4 ms·
Until it's "Bell's Law", I think we should consider quantum mechanics a statistical approximation. Every time QM is questioned people point to Bell's Theorem an
by ynniv 4y ago
Until it's "Bell's Law", I think we should consider quantum mechanics a statistical approximation. Every time QM is questioned people point to Bell's Theorem and challenge anyone to disprove it, when it seems to me that it is QM which is making extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence. Every theory of physics has at one point been "the ultimate", and they have all been replaced by better theories as our ability to investigate has expanded.
- ko27 4y agoAre you serious? Theorems are laws. It's like me doubting the Pythagorean theorem because I can't understand the proof. Local hidden variables can not explain experimental results of QM. That's a fact. Ask any QM Physicist and you'll get the same answer.
- ynniv 4y agoThat's the same argument every model has made for the history of science, but :shrug:. The value of a model is its predictive capability. Thinking any one to be absolute truth blinds us from progress.
- dandanua 4y agoIf we see that a model doesn't work - it becomes an absolute truth.
- ncmncm 4y agoNo. Local hidden variables can not explain experimental results of QM without implying something many people find distasteful. But no one has demonstrated any objective reason why that distaste has anything to do with the universe or its laws. So, another way to say it is local hidden variables do explain experimental results of QM if you are willing to accept the implications, none of which contradict observation.
- dandanua 4y agoSure, LHV can explain QM if we accept that scientists in different labs make correlated free choices, or some other nonsense. But why stick to LHV if you are willing to accept nonsense? There are infinitely many ways to accept nonsense without LHV!
- ncmncm 4y agoYou call an interpretation you don't like "nonsense". But calling a thing nonsense is not a way to refute it. Relativity was nonsense, once. Can you devise an experiment that may produce results inconsistent with the interpretation?
- roflyear 4y agoWhat are the implications and do those implications essentially redefine what a hidden variable is?
- ncmncm 4y agoSearch term: superdeterminism. There is this essentially religious notion of "free will" that physical theories have been obliged to preserve, for no objective reason. Hidden variables are inconsistent with experiment only if you demand "free will" be preserved.
- roflyear 4y agolol isn't that redefining hidden variables?
- lamontcg 4y ago> Local hidden variables can not explain experimental results of QM without implying something many people find distasteful. No. Local hidden variables can't explain QM without breaking math or conflicting with very well tested experiments. It isn't just "unfashionable". You're free to postulate non-local hidden variables, but you can't wave away the EPR results like they're just philosophy.
- ajuc 4y agoThe only claims QM make is about probabilities of measurements, and you can verify these experimentally, as we did, repeatedly. You are free to interpret these as many universes, pilot waves, or fairies playing tricks on scientists, suit yourself. But we know for sure if it's fairies (or any other hidden variables) - they have to conspire globally. Cause otherways the experimental results couldn't happen the way they did cause fairies in place X wouldn't know which way to nudge the results to be consistent with the way fairies in place Y nudged them.