No hidden variables in QM - a paradigm shift?

[Pleonasm]

If we would learn (somehow) that the pilot wave theory is false, that there are not even "non local" hidden variables, would this lead to a paradigm shift in physics?

I ask because it would mean that a Laplace demon wouldn't even in theory able to predict the exact future motions of particles, even though these still obey the deterministic wave function. There just wouldn't be any visible mechanism to its behavior, even though it is a mechanistic behavior!

 

[vanhees71]

I'd say to the contrary that if somebody could find a non-local hidden variable theory that also works for relativistic QFT it would lead to a paradigm shift than if somebody would prove that all there is is Q(F)T.

 

[Pleonasm]

I'd say to the contrary that if somebody could find a non-local hidden variable theory that also works for relativistic QFT it would lead to a paradigm shift than if somebody would prove that all there is is Q(F)T.

So you don't think there is a paradigm shift if there are no hidden variables to account for the reliable (though knowledge restricted) behavior at subatomic level?

This is equivalent to accepting that there is no visible mechanism for X, but X still behaves as if that is the case (or else we wouldn't have the exact probability distributions). Seems to run counter to the current spirit of physics and scientific inquiry, to accept such a gap without justification.

 

[StevieTNZ]

It is interesting you raise this question - I was alerted to this paper just about an hr ago - https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.10991 in particular section 2

 

[vanhees71]

So you don't think there is a paradigm shift if there are no hidden variables to account for the reliable (though knowledge restricted) behavior at subatomic level?

This is equivalent to accepting that there is no visible mechanism for X, but X still behaves as if that is the case (or else we wouldn't have the exact probability distributions). Seems to run counter to the current spirit of physics and scientific inquiry, to accept such a gap without justification.

It would be a paradigm shift if there were "hidden variables". Today there's not the slightest hint for "hidden variables". Of course you can argue that that's why they are called hidden, but there's (a) clear empirical proof that QT is right and any local deterministic hidden-variable theory is wrong and (b) nobody could come up with a relativistic non-local deterministic theory that is in accordance with relativistic local QFT (and the better-than-wanted Standard Model of elementary particle physics).

I don't know what you mean by "mechanism". Today QT is the most comprehensive and most successful theory describing all phenomena except gravity, for which we don't have a consistent quantum description. Today that's the only true "gap" in our understanding of nature.

 

[atyy]

I agree with @vanhees71 that it would be a paradigm shift if there were hidden variables (but maybe my reasons are different).

Dao De Jing: "The Dao that can be stated cannot be eternal Dao. The Name that can be named cannot be eternal Name. The Nameless is the origin of universe. The Named is the mother of all matter."

Physics translation by Xiao-Gang Wen: "The physical theory that can be formulated cannot be the final ultimate theory. The classification that can be implemented cannot classify everything. The unformulatable ultimate theory does exist and governs the creation of the universe. The formulated theories describe the matter we see every day."