So, the question is: Can hidden variables explain quantum behaviour?

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of hidden variables underlying quantum behavior and the difficulty in creating a complete mathematical theory around it. The idea of using stochastic forces to augment classical equations of motion is mentioned, as well as the use of this concept in the Hybrid Monte-Carlo algorithm for simulating quarks on a lattice. However, in order for this concept to make sense at a fundamental level, a fundamental theory describing the "flatland" scenario would need to be established and there may be challenges in accounting for fermions in this context.
  • #1
Enzoblue
3
0
Please tell me what I'm thinking wrong.

Take Flatland and imagine it on a piece of construction paper. We theorize that the world is curved, so for simplicity's sake, roll up the construction paper into a cylinder. Now take a pencil and poke it completely through. To the Flatlanders, they will see two perfectly thin discs in two different places of their world. If they rotate one of the discs, the other will rotate in the opposite direction simultaneously. The flatlanders would then want to say that the two discs are Quantum entangled - that the discs are separate and in different places of their universe, yet rotating one would effect the other instantly regardless of distance. They would also want to believe that the information they feed to one disc goes to the other faster than the speed of light, when in fact it doesn't travel at all because they're both the same object, just appearing at two different places at the same time.

Now we can ramp up to 3 dimensions. If a 4th dimensional pencil could be poked into our world the same thing could happen. The pencil would be two 3 dimensional objects in two different places at the same time and rotating one would rotate the other instantly, no matter the distance.

When I look at quantum tunneling, I can imagine that the only reason it looks as if an electron passes through a barrier, is because I'm looking at it in my limited view - that if I could look at it from another dimension, the barrier could look like a flat ruler with electrons flowing down it and some falling off the sides.

And maybe with probability clouds, they're only based on uncertainty because we can only see them when they pass through our brane of the universe. They might be completely predictable if we could only see at least one more dimension of them. Like they're constantly vibrating in a dimension we can't see so it looks random to us.

And maybe the superposition with an interferometer is just the same photon taking two different paths at the same time according to our view, when in fact it's like drawing in a flatland sandbox with two fingers.

And as we add more dimensions, we can even have parts of two different objects that are actually their own separate object in another dimension. I could go on and on.

Anyways, my thinking is that it's really not so strange, it only looks strange because we're limited.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Are you sure you have "understood" quantum theory to make such a scenario?

Zz.
 
  • #3
Enzoblue said:
Please tell me what I'm thinking wrong.
Your thinking of an un-testable version of General Relativity not Quantum Theory.
 
  • #4
Enzoblue,

the idea of hidden variables underlying quantum behaviour is not new. The problem is, that nobody has ever succeded in making a complete mathematically well-defined theory out of it. There have been efforts by E. Nelson in the 1950's (as I remember), which he called stochastic mechanics, and by Parisi and Wu (1981) with the so-called Langevin approach. The common thing with these approaches is, that the classical equations of motion are augmented by a stochastic force which depends on Planck's constant. This can be considered as a generalization of Brownian motion to the motion of fields rather than particles.

Surprisingly the Parisi-Wu method is actually underlying the most common approach to simulate quarks on a lattice: the Hybrid Monte-Carlo (HMC) algorithm. But there it is not considered as a fundamental property of nature but rather a kind of numerical tool.

In order to make sense at a fundamental level, you'd first need a fundamental theory that describes the flatland stuff you are thinking of. From this fundamental theory you'd have to be able to deduce the probabilistic behaviour of the quantum systems that we "flatlanders" observe. Be prepared to encounter some problems with fermions in this picture...
 

1. What is Quantum Theory?

Quantum theory is a branch of physics that explains the behavior of particles at the atomic and subatomic level. It describes the fundamental nature of matter and energy and how they interact with each other.

2. How does Quantum Theory differ from classical physics?

Quantum theory differs from classical physics in that it focuses on the behavior and interactions of particles at the smallest scale, while classical physics deals with larger objects and their motion and interactions.

3. What are some practical applications of Quantum Theory?

Quantum theory has many practical applications, including the development of transistors, lasers, and computer memory. It also plays a crucial role in fields such as nanotechnology, cryptography, and medical imaging.

4. Can Quantum Theory be understood by non-scientists?

While the concepts of Quantum Theory can be complex, there are many resources available for non-scientists to understand the basics. With patience and dedication, anyone can gain a basic understanding of Quantum Theory.

5. What are some common misconceptions about Quantum Theory?

One common misconception about Quantum Theory is that it only applies to the microscopic world. In reality, its principles can also be applied to larger systems. Another misconception is that it is a complete and final theory, when in fact, it is still being studied and developed by scientists.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
985
Replies
80
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
687
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
888
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
965
Replies
1
Views
560
Replies
49
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Back
Top