trajectories of rca tutr fteivratsti oemrhct th to homeomorphic is set invariant of set the t of because structure arises This fractal c theory. the quantum of of subset a Hilbert-space to plex correspond space state in trajectories of 3]. [2, superdeterministic be to said an be Theorem, can Bell’s theory in the the violates Independence lie formally Statistical not IST of do reason sumption typically this happen) For fact set. in invariant the not did st that prepared those IS a (i.e., this on situations, mechanics measurements these counterfactual quantum For that in predicts experiments: Indeed, Bell-type in set. can happens invariant wasn’t wher the but off performed worlds been lie with have associated might experiment states Becau some counterfactual physics. this, of laws of the are with set invariant inconsistent the invari- on construction, lie this hen not and do of which constructed, states geometry (mentally conceivable) putative the means describe This level set. ant basic most the at Set Invariant name un the IST. invariant hence hereafter is law, Theory, it dynamical attractor, the an of action is d the set an the the of for Since replacement attractor frac- law. algebraic namical the an The therefore be is to law. geometry assumed tal dynamical is deterministic is set zero nonlinear universe This measure unknown the of that set space. fractal premise state a the in on quan- on evolving of system based theory dynamical is a deterministic It causal physics. locally tum a is [1] Theory ec hc sabgosi t hsclitrrtto,an interpretation, physical its in ambiguous is which dence fteevcosaeawy ainlnmes(..o h for the of (i.e. numbers rational m/p always amplitudes are squared vectors the these However, of quantu the space. of elements com- Hilbert to with mechanical similar vectors thus normalized and by coefficients, defined plex is subset This ber). ∗ omn n“nlsso h uedtriitcinvariant- superdeterministic the of “Analysis on Comment [email protected] nhsppr[] e ssadfiiino ttsia Indepen Statistical of definition a uses Sen [4], paper his In n ftecaatrsi etrso S sta ensembles that is IST of features characteristic the of One physics of laws the that is IST of assumption essential The Set Invariant chaos, of geometry fractal the by Motivated where , p ai nees( integers -adic n ∈ Z m utpepolm ihSnsargument. Sen’s with problems multiple oe yteBl orltos.H locam httemode the that claims also He that correlations’. concludes Bell He the authors. by the posed of one by proposed Theory, Set ) ibr tt antdsrb nensemble an describe cannot state Hilbert A . ∈ narcn ae aXv20.46) e rtqe super a critiques Sen (arXiv:2107.04761), paper recent a In 2 1 rnfr nttt o dacdSuis Ruth-Moufang-S Studies, Advanced for Institute Frankfurt unu niern ehooyLbrtre,Department Laboratories, Technology Engineering Quantum N 0 .INTRODUCTION I. n hi hssaeo h form the of are phases their and ) p ∈ N u o eesrl rm num- prime a necessarily not but nvriyo rso,Woln od rso,B81S UK 1US, BS8 Bristol, Road, Woodland Bristol, of University ..Hance, J.R. 3 eateto hsc,Uiest fOfr,UK Oxford, of University Physics, of Department 1 .Hossenfelder, S. Dtd uut1,2021) 19, August (Dated: 2 πn/p om- by , der ate as- on he ce se y- re m m T d d e e - r,oc nteifrainta eemnsteeouino evolution the determines that information the in once ory, superdeterminist any in twice appear effectively settings of etstig r orltdwt h esrmn settings measurement the with measu correlated are the vi- settings because then ment simply theory independence, the But statistical olates to outcome. time it measurement second because the a settings calculate causality measurement local the add fulfils to unnecessary trivially settings then measurement theory the The about information sta prepared contains the ready of specification full the theory, variables e htprevents that set etyof dently si hoy n antasm that assume cannot one theory, istic nain e Theory. Th versio Set Sen’s Invariant IST. on to criticisms apply detailed not provide do below conclusions Sections his inde result, counterfactual a concepts of As notion fundamental niteness. the the as such of IST, some On This underpinning misinterprets IST. Sen of above. this, interpretation mentioned of the amplitude to central and is phase incompatibility requ the rationality for the ments use of not does incompatibility he ac particular, number-theoretic an In neith not IST. is is of it version representation Sen’s claiming curate However, example, psi-epistemic. The- for nor Set it, Invariant local critiques of then version and own ory, his develops he that ingly, the on focus instead IST. will of we analysis Sen’s paper, of present shortcomings this In criticism [5]. Sen’s paper to specific not certainly what and about omnipresent literature confusion is the this means However, physically Independence IST. Statistical to phys apply the not considering does without chooses he interpretation the h auso iayvariables binary described of are values these experiment the ex- Bell a variable typically (in hidden settings some is surement of outcome function a measurement as pressed the theory variable S.W ilteeoeadesti eea on nasepara a in point general this address therefore will We IST. 2 ti omnmsaet o elz httemeasurement the that realize not to mistake common a is It nIT ti h eurmn htsae i nteinvariant the on lie states that requirement the is it IST, In h otgaigsotoigo e’ nlssi,confus- is, analysis Sen’s of shortcoming glaring most The nteuulfruainitoue yBl,i hidden- a in Bell, by introduced formulation usual the In eemnsi oe fqatmpyis Invariant physics, quantum of model deterministic λ snihrlclnor local neither is l uedtriimi ulkl osletepuzzle the solve to ‘unlikely is superdeterminism r ,D648Fakuta an Germany Main, am Frankfurt D-60438 1, tr. n ..Palmer T.N. and n a a tlk hs naspreemnsi hidden superdeterministic a in this: like it say can One . fEetia n lcrncEngineering, Electronic and Electrical of X I LI HTITI NON-LOCAL IS IST THAT CLAIM II. e hoyi idnvral setting” hidden-variable a in theory set and Y X . and 3, ψ ∗ eitmc ehr detail here We -epistemic. Y rmbigvre independently varied being from X and λ Y a evre indepen- varied be can .I superdetermin- a In ). λ n h mea- the and cthe- ic eal- te of n ire- top the . re- ics by fi- of in er te is e f - . 2 the prepared state, and once as the setting itself. Needless to In case it seems overly metaphysical to be discussing such say, if one does not keep in mind that the measurement setting matter as counterfactual definiteness when assessing the na- cannot be varied independently of the hidden variables, one ture of the laws of physics, there is an important quote from arrives at the odd conclusion that the superdeterministic the- Bell himself that it worth repeating. Concerning his epony- ory violates local causality. That, of course, makes no sense. mous theorem he says: [6] The entire reason Bell had to even consider superdeterminism was that it’s a way to restore local causality. “I would insist here on the distinction between analysing various physical theories, on the one Concretely, Sen states that hand, and philosophising about the unique real “The outcome at the second wing world on the other hand. In this matter of causal- ity, it is a great inconvenience that the real world O2 |ψi , Bˆ(Mˆ 1, ˆb, mˆ 1), Cˆ(Mˆ 2 , c,ˆ mˆ 2), k singlet i
is given to us once only. We cannot know what depends on the exact measurement setting at the would have happened if something had been dif- first wing. Therefore, our model is nonlocal.” ferent. We cannot repeat an experiment chang- ing just one variable the hand of the clock will This is incorrect. Varying X, keeping Y and λ fixed, takes have moved, and the moons of Jupiter. Physical the state of the world off the invariant set: this counterfac- theories are more amenable in this respect. We tual violates the rationality condition described in the Intro- can calculate the consequences of changing free duction. Hence there is no violation of local causality (and elements in the theory, be they only initial con- hence nonlocality). The model would be non-local if the ex- ditions, and so can explore the causal structure act measurement setting at the first wing provided additional of the theory. I insist that [Bell’s Theorem] is information to calculate the outcome at the second wing. It primarily an analysis of certain kinds of physical does not because that information was already effectively in theory. ” the hidden variables. Bell’s quote makes clear that the matter of counterfactual def- initeness is a vital ingredient of his theorem. By not fixing III. USE OF COUNTERFACTUALS t when varying the order of Stern-Gerlach experiments (or of switching from a which-way to an interferometricexperiment) Sen does not engage the vital number-theoretic incompatibil- Sen constructs his own hidden variable version of IST. This ity in Invariant Set Theory. In this way, his model is not a fair includes versions of the rationality conditions in [1]. How- reflection of the explanatory power of Invariant Set Theory. ever, Sen never invokes the number-theoretic incompatibility It is important to recognise that violating counterfactual between angles and their cosines in his paper. Why is this? definiteness in this way does not imply that the sub-ensembles The answer can be found in Section IV Part B b) where Sen of entangled particles in a Bell experiment are in any way sta- states: tistically inequivalent. “Here we make use of the fact that the exact By not engaging this vital number-theoretic incompatibil- apparatus orientations are continuously fluctuat- ity, Sen makes another mistake. In considering the sequential ing with time (see section II). If the ordering is Stern-Gerlach experiment, Sen assumes that in IST it is nec- changed, then the apparatuses will get used at dif- essary for the individual Stern-Gerlach devices to be precisely ferent times than previously. Therefore, the exact orthogonal. This is not the case at all! The relative orientation apparatus orientations will also change.” of the devices is effectively arbitrary within the constraints of the rationality assumption. The number-theoretic incompati- In IST, if we do a which-way experiment at some time t, it is bility that lies at the heart of IST does not assume orthogonal certainly possible to do an interference experiment at some devices. small time t + δt later (say by removing the second half- silvered mirror of the interferometer). This can be explained IV. MISUNDERSTANDING OF DISCRETENESS as follows: since rational angles can be arbitrarily close to ra- tional cosines, it is perfectly possible for φ(t) to be compatible with a which-way experiment and φ(t + δt) to be compatible Sen also makes an error in how he applies the discrete grid with an interferometer experiment, where φ denotes the rela- implicit to IST over the Bloch sphere, which then leads him to tive phase difference in the two arms of the interferometer. claim erroneously that “The dependence upon the past input Where the number-theoretic incompatibility bites is when pˆ arises from the method of rotation which ensures that the ˆ we consider the possibility of performing a which-way ex- final exact orientation A has the same orientation relative to aˆ ˆ periment simultaneously with an interferometric experiment. as the initial exact orientation P had relative to pˆ,” (or more ˆ ˆ Since this is not possible in reality, this can only mean that formally, δaˆ = δpˆ in his model, where δpˆ = P − pˆ, and δA = we are asking whether we have a theory which permits coun- Aˆ − pˆ). This leads him to assume “In the single-particle case, terfactual experiments where everything (and hence φ) is held the hidden variable Pˆ and the experimentally set orientations fixed, except for the measurement settings (the second half- pˆand aˆ encoded the exact preparation setting Aˆ corresponding silvered mirror in the case of the interferometer). to the eigenstate |+iA”. 3

This misunderstands how the discrete grid of valid points the type (aaaabbbb) would correspond to a Hilbert state that is (formed by the intersection of the N lines of latitude and N an ensemble of 8 underlying ontic states, the first 4 of which lines of longitude allowed) forces eigenstates measured to the end up in detector eigenstate |ai and the last 4 in eigenstate closest point to the eigenstate we’d expect for the given opera- |bi. The first bit of that string could belong to many other tor measured (e.g. eigenstates of Pˆ instead of those of pˆ), but, Hilbert states, hence the theory is ψ-epistemic according to depending on the idealised operator measured, the change be- the definition of [8]. tween the ideal and experimentally-allowed eigenstate has no While it is debatable whether this definition of ψ-epistemic reason to have to be the same for different operators. There- is meaningful [10], IST fulfills it regardless. fore, there is no reason δAˆ need equal δPˆ, and so there are We may note that Sen actually states correctly that the additional features required to encode the exact preparation hidden variable λ is a function of the position on the string setting Aˆ corresponding to the eigenstate |+i , than just hid- and not the string itself, he just fails to use that definition in A his evaluation of the properties of the model. den variable Pˆ and the experimentally set orientations pˆ and aˆ. Given this discreteness is a key part of the theory, allow- ing experimentally-testable differences from standard quan- VII. CLAIM “CONTINUOUSLY FLUCTUATING IN TIME” tum mechanics to potentially be probed [7], Sen’s misunder- standing of it further underminesthe applicability of his model to analysing IST. As we mention above, Sen claims that the exact setting is “...a fundamentally uncontrollable and unknow- able quantity that is continuously fluctuating in V. CLAIM OF CAUSAL INFLUENCE/ CONSPIRACY time.” This quote yet again shows Sen’s confusion about the ba- Sen repeated brings up the vaguely-defined ideas of “causal sic ideas of IST. Nowhere in the theory is anything said about influence” and “arbitrarily large correlations set up by initial anything continuously fluctuating in time – the uncontrollabil- conditions”; however, these concepts have been thoroughly ity/unknowability is, as mentioned above, due to the fact that dissected previously, and shown to be conflations of wide counterfactual options (such as those from taking the counter- numbers of differing ideas, used commonly in the literature to factual as to what would happen if we had measured a conju- attack superdeterminism for emotive, rather than rational, rea- gate variable) are not on the same fractal invariant set as the sons. See [2] and [3] for a full discussion of why these ideas factual option which occurred, and so are not valid ways the are not useful for discussing superdeterministic theories. world could be.

VI. CLAIM THAT IST IS ψ-ONTIC VIII. CONCLUSION

Sen states We have laid out numerous mistakes in Sen’s recent criti- cism of Invariant Set Theory and maintain that the model is “The model is ψ-ontic [8, 9]. This can be noted deterministic, locally causal and ψ-epistemic, and yet repro- by the fact that the individual outcomes depend duces the predictions of quantum mechanics. on the bit-string representation of the quantum state. Given the bit string for a particular run, the Acknowledgements We thank John Rarity and Sophie In- exact quantum state prepared for that run can be man for useful conversations. TP is funded by a Royal Soci- inferred.” ety Research Professorship. SH acknowledges support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research This statement is incorrect because the bit-string is not the Foundation) under grant number HO 2601/8-1. JRH acknowl- ontic state of the model, it is an ensemble of ontic states. Each edges support from the University of York’s EPSRC DTP “bit” in the string is an ontic state, labelling a particular trajec- grant EP/R513386/1, and the EPSRC Quantum Communica- tory on the invariant set. To give a simple example, a string of tions Hub (funded by the EPSRC grant EP/M013472/1).

[1] TN Palmer. Discretization of the bloch sphere, fractal invariant plexed. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01324, 2020. sets and bell’s theorem. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, [4] Indrajit Sen. Analysis of the superdeterministic invariant- 476(2236):20190350, 2020. set theory in a hidden-variable setting. arXiv preprint [2] Sabine Hossenfelder and Tim Palmer. Rethinking superdeter- arXiv:2107.04761, 2021. minism. Frontiers in Physics, 8:139, 2020. [5] T.N. Palmer, S. Hossenfelder, and J.R. Hance. Supermeasured: [3] Sabine Hossenfelder. Superdeterminism: A guide for the per- Violating statistical independence without violating statistical 4

independence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07292, 2021. tions of Physics, 40(2):125–157, 2010. [6] John S Bell. Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechan- [9] Matthew F Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, and Terry Rudolph. On ics: Collected papers on quantum philosophy. Cambridge uni- the reality of the quantum state. Nature Physics, 8(6):475–478, versity press, 2 edition, 2004. 2012. [7] Jonte R Hance, Tim N Palmer, and John Rarity. Experimental [10] Jonte R Hance, John Rarity, and James Ladyman. Wavefunc- tests of invariant set theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.07795, tions can simultaneously represent knowledge and reality. arXiv 2021. preprint arXiv:2101.06436, 2021. [8] Nicholas Harrigan and Robert W Spekkens. Einstein, incom- pleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states. Founda-