No hidden variables in QM - a paradigm shift?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of hidden variables in quantum mechanics (QM) and whether their absence would signify a paradigm shift in physics. Participants explore the philosophical and theoretical consequences of accepting or rejecting hidden variables, particularly in relation to deterministic theories and the behavior of subatomic particles.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if pilot wave theory is proven false, it would indicate a significant shift in understanding, as it would imply that deterministic predictions of particle behavior are fundamentally limited.
  • Others argue that discovering a non-local hidden variable theory compatible with relativistic quantum field theory (QFT) would represent a more substantial paradigm shift than simply proving the sufficiency of QFT alone.
  • One participant emphasizes that accepting the absence of hidden variables contradicts the spirit of scientific inquiry, as it suggests a lack of visible mechanisms for observed behaviors, despite reliable probability distributions.
  • Another participant asserts that current quantum theory (QT) is the most comprehensive and successful framework, with no evidence supporting local deterministic hidden-variable theories, and highlights the gap in understanding gravity as the only significant issue remaining.
  • A later reply introduces a philosophical perspective, suggesting that any formulated physical theory cannot be the ultimate truth, implying the existence of unformulatable theories that govern the universe.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of hidden variables, with some suggesting that their absence would not lead to a paradigm shift, while others contend that the discovery of hidden variables would be transformative. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference empirical evidence and theoretical frameworks without reaching consensus on the implications of hidden variables or the nature of quantum mechanics. The discussion includes philosophical considerations that complicate the scientific discourse.

Pleonasm
Messages
322
Reaction score
20
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!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier and PeroK
vanhees71 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
Pleonasm said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy
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."

o0)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier

Similar threads

  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K