Is completeness synonymous with hidden variables in QM?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of completeness in quantum mechanics (QM) and its potential relationship with hidden variables. Participants explore whether incompleteness in QM necessarily implies the existence of hidden variables or if there could be alternative interpretations that do not rely on hidden variables, focusing on theoretical implications and interpretations of QM.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification, Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that incompleteness in QM, as understood in the context of Einstein, implies the existence of hidden variables.
  • Another participant questions whether there are interpretations of incompleteness that do not involve hidden variables, proposing the possibility of a more complete theory that still yields probabilistic predictions.
  • A later reply indicates uncertainty regarding the existence of a complete theory that does not involve hidden variables, stating simply, "We don't know."
  • Participants reference a source discussing the implications of QM's probabilistic nature and the lack of a more complete description that could provide deterministic predictions.
  • There is a challenge to the idea that certain interpretations necessarily imply hidden variables, with one participant urging others to consider the nuances in the quoted material.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between completeness and hidden variables, with no consensus reached on whether a complete theory can exist without hidden variables. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of incompleteness in QM.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of interpretations in quantum mechanics and the lack of definitive answers regarding the existence of hidden variables or alternative theories. Assumptions about the nature of completeness and the implications of probabilistic predictions are not fully explored.

jake jot
Messages
302
Reaction score
17
In one of the Insights. Either QM is incomplete (because we only have access to probabilities in conventional experiment) or there are Many Worlds. I want to pick incompleteness.

But in Einstein context of it. Incompleteness means there were hidden variables.

Is there another meaning of incompleteness nothing to do with hidden variables (whether local or aspect correlated)?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
jake jot said:
In one of the Insights.

Which one?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier
PeterDonis said:
Which one?

Does the following imply hidden variables? (or is there problem or issue of incompleteness that is not hidden variables?)

The Fundamental Difference in [URL="https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/fundamental-difference-interpretations-quantum-mechanics/"]Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (physicsforums.com)[/URL]

"For #1, the obviously true part is that we can never directly observe the state, and we can never make deterministic predictions about the results of quantum experiments. That makes it seem obvious that the state can’t be the physically real state of the system; if it were, we ought to be able to pin it down and not have to settle for merely probabilistic descriptions. But if we take that idea to its logical conclusion, it implies that QM must be an incomplete theory; there ought to be some more complete description of the system that fills in the gaps and allows us to do better than merely probabilistic predictions. And yet nobody has ever found such a more complete description, and all indications from experiments (at least so far) are that no such description exists; the probabilistic predictions that QM gives us really are the best we can do."

Source https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/fundamental-difference-interpretations-quantum-mechanics/
 
Last edited:
jake jot said:
Does the following imply hidden variables?

No. Read the last sentence of what you quoted.
 
PeterDonis said:
No. Read the last sentence of what you quoted.

I wasn't inquiring whether hidden variables should exist. I was inquiring whether it is possible to have complete theory that doesn't have to do with hidden variables. For example. We would still have the probabilistic predictions but there is a more complete theory.
 
jake jot said:
I was inquiring whether it is possible to have complete theory that doesn't have to do with hidden variables.

We don't know.
 
PeterDonis said:
We don't know.

Since that pretty much covers what can be said on the topic, this thread is closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • · Replies 333 ·
12
Replies
333
Views
20K
Replies
119
Views
6K
  • · Replies 90 ·
4
Replies
90
Views
10K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
  • · Replies 147 ·
5
Replies
147
Views
11K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
6K