Bell's Theorem: Griffiths' Probability Density & Indeterministic QM

touqra
Messages
284
Reaction score
0
I am referring to Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (2nd Edition) by David J. Griffiths, page 425 on Bell's Theorem.

Griffiths used a parameter, called \rho(\lambda) as the probability density for the hidden variable.

What I don't understand is that the hidden variable was suppose to make the theory deterministic, or specifically to show that quantum mechanics as an indeterministic theory is incomplete.
What is the reason that he can use probability to describe the hidden variable? Isn't this a contradiction?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


This test of QM involves making many measurements on systems that have been "identically prepared". The idea of HV theory is that there might be some unknown property of the system (labeled by \lambda) that determines exactly what will happen in that particular system, and that \lambda varies from system to system. Thus the supposedly "identical preparation" of different systems is actually not identical, but depends in some way on the precise details and prior history of each system. This gives a statistical distribution for \lambda which is called \rho(\lambda).

EDIT: just noticed that the OP is from 2005!
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top