Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Are you serious? Theorems are laws. It's like me doubting the Pythagorean theorem because I can't understand the proof.

Local hidden variables can not explain experimental results of QM. That's a fact. Ask any QM Physicist and you'll get the same answer.




No. Local hidden variables can not explain experimental results of QM without implying something many people find distasteful. But no one has demonstrated any objective reason why that distaste has anything to do with the universe or its laws.

So, another way to say it is local hidden variables do explain experimental results of QM if you are willing to accept the implications, none of which contradict observation.


What are the implications and do those implications essentially redefine what a hidden variable is?


Search term: superdeterminism.

There is this essentially religious notion of "free will" that physical theories have been obliged to preserve, for no objective reason. Hidden variables are inconsistent with experiment only if you demand "free will" be preserved.


lol isn't that redefining hidden variables?


> Local hidden variables can not explain experimental results of QM without implying something many people find distasteful.

No. Local hidden variables can't explain QM without breaking math or conflicting with very well tested experiments.

It isn't just "unfashionable".

You're free to postulate non-local hidden variables, but you can't wave away the EPR results like they're just philosophy.


The EPR experiments are ground truth. How we interpret them is our responsibility.

Always omitted from the list of interpretations are those abandoning will-o-th-wisp "free will".

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ytyjgIyegDI


Sure, LHV can explain QM if we accept that scientists in different labs make correlated free choices, or some other nonsense.

But why stick to LHV if you are willing to accept nonsense? There are infinitely many ways to accept nonsense without LHV!


You call an interpretation you don't like "nonsense". But calling a thing nonsense is not a way to refute it. Relativity was nonsense, once. Can you devise an experiment that may produce results inconsistent with the interpretation?


That's the same argument every model has made for the history of science, but :shrug:. The value of a model is its predictive capability. Thinking any one to be absolute truth blinds us from progress.


If we see that a model doesn't work - it becomes an absolute truth.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: