3 ms·

>I ask this as a layman, and I'm really interested if anyone has insight into this. Another comment basically answered but basically you are touching on Hidden

>I ask this as a layman, and I'm really interested if anyone has insight into this. Another comment basically answered but basically you are touching on Hidden Variable Theorems in QM. Basically that there could be missing variables we can't currently measure that explain the seeming randomness of QM. Various tests have shown and most Physicists agree that Hidden Variables are very unlikely at this point.

SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago
Local hidden variables are impossible. Non-local hidden variables are perfectly possible. Aesthetically displeasing, since it requires giving up on locality, but not logically impossible. Non-local interpretations of quantum mechanics give up on locality instead of giving up on hidden variables. You can't have both, but either one alone is possible.
- vonneumannstan 1y ago
  We're getting close to Super-determinism at that point, which may in fact be correct but I don't think the poster was getting at that.
- ang_cire 1y ago
  What's funny is that everyone is answering me saying, "you must be thinking of local hidden variables, which have been disproven", and I'm like, 'I didn't even know enough to differentiate between local vs non-local.' I was never assuming the hidden variables had to do with quantum mechanics violating 'normal' physics, I was looking at this purely from what seemed like a logical standpoint of, "you can't prove or disprove what you don't know exists", like aliens or gods. If the article was only talking about disproving local hidden variables bringing about non-random outcomes (which having read a bit now, I assume is the case as it references Bell Tests?), that wasn't clear to me. I read it as claiming to be disproving the existence of any hidden variables in quantum mechanics that could affect a deterministic outcome, which seemed (to my lay, uninformed knowledge) to imply an essentially perfect or near-perfect understanding of quantum physics to make that claim; unless we believe our understanding to be perfect, how can we assert the non-existence of the unknown? They even give a statistic of 99.7% random outcomes... which means that the .3% were (potentially) non-random? > In its first 40 days of operation, the protocol produced random numbers 7,434 times out of 7,454 attempts, a 99.7% success rate.

SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago

Local hidden variables are impossible. Non-local hidden variables are perfectly possible. Aesthetically displeasing, since it requires giving up on locality, but not logically impossible. Non-local interpretations of quantum mechanics give up on locality instead of giving up on hidden variables. You can't have both, but either one alone is possible.

vonneumannstan 1y ago
We're getting close to Super-determinism at that point, which may in fact be correct but I don't think the poster was getting at that.
ang_cire 1y ago
What's funny is that everyone is answering me saying, "you must be thinking of local hidden variables, which have been disproven", and I'm like, 'I didn't even know enough to differentiate between local vs non-local.' I was never assuming the hidden variables had to do with quantum mechanics violating 'normal' physics, I was looking at this purely from what seemed like a logical standpoint of, "you can't prove or disprove what you don't know exists", like aliens or gods. If the article was only talking about disproving local hidden variables bringing about non-random outcomes (which having read a bit now, I assume is the case as it references Bell Tests?), that wasn't clear to me. I read it as claiming to be disproving the existence of any hidden variables in quantum mechanics that could affect a deterministic outcome, which seemed (to my lay, uninformed knowledge) to imply an essentially perfect or near-perfect understanding of quantum physics to make that claim; unless we believe our understanding to be perfect, how can we assert the non-existence of the unknown? They even give a statistic of 99.7% random outcomes... which means that the .3% were (potentially) non-random? > In its first 40 days of operation, the protocol produced random numbers 7,434 times out of 7,454 attempts, a 99.7% success rate.