Is there any reputable interpretation of quantum physics that's deterministic...

Is there any reputable interpretation of quantum physics that's deterministic, or am I just being dogmatic when I don't buy randomness

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory
quora.com/Why-dont-more-physicists-subscribe-to-pilot-wave-theory
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Bump for interest

Agreed, interesting question, bump

Bohmian Mechanics

"reputable" is perhaps up for debate, but there is Bohmian mechanics:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory

Could anyone explain to someone with a very limited understanding of QM why exactly most interpretations think the quantum world is genuinely random?

bell inequality prohibits a local theory from having hidden variables.

it is perfectly acceptable that there is(are) nonlocal hidden variable(s)

that said, any such theory must still predict that quantum entanglement occurs, etc, because it does.

I'm not qualified, but the explanation I've heard boils down to quantum uncertainty and Heisenberg's principle. It is not empirically possible to have exact knowledge of both the location and momentum of quanta, for reasons that were never clear to me.

Therefore, the logical inference is then that the quanta observed can never be exactly determined, since for all intents and purposes there are constraints on how much information you can measure.

Why this implies the particle's behavior must then be random doesn't quite add up in my view. It could perfectly well be true that the particle is determined, but that the extent to which it is so is simply beyond measurement and therefore empirical observation and verification.,

That of course doesn't mean the particle is or is not random, just that science itself is faced with fundamental limits on how to measure quantum information.

im high as fuck, so ill give this a go for those that might want to read.

imagine a particle that is not spinning decays into two photons, which by conservation of angular momentum must be spinning in opposite directions, so to speak. but, we don't know which one is in which direction.

(the two directions can be taken as, for our purposes, aligned with momentum, or antialigned (backwards) with momentum).

if you set up two detectors far away, one for each, and measure their spin along the same direction, you always get opposite results.

if you ROTATE one of the detectors, classical reasoning by way of local hidden variables predicts a certain probability distribution for the results. quantum reasoning predicts a different probability distribution. Guess which one we see?

the nonlocal hidden variable part comes in only because the precise formulation includes locality as a premise. therefore, if locality doesn't apply the result doesn't apply.

The idea is: are the states of the two photons dynamically determined the moment either one is measured, or is there some other variable (call it Lambda) or set of variables that determines what the outcome will be, before the measurement has been performed.

it is amazing to believe that they do in fact come out oppositely, given that no signal could travel from one to the other since it'd need to be faster than light. It is easy to then think, "ah, well they must have been like that the whole time!" but NO! if the universe is local, that's not true.

the quantum answer is more complicated, because you need to know some quantum mechanics(= basic linear algebra). The state is known, precisely. It is "this-one-up-that-one-down + this-one-down-that-one-up". Therefore naturally when you measure, you get the appropriate results (either the first or second part).

(and if they were electrons and not photons, that "+" in the middle would be a "-")

(more generally: spin 0,1,2... particles get +, spin 1/2,3/2,5/2... particles get -)

to roughly explain how heisenberg uncert. princ falls into this:

any (decently behaved) function f(x) can be approximated in some region as a taylor series a la "a + bx + cx^2 + dx^3...". Most people learn this in college.

any (decently behaved) function f(x) can be approximated in some region as a fourier series a la "a + bcos(x)+csin(x)+dcos(2x)+esin(2x)+...". Fewer people learn this in college.

so, anyway maybe these f(x)'s aren't so important, as much as the set (a,b,c...). I will call these g(k).

( g(0)=a, g(1)=b, etc )

brief examples: imagining a plane wave, if f(x) was literally sin(x), then obv. all g(k)'s are zero except for that one that corresponds to sin(x).

this is taken to mean that a plane wave of one precise wavelength that stretches forever has a precise MOMENTUM.

imagining a particle at rest, if f(x) was a bump at x=0 and 0 everywhere else, then we find that all of the g(k) are nonzero.

(protip: the tighter and more particle-like the bump, the more g(k)'s there are, and - more intuitively - the more spread out and wave f(x) is, the less g(k)'s there are; just the ones that correspond to that sine-wave)

this is taken to mean that a particle with a precise position could not possibly have a precise momentum.

heisenberg uncertainty principle nails down exactly this relationship between the precision in position (spread of f(x)) vs the precision in momentum (spread of g(k))

"If you claim to understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics."
Here are the un-understandable dynamics in QT:
1.) Interference patterns
2.) Repulsion patterns
3.) Entanglement
4.) Environmental precursors
5.) Open exchange
It's not theoretically impossible to understand the complex determinism; it's just theoretically impossible that we could create predication models even with quantum computers.
It's like trying to determine if you have brain damage by using a damaged brain.
Or seeing if you can move photos faster than light.
Even QT can't compute QT.

*photons

1)
interference patterns are caused by spatially-separated waves impinging on a surface. spatial translation is the same as phase translation. That is, you can move the wave a certain distance L, and then what once was a peak (phase = 0) is now a valley (phase = pi). Phase correlated waves constructively interfere (peak + peak), phase anti-correlated waves destructively interfere (valley + peak).

in the particle language, the particle takes all possible paths, then those paths that constructively interfere (phase-correlated) with nearby paths have a high probability of being the actual path, and those paths that destructively interfere (phase-anticorrelated) have a low probability of being the actual path.

The wave-like pattern emerges because, it turns, out, as you proceed from left-to-right across the screen, the phases of the corresponding paths change from correlated to anticorrelated.

2) what?
3) see above
4) what?
5) what?
complex determinism? what? what? etc...

bump for having the same school of thought as me

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Hidden variables have been disproved, OP. You best start believing in uncertainty.

This has been thought of, and verified as false by the Bell experiments with entanglement.

>I don't buy randomness
Nature gives not a shit what
you do or do not "buy", fgt pls

Regarding de Broglie–Bohm theories interpretations of the double slit experiment
>Such initial position is not knowable or controllable by the experimenter, so there is an appearance of randomness in the pattern of detection.

isn't it randomness with respect to time?

I hardly know anything about the issue at hand, but I have a question.

Can the bell inequality not be interpreted as a restriction imposed by the mathematical framework/model? I.e., can you argue that a local theory has hidden variables because any theory that describes reality is a model of reality, and doesn't necessarily correspond one-to-one with reality? If the answer to the last question is yes, can you do so without invoking the hurpadurp cannot know nuffin argument?

No, position as well.

A model is not reality, and QM isn't even a complete model.

I believe that "no local hidden variables" refers to a proof that none can exist in any system similar to the standard one. It may be that the standard model is just a very good guess which is fundamentally wrong somehow and breaks down when pushed too far. There are certainly deterministic models of reality as accurate as QM, the question is whether one exists which is similarly mathematically elegant.

What these (Bell's, Kochen & Specker's and von Neumann’s) theorems actually show is that additional variable formulation of quantum mechanics must be nonlocal, and that “quantum theory itself is irreducibly nonlocal.” To cite Bell’s inequality as something that forbids additional variables is to show a gross misunderstanding of the theorem. When it comes to ruling out additional variable theories, the theorem is empty and irrelevant.

John Bell himself, the original author of one of the impossibility theorems, recognized its irrelevance, but he was systematically misquoted, misunderstood, or ignored as he tried to call attention to it. Ironically, he was then portrayed as being against Bohmian mechanics, despite the fact that he was its prime supporter during his lifetime. He said:
>“But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the ‘observer,’ could be eliminated…"

quora.com/Why-dont-more-physicists-subscribe-to-pilot-wave-theory

wrong

how do you not understand this

actually I do

None of you have written any papers on Quantum Mechanics.

This reminds me of the Fluid Dynamics threads.

None of what applies on the atomic level applies on the quantum.

None of it.

Christopher Langan has explained it several times, but then again, Veeky Forums screams "phoney" at Christopher Langan, even though they use the fallacy of personal incredulity to justify their criticisms.

Quantum Mechanics, Fluid Dynamics, etc...

It gets simpler when you just accept "randomness" and "chaos" and intricate complex order.

>reputable interpretation of quantum physics >deterministic
Choose only one.

>Christopher Langan

You blew it.

I don't know shit about Langan but I do know a bit about chaos. I agree with the overarching idea of your previous post, but,

>just accept "randomness" and "chaos"
Please don't spread the misconception that chaos is randomness. Further, the average reader will assume you just implied fluid dynamics is random instead of chaotic. Be more careful with your words.

most important misconception: you use the words mathematical framework and model with a " / " in-between, which suggests you view them as interchangeable. This could not be further from the truth.

For example, the mathematical framework could be called "quantum field theory" but the models could be numerous - one such model is the standard model, and one can modify this in any way you choose to explain the data.

So, the bell inequality is ABSOLUTELY a restriction imposed by the mathematical framework, which means that NO MATTER what model you work with, it is in-built (unless that model is of an entirely separate mathematical framework)

as for your second question, "can you argue ... one-to-one with reality", the answer is "No" the locality/hiddenvariable stuffs has nothing to do with "this model" or "that model"

You're complying with a troll. Look up Christopher Langan if you want a laugh. He's a classic Veeky Forums meme.

most physicists are actually leaning towards determinism these days more and more... there was a copenhagen interpretation dogma that persisted for decades, pushing people away from deterministic theories. The idea that an event happens because it "wants to" is something that true physicists dont find palatable. Feed that indeterminism shit to your autistic poet friends who believe in free will.

Who are you actually replying to? Dude only said the reputability of Bohmian mechanics was up for debate.

this is actually a very good statement of the situation.

Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle come from the fact that if we shine light on a particle its momentum/position becomes undetermined? If so, then does it mean if we didn't shine (and didn't observe) the particle, it wouldn't behave randomly?

yup

You've got things a bit backwards. Interaction such as shining light destroys entanglement and brings back "classical" behavior. This is why it is frequently introduced that if you measure "which path" a particular particle takes, the entanglement effect is lost.