Hi,(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I just had this argument with this person on another forum and the gist of it was that he was saying collapse is predictable to within a negligible precision if you average out the results a huge number of identical wave-particles that had already collapsed.

My contention was that his claim was hidden variable and violated the uncertainty principle. I further contended that at the very most, all this analysis of already collapsed identical wave-particles could give us is a probability akin to a probability of collapse derived from a specified magnitude of the wave-function, and that this probability is in no way a prediction, as a prediction would mean hidden-variable not uncertainty.

Anyone have an opinion?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Hidden variable and the copenhagen interpretation.

Loading...

Similar Threads - Hidden variable copenhagen | Date |
---|---|

B Non-deterministic Hidden variables that can't be described by math | Oct 11, 2017 |

B A question about Bell's Inequality and hidden variables | Oct 8, 2017 |

B Local Hidden Variable Model That Equals QM Predictions? | Aug 5, 2017 |

A David Bohm's Paper on Hidden Variables Theory | May 31, 2017 |

I Why not hidden variables? | Apr 9, 2017 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**