> i've read that there was a proof that the "hidden variable hypothesis" is wrong. Where did you read that? I do not think that's true, since there are infinit

> i've read that there was a proof that the "hidden variable hypothesis" is wrong. Where did you read that? I do not think that's true, since there are infinitely many unexplored theories in which "hidden variables" may be at work. True, there is the Bell theorem, which says that a particular kind of theory that uses local hidden variables cannot give the same results as quantum theory. However, that's very far from a proof that hidden variables hypothesis (which is basically the idea that quantum theory with its psi -based description isn't the final word) is wrong. What's important for a new theory is not to reproduce all quirks of the old theory, but to explain the experiments in a better way. There may be hidden-variable theories Bell did not think about so his theorem does not apply to them, and there may also be non-local hidden variable theories that would be consistent with experiments. I hear Bohm's mechanics is such a non-local theory whose credibility is unaffected by the Bell theorem.