FrediFizzx wrote:To all Physics Fans,
At long last we have what you have all been waiting for. Quantum Mechanics with a hidden variable.
download/QM_Has_a_Hidden_Variable_draft_v1.pdf
It turns out that it is the same as Joy Christian's hidden variable. This was Jay Yablon's original idea which with the help of Joy, I was able to make work.
Enjoy!
Note that this is a draft for feedback only.
Joy Christian wrote:(1a) and (1b) are one and the same quantum state (since they evidently differ only by an overall phase factor), but they have different chiralities.
gill1109 wrote:According to conventional quantum theory, and according to the conventional concept of "physical state" [which is not tied to any particular physical framework - ie independent of whether we go for QM or CM (classical mechanics)], (1a) and (1b) are just different labels which actually represent the same physical state. That is because an overall phase factor makes no difference to any of the empirical predictions of conventional quantum theory.
Jay, Fred, or Joy: are you suggesting that that difference between the two state vectors has empirical consequences? In other words, are you saying that what we usually call "the quantum state" is not actually a complete representation of "the state" at all?
That certainly fits with Joy's idea of adding a binary hidden variable to "complete" QM in the way that Einstein and his colleagues believed should be possible, if the theory was indeed (close to) accurate.
The question after that is obviously going to be: is your completion also *local*? ie have you created a *local* hidden variables theory. Not just any hidden variables theory. We already know that there are *contextual* hidden variable models a-plenty. According to Bell's (usually called Kochen-Specker's) no go theorem, there are no *non-contextual* models beyond Hilbert space dimension 2.
"Locality" is a particular kind of contextuality. Alice's outcome should not depend on Bob's measurement. But we do allow Alice's outcome to depend on whatever else Alice is doing.
"No-signalling" is a weaker form of locality: Alice shouldn't, statistically, be able to see what Bob is doing.
Obviously, your paper isn't written yet; it is in its initial stages. But you are already solliciting feed-back, I understood. Obviously too, you don't have to give me an answer if you want to keep it a secret for the time being. I repeat that I think that this is a splendid project.
FrediFizzx wrote:Hi Folks,
Here we go with Take 2.
download/QM_Has_a_Hidden_Variable_draft_v2.pdf
It now conforms with what Jay Yablon has presented here,
https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... -4.1-1.pdf
Enjoy!
.
FrediFizzx wrote:Hmm... no comments so far from the Bell fans so I guess we indeed have quantum mechanics with a hidden variable! After doing an extensive search and as far as I can tell, this is the first QM HV that is successful since Einstein first tried in 1927. Now, once you have the HV in QM, it is trivial to show that it is also local as far as EPR-Bohm is concerned. No more spookiness! Gone! Poof! Chase those ghost away!
.
FrediFizzx wrote:Hmm... no comments so far from the Bell fans so I guess we indeed have quantum mechanics with a hidden variable! After doing an extensive search and as far as I can tell, this is the first QM HV that is successful since Einstein first tried in 1927. Now, once you have the HV in QM, it is trivial to show that it is also local as far as EPR-Bohm is concerned. No more spookiness! Gone! Poof! Chase those ghosts away!
.
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Hmm... no comments so far from the Bell fans so I guess we indeed have quantum mechanics with a hidden variable! After doing an extensive search and as far as I can tell, this is the first QM HV that is successful since Einstein first tried in 1927. Now, once you have the HV in QM, it is trivial to show that it is also local as far as EPR-Bohm is concerned. No more spookiness! Gone! Poof! Chase those ghost away!
.
Sorry I did not respond yet! I did not yet digest the work which you guys have done.
But I will comment on your claims, Fred.
1) QM has been completed by the addition of HV many many times in the past. The most well-developed theory being Bohmian mechanics. It's been done. There are even lots of people developing it further. It seems that Bohmian mechanics even does make predictions about experiment which eventually will be testable. However, it also has a lot of problems. The Born rule about the probability of measurement outcomes is not actually *derived* in Bohmian theory. One can "insert" it by taking suitable probability distribution of the initial conditions.
2) Whether or not you call it local depends on how you define local. And how you define local depends on what you take to be "real" ie located in space-time. And where you locate it in space-time!
Fact remains that Bell's theorem is an uncontroversial theorem in distributed classical computing. If your work is successful then you will be able to prove to the world that you were successful by implementing a loophole-free computer experiment (as in the quantum Randi challenge).
Gordon Watson wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Hmm... no comments so far from the Bell fans so I guess we indeed have quantum mechanics with a hidden variable! After doing an extensive search and as far as I can tell, this is the first QM HV that is successful since Einstein first tried in 1927. Now, once you have the HV in QM, it is trivial to show that it is also local as far as EPR-Bohm is concerned. No more spookiness! Gone! Poof! Chase those ghosts away!
.
Fred, please explain -- "QM with a hidden variable" -- what is "new" with your finding?
What is the symbol and physical significance of your HV?
Thanks.
FrediFizzx wrote:Hmm... no comments so far from the Bell fans so I guess we indeed have quantum mechanics with a hidden variable! After doing an extensive search and as far as I can tell, this is the first QM HV that is successful since Einstein first tried in 1927.
Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Hmm... no comments so far from the Bell fans so I guess we indeed have quantum mechanics with a hidden variable! After doing an extensive search and as far as I can tell, this is the first QM HV that is successful since Einstein first tried in 1927.
Have you heard of Bohmian mechanics?
FrediFizzx wrote:Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Hmm... no comments so far from the Bell fans so I guess we indeed have quantum mechanics with a hidden variable! After doing an extensive search and as far as I can tell, this is the first QM HV that is successful since Einstein first tried in 1927.
Have you heard of Bohmian mechanics?
Sure. it is more junk physics and grossly non-local. Pretty un-successful.
Heinera wrote:But we also see, without referring to Bell's theorem at all, that in general all four combinations will eventually be produced for almost any given pair of settings (they all have non-zero probability). But a binary hidden variable could only produce two of these combinations.
gill1109 wrote:Heinera wrote:But we also see, without referring to Bell's theorem at all, that in general all four combinations will eventually be produced for almost any given pair of settings (they all have non-zero probability). But a binary hidden variable could only produce two of these combinations.
Yes. A beautiful argument.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests