Search

In computational physics it is standard to approximate continuum systems with discretised representations. Here we consider a specific discretisation of the continuum complex Hilbert space of quantum mechanics - a discretisation where squared amplitudes and complex phases are rational numbers. The fineness of this discretisation is determined by a finite (prime-number) parameter $p$. As $p \rightarrow \infty$, unlike standard discretised representations in computational physics, this model does not tend smoothly to the continuum limit. Instead, the state space of quantum mechanics is a singular limit of the discretised model at $p=\infty$. Using number theoretic properties of trigonometric functions, it is shown that for large enough values of $p$, discretised Hilbert space accurately describes ensemble representations of quantum systems within an inherently superdeterministic framework, one where the Statistical Independence assumption in Bell's theorem is formally violated. In this sense, the discretised model can explain the violation of Bell inequalities without appealing to nonlocality or indefinite reality. It is shown that this discretised framework is not fine tuned (and hence not conspiratorial) with respect to its natural state-space $p$-adic metric. As described by Michael Berry, old theories of physics are typically the singular limits of new theories as a parameter of the new theory is set equal to zero or infinity. Using this, we can answer the challenge posed by Scott Aaronson, critic of superderminism: to explain when a great theory in physics (here quantum mechanics) has ever been `grudgingly accommodated' rather than `gloriously explained' by its candidate successor theory (here a superdeterministic theory of quantum physics based on discretised Hilbert space).

In a recent paper (arXiv:2107.04761), Sen critiques a superdeterministic model of quantum physics, Invariant Set Theory, proposed by one of the authors. He concludes that superdeterminism is `unlikely to solve the puzzle posed by the Bell correlations'. He also claims that the model is neither local nor $\psi$-epistemic. We here detail multiple inaccuracies with Sen's arguments - notably that the hidden-variable model of quantum physics he uses to critique Invariant Set Theory bares no relation to Invariant Set Theory - and use this opportunity to lay out the properties of Invariant Set Theory as clearly as possible., Comment: 6 pages, no figures. Substantial edits to address published version of Sen's paper

Bell's theorem is often said to imply that quantum mechanics violates local causality, and that local causality cannot be restored with a hidden-variables theory. This however is only correct if the hidden-variables theory fulfils an assumption called Statistical Independence. Violations of Statistical Independence are commonly interpreted as correlations between the measurement settings and the hidden variables (which determine the measurement outcomes). Such correlations have been discarded as "finetuning" or a "conspiracy". We here point out that the common interpretation is at best physically ambiguous and at worst incorrect. The problem with the common interpretation is that Statistical Independence might be violated because of a non-trivial measure in state space, a possibility we propose to call "supermeasured". We use Invariant Set Theory as an example of a supermeasured theory that violates the Statistical Independence assumption in Bell's theorem without requiring correlations between hidden variables and measurement settings.