Is completeness synonymous with hidden variables in QM?

[jake jot]

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)?

 

[PeterDonis]

In one of the Insights.

Which one?

 

[jake jot]

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/

 

[PeterDonis]

Does the following imply hidden variables?

No. Read the last sentence of what you quoted.

 

[jake jot]

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.

 

[PeterDonis]

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]

We don't know.

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