In truth I know very little about the subject, so this is somewhat an ignorant speculation, and I invite other insight, and comments. However I have recently been doing some self motivated research. To me the hidden variables theory makes the most sense, yet it seems most people are more inclined to believe Indeterminism reigns supreme at the quantum level. It seems outlandish to me that so many would presume there is no causal factors explaining some uninterpretable phenomenon regarding quantum particles, and that they would rather explain it away by saying particles act on chance to some degree. I've done a little bit of reading on Schrödinger's cat, Bell's theorem, and the de Broglie-Bohm theory. Can anyone lead me to good evidence that quantum mechanics is, or is not, determinate?

Views: 546


Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Definitely read "Physics of the Impossible".

Already in my queue! ;) I'll have to bump it into my cart.
I also recommend Kaku's book Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension. Both are highly enjoyable.
I get the feeling that perhaps modern quantum mechanics is a close approximation based on evidence, and formulated to reproduce that evidence as closely as possible. However is still missing some fundamental variables.

I would be very grateful if you could provide a source from a scientific publishing that outlines the experiment you've described, especially regarding the pattern being different when observed prior to hitting the screen.
Yep. This is essentially what I mentioned in one of my previous posts. Hidden variables are virtually ruled out as likely explanations for any and all of this phenomena. We'd have to make a hell of a lot more assumptions were we to assume hidden variables, and that would just be incredibly bad science.
You can read almost any "popsci" physics book, and it has a description of that experiment usually, Brian Greene's (who is a very good theoretical physicist) Fabric of the Cosmos has a good description of it in the chapter "Time and Quantum". Here is a quote from it: "When a single photon hits a beam splitter, classical intuition says that it will either pass through or will be reflected. Classical reasoning doesn't even allow a hint of interference, since there is nothing to interfere: all we have are single, individual, particulate photons passing from source to detector, one by one, some going left, some going right. But when the experiment is done, the individual photons recorded over time do yield an interference pattern. According to quantum physics, the reason is that each detected photon could have gotten to the detector by the left route or by going via the right route. Thus, we are obliged to combine these two possible histories in determining the probability that a photon will hit the screen at one particular point or another. When the left and right probability waves for each individual photon are merged in this way, they yield the undulating probability pattern of wave interference... you can insert additional detectors, but if you do, you will find two things. First, each electron and each photon will always be found to go through one and only one of the detectors; that is, you can determine which path each electron or photon follows, and you will find that it always goes one way or the other, not both. Second, you will also find that the resulting data recorded by the main detectors have changed. Instead of getting the interference patterns, you get the results expected from classical physics."

This is also a good description of the experiment:

And here are some papers:

At this point, there's no reason to think there are hidden variables - no evidence points to it whatsoever. It very well might be the case that there are in fact hidden variables, but again there's never been any trace of these variables in any experiments thus far. It doesn't intuitively make sense, but it works, and all the experimental data points towards it, and that's all that matters until evidence to the contrary comes along.
Follow the evidence, no matter how bat shit crazy it may seem. I loved reading about that experiment in (I think) The Elegant Universe.
This sums up the experiment rather nicely.

Ninja, if you're still not satisfied you can easily find information on other important experiments in QM. The book by Heisenberg I mentioned earlier has a whole chapter dedicated to outlining these important experiments: (C.T.R. Wilson Experiments, more diffraction experiments, emission, absorption and dispersion of radiation, interference & conservation laws, Compton Effect, radiation fluctuation phenomena, ...)
Danielle your right, it makes no sense but what great reading. It's really starting to hurt my wee scots heid.

p.s I love intellegent woman, you dont happen to have a nasty violent streak in you ? That would be the icing on the cake of my second wedding.
Feynman said: If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you haven't got a clue!
A wise man.
He was a hoot too! You need to read some of his books Reggie! I suggest: why do you care what other people think?
Lol. Well, when you frame it like that....




Started by Chris Russell in Small Talk on Tuesday. 0 Replies


Started by Chris Russell in Small Talk. Last reply by Chris Russell Jun 6. 11 Replies

I'm not an atheist anymore...

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Pope Beanie Jun 12. 19 Replies

Alex J O'Connor

Started by JadeBlackOlive in Small Talk. Last reply by Davis Goodman Jun 1. 3 Replies

Blog Posts

Gemini - the twins

Posted by Brad Snowder on June 18, 2017 at 1:58am 0 Comments

Grus - the crane

Posted by Brad Snowder on June 11, 2017 at 12:39am 0 Comments

© 2017   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service