I The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

  • Thread starter lucas_
  • Start date
335
15
Why aren't you guys discussing this? http://de.arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548

The paper is 259 pages. And it will take me a year to read it.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics doesn't use any wave function.
Just please tell me. How does it explain for example the double slit experiment?
 

fresh_42

Mentor
Insights Author
2018 Award
10,721
7,332
Here is the corresponding book (€ 52 as book - free pdf to download):

This book presents the deterministic view of quantum mechanics developed by Nobel Laureate Gerard 't Hooft.

Dissatisfied with the uncomfortable gaps in the way conventional quantum mechanics meshes with the classical world, 't Hooft has revived the old hidden variable ideas, but now in a much more systematic way than usual. In this, quantum mechanics is viewed as a tool rather than a theory.

The author gives examples of models that are classical in essence, but can be analysed by the use of quantum techniques, and argues that even the Standard Model, together with gravitational interactions, might be viewed as a quantum mechanical approach to analysing a system that could be classical at its core. He shows how this approach, even though it is based on hidden variables, can be plausibly reconciled with Bell's theorem, and how the usual objections voiced against the idea of ‘superdeterminism' can be overcome, at least in principle.



This framework elegantly explains - and automatically cures - the problems of the wave function collapse and the measurement problem. Even the existence of an “arrow of time" can perhaps be explained in a more elegant way than usual. As well as reviewing the author’s earlier work in the field, the book also contains many new observations and calculations. It provides stimulating reading for all physicists working on the foundations of quantum theory.
 

Demystifier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
9,854
2,857
The paper is 259 pages. And it will take me a year to read it.
Why do you need more than a day to read one page? :oops:
 

DrChinese

Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,104
954
I could not find hardly anything on Bell (it is mentioned as being "interesting"). Without addressing that directly and in a manner suitable to convince us what it is not an issue, I don't see how it can be seriously considered. After all, he claims his interpretation is local realistic. He recognizes the issue, but fails to address it in a manner useful to anyone with a degree of skepticism:

"As for ‘entangled particles’, since it is known how to produce such states in practice, their odd-looking behaviour must be completely taken care of in our approach.

But the word "entanglement" is mentioned only twice, and only as part of a section on superdeterminism. Around page 39, he discusses the traditional problem and basically asserts that Alice and Bob are not free when they choose their measurement settings. Amazing that the many experiments that have been done to demonstrate that settings can be changed non-locally and mid-flight are completely dismissed by saying that we were all created by the big bang and are controlled by the same physics. (How this is anything but circular escapes me - that same argument could justify any speculative idea.)

"How can we deny Alice and/or Bob their free will? Well, precisely in a deterministic hidden variable theory, Alice and Bob can only change their minds about the setting of their polarisers, if their brains follow different laws than they did before, and, like it or not, Alice’s and Bob’s actions are determined by laws of physics, even if these are only local laws. Their decisions, logically, have their roots in the distant past, going back all the way to the Big Bang. So why should we believe that they can do counterfactual observations?"

I don't consider superdeterminism a theory, and it is not presented in any manner consistent with modern notions of experiment (it's as if nothing new occurred in the last 25 years: GHZ, closing loopholes, entanglement swapping, etc).

And at 250+ pages, it's a big ask. To say I'm disappointed in this work would be an understatement. (I'd seen it previously.)
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" You must log in or register to reply here.

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top