3 ms·
> you learn the bizarre answer that you would seem to have some chance of seeing the paper in one configuration and some chance of seeing the paper in a differe
by msravi 12y ago
> you learn the bizarre answer that you would seem to have some chance of seeing the paper in one configuration and some chance of seeing the paper in a different configuration
And so why couldn't there be an underlying parameter that determines that chance of which configuration you will see the paper in?
> But there's no respect in which quantum mechanics is an acknowledgement of some kind of complexity that is beyond our computational ability to describe exactly.
I certainly didn't mean that we are limited by our computational ability. What I meant (if it wasn't clear) was that we currently lack the understanding of these unknown parameters and their interactions
- 4ad 12y ago> And so why couldn't there be an underlying parameter that determines that chance of which configuration you will see the paper in? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- matt_kantor 12y agomsravi didn't mention anything about this hypothetical parameter being local. Bell's theorem does not rule out nonlocal hidden variables. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_Bell_test_experiments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_Bell_test_experime.... Many of these are practical matters and have been overcome in one experiment or another, but some issues (like the possibility of superdeterminism) are more fundamental. And the article explicitly mentions how pilot waves through superfluids could give rise to nonlocal yet deterministic effects.