Why is the hidden variable theory wrong?

  • Thread starter Taturana
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Uncertainty
In summary, Feynman discusses the theory of "hidden variables" which suggests that the uncertainty in nature is due to a lack of information. However, Feynman argues that this theory is wrong and that the probabilistic nature of nature is intrinsic. The idea of hidden variables is not popular among physicists, but it has not been proven wrong. The de Broglie-Bohm theory is often cited as an example of this theory. There is a small conference that discusses this theory and its implications, and some physicists have attended and found it illuminating. However, the majority of physicists are not familiar with this theory and therefore dismiss it as wrong.
  • #1
Taturana
108
0
In the Messenger Lectures (http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/index.html) Feynman says that the theory of "hidden variables" tells us that the cause of uncertainty in nature (the cause that nature works with probabilities) is that we don't have enough information to predict the future. If we had enough information we could calculate with infinite precision what is going to happen in the future.

But Feynman says that this theory is wrong, the hidden variable theory is wrong and that the fact that nature works with probabilities seems to be an intrinsic property of nature. He says something like: "[...] nature herself doesn't know which way the electron is going to go".

My question is: why is the hidden variable theory wrong? How was that proven? How do he knows that probability is something intrinsic in nature?

Thank you,
Rafael Andreatta
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hidden variable theory is not popular these days. It is still not "wrong" but the consensus seems to be that it doesn't provide any more utility than more accepted QM hypotheses. At the bottom of it is the de Broglie–Bohm theory, which might get you started. I asked a similar question on another thread recently and got this link in reply:

http://www.vallico.net/tti/deBB_10/conference.html

It's the papers delivered at a recent small conference at the "Towler Institute" in Italy on the subject. I haven't had the nerve to dive into the papers, but it looks like they could be illuminating as well.
 
  • #4
Was anyone else struck by the irony of the topic title?
 
  • #5
Taturana said:
My question is: why is the hidden variable theory wrong? How was that proven? How do he knows that probability is something intrinsic in nature?

Despite what you might read, the idea of hidden variables per se has not been proven wrong - statements to the contrary are either just ignorance or wish-fulfillment (though the variables have to be contextual and non-local - look this up).

All the idea of hidden variables actually amounts to - at least in the successful theories we have so far such as de Broglie-Bohm - is that particles still have positions (and hence trajectories) even when you don't look at them. From a normal human perspective believing otherwise would be seen as essentially bizarre - but the idea was trampled on by some Nobel-prize winners in the late 1920s who were unduly influenced by the since discredited philosophical ideas of logical positivism (which, taken to its extreme, implies that if you can't see or measure something then it doesn't exist..). Since then, most people have taken their cue from them (how could Bohr and Heisenberg ever be wrong, after all?).

In fact, it can be shown that quantum mechanics is entirely analagous to classical statistical mechanics (where we also work with probability distributions of particles) the sole difference being that the dynamics of the particles are affected by an 'extra force' due to an objectively-existing 'wave field' (hence wave-particle duality - there is a particle and a wave, geddit? - a solution for some reason never normally contemplated.. :smile:)

The idea that ordinary QM demonstrates unequivocally that nature is fundamentally probabilistic is simply horsegarbage. Though I admit that not a lot of people know that. See the book "Quantum mechanics: historical contingency and the Copenhagen hegemony" by James Cushing for more discussion as to why.
schip666! said:
Hidden variable theory is not popular these days. It is still not "wrong" but the consensus seems to be that it doesn't provide any more utility than more accepted QM hypotheses. At the bottom of it is the de Broglie–Bohm theory, which might get you started. I asked a similar question on another thread recently and got this link in reply:

http://www.vallico.net/tti/deBB_10/conference.html

It's the papers delivered at a recent small conference at the "Towler Institute" in Italy on the subject. I haven't had the nerve to dive into the papers, but it looks like they could be illuminating as well.

The supposed 'consensus' ignores the fact that 95% of physicists have never even heard of de Broglie-Bohm or similar - therefore when the idea is presented to them they simply assume that it must be wrong. It's like asking the general public if they 'believe' in anthropogenic climate change.

According to a recent thread, Maaneli and Demystifier who hang around in the Quantum Physics forum went to the conference you mention - perhaps you could ask them what they thought? The introductory lectures by Towler and Valentini on that page give a good summary of the points I tried to make above.
 

What is uncertainty?

Uncertainty refers to a lack of knowledge or understanding about a particular situation, event, or concept. It can also refer to the variability or unpredictability of a measurement or outcome.

Why is uncertainty important in science?

Uncertainty is important in science because it acknowledges the limitations of our knowledge and helps us understand the level of confidence we can have in our results. It also allows for more accurate and transparent communication of scientific findings.

How is uncertainty measured?

Uncertainty can be measured in several ways, depending on the context. In statistics, it is often measured using standard deviation or confidence intervals. In physics, it may be measured using precision and accuracy of measurements. In general, it is a measure of the potential error or variability in a measurement or result.

How does uncertainty affect scientific research?

Uncertainty can have a significant impact on scientific research. It can influence the validity and reliability of results, the interpretation of data, and the ability to make accurate predictions. It also plays a role in decision-making and risk analysis in fields such as environmental science and medicine.

How can scientists account for uncertainty in their research?

Scientists can account for uncertainty in their research by using appropriate statistical methods, conducting multiple trials or experiments, and clearly communicating the level of uncertainty associated with their findings. They can also use sensitivity analysis and other techniques to assess the impact of uncertainty on their results.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
962
Replies
80
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
987
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
608
Replies
44
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
4
Replies
122
Views
8K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top