How abou the hidden variable theory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter xylai
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theory Variable
Click For Summary
The discussion highlights ongoing research into hidden variable theories, particularly referencing 't Hooft's recent work, which has yet to match the predictive accuracy of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). There have been no significant updates to the standard quantum mechanics theory. Local hidden variable theories are largely dismissed due to Bell's Theorem, although some proponents still argue for stochastic theories that claim experimental biases affect results. Currently, there are no widely accepted local hidden variable theories, while Bohmian Mechanics remains a notable non-local alternative. The conversation underscores the challenges and limitations of hidden variable theories in aligning with established quantum mechanics.
xylai
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
There are lots of works on the hidden variable.
How about the theory recently?
Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I know 't Hooft has done some work in this area during the last few years, but I don't think he (or anyone) is even close to finding a hidden variable theory that can predict the outcome of experiments as accurately as QED.
 
No new additions to the standard theory (QM) itself. As to local hidden variable theories, which are forbidden from agreeing with QM per Bell's Theorem: There are a few diehards out there who cling to the idea of a stochastic theory which has local hidden variables. Their thinking is that the standard cos^2(theta) relationship observed in experiments is an illusion, that there are experimental problems which "bias" the results. At this time, there is no seriously considered options for local hidden variable theories. There is a non-local candidate, however: Bohmian Mechanics.
 

Thread 'Two equivalent statements of time reversal symmetric Hamiltonian'

Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?
View full post »

Similar threads

High School Quantum entanglement and hidden variables
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Undergrad Isn't the local no-hidden-variable theory inconsistent with standard QM?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad Looking For Help Understanding Bell's Theorem, Hidden Variables & QM
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
7K
Graduate No hidden variables in QM - a paradigm shift?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
High School Entanglement - lack of "symmetry" in no-hidden variables explanation
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
Graduate Non-Computability of Hidden Variables
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad Do I understand Bell's Inequality Test correctly?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Local hidden variable theories
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Can Non Realism = Non Deterministic Hidden Variable Theory
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
Hidden variables and Bell's inequality
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K