Uncertainty about Uncertainty Redux

[Archfiend0]

Hello everyone. I need your help.

I am not a physicist or a physics student, so I am not familiar with the subtleties of quantum mechanics. I do have a good general education, though, and I am eager to learn new things.

I have long had a problem with quantum mechanics, specifically the generally accepted viewpoint of the Uncertainty Principle. I fully understand and accept the premise that we cannot accurately measure both the position and motion of a particle. My problem is: just because we can't measure both the position and motion of a particle doesn't mean that it doesn't HAVE an absolute position and motion.

In other words, my problem is with the philosophy of uncertainty as it has evolved: the philosophy that since a fundamental element of the universe is not perfectly knowable by humans, it doesn't really exist. From my perspective, reality should not require an observer to exist, and to claim that observation is somehow a necessary element of reality turns science into opinion.

Just the fact that there is more than one "interpretation" of quantum mechanics suggests to me that a real understanding of reality has not yet been achieved in physics.

So what I need is for someone to discuss these things with me, someone who understands the theories but who is patient and open-minded enough to allow me to challenge their assumptions without feeling insulted. I have the utmost respect for science and scientists, I just fear, like Einstein, that modern science has gone a little off track, but I lack a good enough understanding in the field to fully articulate it.

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." -Richard Feynman

 

[dx]

In brief: A certain fact was discovered (the quantum of action) which contradicts the way the concepts of momentum and position are combined in classical physics. Thus the behavior of atomic objects cannot be visualized in the ordinary way, because inherent in such a visualization is a contradiction with one of the properties that such a system must exhibit. The uncertainty principle is not an expression of the limitation in our ability to know the position and momentum of a particle, but an expression of the limitation imposed by the quantum of action on the well-defined use of these concepts in any given situation.

 

[Fredrik]

just because we can't measure both the position and motion of a particle doesn't mean that it doesn't HAVE an absolute position and motion.

This is true. You shouldn't think of the fact that particles don't have well-defined positions (in standard QM) as a consequence of "uncertainty". The uncertainty relation tells us something about how the results of many measurements on identically prepared systems will be distributed. It doesn't tell us anything (at least not in any direct way) about what properties a particle has and doesn't have. There are however such things as Bell inequality violations that prove beyond reasonable doubt that a system isn't always in an eigenstate of every observable. In the case of spin, a system that's in a superposition of "spin up" and "spin down" is definitely not in either the "spin up" state or the "spin down" state. I don't know if there's a similar airtight proof for position.

From my perspective, reality should not require an observer to exist, and to claim that observation is somehow a necessary element of reality turns science into opinion.

Reality doesn't, but science does. Science can only answer questions about reality in the form of a theory. A theory is a set of statements that makes predictions about results of experiments. If the predictions are accurate, the theory is considered good, and we feel that we can understand reality better by understanding the theory. Experiments involve measuring devices, and the "observables" in any theory are really just equivalence classes of measuring devices. That's why there are no theories of physics without observables.

Just the fact that there is more than one "interpretation" of quantum mechanics suggests to me that a real understanding of reality has not yet been achieved in physics.

This is true in the sense that we don't have a picture of "what actually happens" to a quantum mechanical system, that we can verify is correct. I suspect that such a verified picture is beyond the reach of science.

 

[etamorphmagus]

Something relevant:
A particle goes perpendicular to a single slit and it creates a diffraction distribution pattern. It has no y-axis momentum. The single particle enters the single slit and then you know it's y-location, so uncertainty on y-position decreases, therefore it affects the y-momentum and "bends" its direction, what we call diffraction.
So you see, there is no such thing as determined position and momentum because even if you do not observe the particle, it DOESN'T have an absolute x and p. This view talks about "particles". But with waves this is simple diffraction - a wave behavior. Both are classical approximations.
The real behavior is quantum mechanical - a combination of wave, particle, and probability that you cannot understand as Feynman said.
So actually the uncertainty principle let's you deal with quanta that were "collapsed" into a single state, be it a fixed position or momentum, but when discussing philosophy it is hard to say that the behavior is DERIVED from uncertainty. More like the uncertainty principle is a way of dealing with the world classically .

This is messy and comes from a beginner, don't take it very seriously but you may continue the discussion if you find some bits of logic.

 

[latter]

My argument is uncertaintys meaning really is "that something does something for absolutely no reason or cause".
and because of "OUR" inability to detect momentum and position at the same time.we now have to believe "that something does something for no reason".Where it is more lightly ,that it is really "OUR" inability to detect in momentum and position .And that something does have a reason or cause.and it is just our inability to detect it or yet undestand it.
To think that something does something for absolutely no reason is a absurd idea its self.That requires us to believe nothing is impossible.That water might boil at -273 D.one day.And for no reason atall.Whatever.theres no point in saying "o"only certain things can be uncertain,only at this moment is this true ,because nothing is impossible when you eliminate a need for cause,so in the future absolutely anything can happen,it makes everything rarther pointless really. Because reality no longer has to have a cause at anypoint.

We have built a picture of reality from uncertain theory,which have been verified ,but because we cannot see the cause we believe "there isn't one because the theory says so.
i know the uncertain theory predicted stuff,i still think we will find a theory that predicts the same stuff but has cause implicit in it.
as far as i understand you always need a cause to prove your theory correct in reality,but uncertainty has no cause in reality so it can never prove itself,
it can only make predictions.

 

[ThomasT]

Archfiend0, you've heard from two knowledgeable veterans of PF, dx and Fredrik, and an admitted beginner, etamorphmagus, who nonetheless made some clear statements (let's leave it to the veterans to decide whether they're unarguably correct or not).

I'm, like you, an educated (degree but not in physics) layman with a fascination for physics, and of course quantum phenomena are, along with certain astronomical observations (and, ok, lots of other stuff), some of the most fascinating and mysterious phenomena -- including statements and interpretations of the hup and metaphysical speculative inferences thereof.

I'm going to address some of your statements that haven't already been addressed by the veterans, and then provide some links to papers that I think might help you in your quest to understand the meaning of Heisenberg's uncertainty relations (commonly referred to as the hup).

...my problem is with the philosophy of uncertainty as it has evolved: the philosophy that since a fundamental element of the universe is not perfectly knowable by humans, it doesn't really exist.

This isn't really what's being said by physics or physicists.

So what I need is for someone to discuss these things with me, someone who understands the theories but who is patient and open-minded enough to allow me to challenge their assumptions without feeling insulted.

Ok, first, read the extant seminal stuff on the hup. The experts here can help you with that. (When I have a question on something in physics with philosophical implications, I usually consult Wikipedia, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, do general Google or Yahoo searches, do more specific arxiv.org searches, and ask questions at PF, etc., not necessarily in that order.) The bottom line at PF is that even if someone is asking an interesting and deep question, but seems unwilling to do any homework, then they're not going to get much feedback. Why? Because these interesting and deep questions have been discussed for decades. However, most importantly, if you have a pertinent technical question, or a problem with the meaning of some notational shorthand, or something along those lines, then some expert here will be most willing to give you a quick answer or point you in the direction of a source that will comprehensively answer your question.

The problem with questions about the comprehensive or definitive physical meaning (regarding an underlying reality) of qm formalism is that there isn't a comprehensive or definitive meaning (regarding an underlying reality) wrt it. For this reason, Einstein didn't like qm. Feynman, while embracing and developing it, said that nobody undertstands it. And, Bohr said that if it hasn't shocked you, then you haven't understood it.

Bohr's statement that physics isn't about finding out how or what nature is, but only what we can say about it, is directly applicable to the hup.

I have the utmost respect for science and scientists, I just fear, like Einstein, that modern science has gone a little off track, but I lack a good enough understanding in the field to fully articulate it.

Ok, so it's a bit off track. Whatever that means. I think that most physicists believe that there are foundational/theoretical problems that need fixing. But this doesn't really have anything to do with the validity, the truth on a certain level, of the hup. What you're asking seems to me to be: Given that the hup is true wrt quantum experimental phenomena, what can be inferred about some presumed reality underlying those experimental phenomena? Well, this is a question that pertains to any quantum phenomena and associated formalism. These are open questions. The underlying meaning of the hup is an open question, and, imho, an unanswerable one. But some treatments of it are more enlightening than others.

So, take into account what the PF Mentors, Science Advisors, and other (often credentialed physicists and postgrads -- look at their personal profiles) have to say about it and, in addition to the resouces I've already mentioned, here are some links to papers that you might find interesting:

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Paul Busch, Teiko Heinonen, and Pekka Lahti
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0609/0609185v3.pdf

The Standard Model of Quantum Measurement Theory: History and Applications
Paul Busch and Pekka Lahti
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9603/9603020v1.pdf

Quantum Mechanics as a Framework for Dealing with Uncertainty
Paul Busch
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.2985v1.pdf

Measuring Position and Momentum Together
Paul Busch, Jukka Kiukas, and Pekka Lahti
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.4333v1.pdf

And, of course, the bottom line is, don't just take anybody's word for anything. And if you have a question about anything specific, especially wrt the meaning of the formalism/shorthand/mathematics then ask it. I guarantee that it will be answered by some knowledgeable person. Wrt philosophical questions, maybe not. And you might do well to also post your considerations in the philosophy forum.

 

[arkajad]

Just the fact that there is more than one "interpretation" of quantum mechanics suggests to me that a real understanding of reality has not yet been achieved in physics.n

It has not been achieved in other domains as well. But that's the good part of science - there is always a lot to do!

 

[etamorphmagus]

According to one of ThomasT's linked articles:
Quantum Mechanics as a Framework for Dealing with Uncertainty
Paul Busch
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...004.2985v1.pdf

[Quantum uncertainty] ... from a classical perspective, this theory reflects limitations on measurebility.

So like I said, uncertainty, indeterminacy, fuzziness - are all classical representations of the more fundamentall quantum-mechanical behavior. Behavior that does stuff that you can't understand.

 

[arkajad]

Behavior that does stuff that you can't understand.

I can. I may be not completely happy with it, but I am not unhappy either.

 

[etamorphmagus]

I meant "can't understand" in the Feynman sense, it's not intuitive and lacks analogy

 

[arkajad]

@ etamorphmagus
Different people have different intuitions. For me it is very intuitive and has analogy. Of course for that you must have some intuitions of configuration spaces and random processes, but that is not too unintuitive.
It may be difficult if you want to use only your macroscopic anthropocentric intuition. But why not use all the intuition that is available, from many different branches of science? Is it worthwhile? I think it can be.

 

[etamorphmagus]

How can it be intuitive if there are so many interpretations of it? For example, inertia seems intuitive because you "feel" from experience that when you push something, it must be pushed back to stop. So there is this kind of "imagination" that goes with feeling phenomena, this is what I mean by intuition.

If you have a particular "belief" in QM, a preferred interpretation, then it might be intuitive. But it would be silly to pick one, such as "is uncertainty is fundamental in nature or is it what we call the principle of not-knowing-stuff-classically as derived from a deeper behavior of nature?".

but as Bohr said "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.".

Then again, he also said "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature..."
So basically, intuition goes down the drain, we describe nature, but picking a belief=intuition in QM is irrational.

Sorry for rumbling... I am not some advocate against intuition - just pointing out the problem with intuition in QM.

 

[Fredrik]

I would never describe QM as "intuitive", but it will seem less absurd when you understand it better (assuming that you have already reached the point where you're shocked by it). For example, the notion of incompatible observables is quite natural. An observable is just an equivalence class of measuring devices (or its mathematical representation in the theory). You can't put two measuring devices in the same spot and expect them not to interfere with each other. A Stern-Gerlach apparatus oriented to measure spin in the z direction contains a magnet. If we use two magnets, one of them in the z direction and one in the x direction, we don't get a device that measures spin-z and spin-x simultaneously. The fields just add up, and we get a device that measures something else. (Presumably spin in the z+x direction).

Also, the fact that QM associates non-trivial probabilities (i.e. not always 0 or 1) with possible results of experiments isn't so shocking when you think about it. There was never a valid reason to think that no good theory would ever assign only trivial probabilities to the possibilities.

 

[Upisoft]

My problem is: just because we can't measure both the position and motion of a particle doesn't mean that it doesn't HAVE an absolute position and motion.

It can have absolute position OR absolute motion, at least theoretically. But it can't have absolute position AND absolute motion.
Passing particles through a tiny slit is equivalent to know where the particle is, but that comes with price that you don't really know where the particle will end on the screen behind.

From my perspective, reality should not require an observer to exist, and to claim that observation is somehow a necessary element of reality turns science into opinion.

I don't understand that. Observation is not necessary. It is only necessary if you want to interact somehow with the reality around you... :P

 

[etamorphmagus]

Wave-particle duality is definitely un-intuitive.

Also, the fact that QM associates non-trivial probabilities (i.e. not always 0 or 1) with possible results of experiments isn't so shocking when you think about it. There was never a valid reason to think that no good theory would ever assign only trivial probabilities to the possibilities.

I don't understand this, in classical physics everything is deterministic, of course there is only probability 1 or 0, it either happens or not (really weird way of saying this really), how probabilities are intuitive for you? As a child I always thought the world was deterministic, if you would have the correct initial conditions.

All of this is really highly pointless, who cares if it is intuitive or not, it just is the way it is. Like Feynman said if I remember: "Nature is the way it is, if you don't like it, find another universe"

 

[arkajad]

All of this is really highly pointless, who cares if it is intuitive or not, it just is the way it is. Like Feynman said if I remember: "Nature is the way it is, if you don't like it, find another universe"

It's not that simple. Perhaps Nature is the way it is, but we want to know this way. Now, here comes our own Nature, namely what can we know and what not, and how do we know what we know? How do we know? By experimenting? By observing? We can only observe certain things, those that attract our attention. We can only experiment when we pay attention to what happens. Our attention is directed to much extent by our intuitions. We seek better explanations when we are not quite happy with those that we already have. Evidently the set of physicists that are not very happy with what we have is nonempty. Feynman himself was not exceedingly happy. Moreover it seems to me no one would be looking for alternatives if our theories were perfect. Apparently they are not and there is something that is still lacking. One thing that is lacking is quantum theory of individual quantum systems. After all we have one universe and not an infinite ensemble of universes. We have one history, one sequence of events, no experiment can be really repeated twice. And yet the universe works, events happen, somehow, by some mechanism or algorithm or whatever it is. So, we want to know more, understand more. And, indeed, looking at what is being discussed at conferences on the foundations of quantum mechanics - there is a number of physicists, and also philosophers of physics, that are looking for a more intuitive theory, even if these intuitions will be of a different kind than just purely mechanistic and deterministic.

 

[Fredrik]

I don't understand this, in classical physics everything is deterministic, of course there is only probability 1 or 0, it either happens or not (really weird way of saying this really), how probabilities are intuitive for you?

I'm not saying that non-trivial probabilities are intuitive. What I'm trying to say is that if a set of statements about the real world assigns non-trivial probabilities to possible results of experiments, it should be considered a "theory", because it's falsifiable in the sense that repeated experiments can make it less and less likely that the theory is correct. We would certainly prefer to only have theories that assign trivial probabilities, because the question of how to interpret them doesn't arise, and because they can in principle be falsified by a single experiment, but we never had a logical reason to expect nature to behave in a way that can be described by a theory that only assigns trivial probabilities.

 

[arkajad]

We would certainly prefer to only have theories that assign trivial probabilities, because the question of how to interpret them doesn't arise...

But then another question arises: how did the deterministic laws come into being? By chance? I am not sure which is better: order out of chaos or chaos out of order?

 

[etamorphmagus]

There is no logical reason to assume the universe to have trivial or non-trivial probabilities, determinism, non-determinism, order, chaos or anything at all.

What we see is what we get, and by trying to study it we see it does follow logical statements (mathematics), in the classical macroscopic scale the statements are intuitive to us, but when looking into the real underlying laws the only thing that gives us hope is the fact that there's a good chance the world does in fact has underlying mathematical laws, but intuition has nothing to do with it, imagination most definitely, but this is a talk about research methods.

But then another question arises: how did the deterministic laws come into being? By chance? I am not sure which is better: order out of chaos or chaos out of order?

You can't assert that one is "better" than the other, you could've gotten anyone of those for all you know, doesn't imply anything.

 

[arkajad]

What we see is what we get

Do we see "space"? I doubt. And yet it is one of our most important organizing concepts.

 

[etamorphmagus]

Do we see "space"? I doubt. And yet it is one of our most important organizing concepts.

Same story as with my "[QM] does stuff you can't understand", by "see" I meant what you observe, research, and exist in, on, or not all, be it 3D space, quantized 50 dimensions, branes, whatever. I believe we are talking Physics here, solipsism is whole different thread.
I know what you mean, everything we think could be wrong completely, in this case of course it is true you must use intuition and imagination, always, but the problem is when everything becomes too complex, yet arising from your beginning assumptions=intuitions.

Really judging my wording there, hey, I'm not a native English speaker.

 

[arkajad]

The OP posted a question and disappeared. The discussion is drifting as an abandoned ship.

 

[etamorphmagus]

It's a healthy drift, sometimes the OP is just someone that comes to seed a discussion. Anyways, I enjoyed it, thanks very much for the good points.

 

[Archfiend0]

I have not disappeared. I thouight the initial responses were all good and I had not yet had a chance to pursue the thread.

Okay, here is something that gets close to what bothers me about quantum mechanics.

"Remember that when a crystal is cooled to absolute zero, we said that the atoms do not stop moving, they still jiggle. Why? If they stopped moving, we would know where they were and that they had zero motion, and that is against the uncertainty principle. We cannot know where they are and how fast they are moving, so they must be continually wiggling in there!" --Richard Feynman, Lectures on Physics: Basic Physics

This sounds crazy to a layman like me because it sounds like he's saying that our uncertainty principle itself is a fundamental law of reality, that even when cooled to absolute zero an atom is still moving BECAUSE of the uncertainty principle! That is clearly a ridiculous concept and I can only assume that Feynman was being imprecise when he said it. Nothing in the universe is, or is not, because of humans. Observation does not create reality. What a particle is or is not, and what a particle does or does not, it is most certainly not because of human observation or human-made "laws".

I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that we don't know everything about reality. I am even comfortable with the idea that we can never know everything about reality. What I am not comfortable with is the idea that reality changes based on what we do, what we see, or what we measure. Now, it is possible I have simply fallen victim to the inaccurate generalities that laymen and popular media use to describe quantum mechanics. So I want to know is, do physicists themselves believe that there is an underlying... reality to the universe independent of observation or human definitions?

 

[DrChinese]

...it sounds like he's saying that our uncertainty principle itself is a fundamental law of reality, that even when cooled to absolute zero an atom is still moving BECAUSE of the uncertainty principle! That is clearly a ridiculous concept and I can only assume that Feynman was being imprecise when he said it. Nothing in the universe is, or is not, because of humans. Observation does not create reality. What a particle is or is not, and what a particle does or does not, it is most certainly not because of human observation or human-made "laws".

I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that we don't know everything about reality. I am even comfortable with the idea that we can never know everything about reality. What I am not comfortable with is the idea that reality changes based on what we do, what we see, or what we measure...

The Uncertainty Principle IS fundamental. Reality appears to change according to what we choose to observe.

 

[arkajad]

At least one physicist considers the hypothesis of an underlying ... reality as a good starting point.

As for Feynman - that is how physicists talk. The "Uncertainty principle", when used in such a way in a reasoning - usually leads to a correct conclusion. Provided you have a good intuition about how things work. If one does not have an experience or intuition - one can easily abuse the "principle". The devil is in the details and when it comes to details - it is always a good idea to check with the experts (several different experts may be better than one).

 

[etamorphmagus]

The uncertainty principle is the way Nature reveals itself to us classically, when everything in general is not coherent. But when talking about the microscopic scale, it's more complicated, because the wave-nature of "particles" emerges (that is also a classical way of talking).

I don't think it is the correct way to reason that the particles are jiggling at 0K, but are like little probability clouds of different states, a superposition of infinite possibilities... It is hard to imagine—they're quantum mechanical... But not jiggling particles per se... I would go with Feynman being laymen-termed.

 

[Upisoft]

Nothing in the universe is, or is not, because of humans. Observation does not create reality. What a particle is or is not, and what a particle does or does not, it is most certainly not because of human observation or human-made "laws".

I most certainly disagree with that. You cannot know for certain what you cannot observe. Scientific meaning of "know".
And you cannot observe unobserved universe, because you see having an observer pollutes the experiment.

I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that we don't know everything about reality. I am even comfortable with the idea that we can never know everything about reality. What I am not comfortable with is the idea that reality changes based on what we do, what we see, or what we measure. Now, it is possible I have simply fallen victim to the inaccurate generalities that laymen and popular media use to describe quantum mechanics. So I want to know is, do physicists themselves believe that there is an underlying... reality to the universe independent of observation or human definitions?

It is certainly possible that there is underlining reality. But until that question can be tested by some kind of experiment there is no reason to speculate what could be the answer. At least not here. Philosophy forum will be preferable choice. QM is what it is. A set of mathematical tools and ideas that describe quite accurately what we expect to see when certain experiment is done.

 

[Archfiend0]

The uncertainty principle is the way Nature reveals itself to us classically, when everything in general is not coherent.

That makes sense.

The Uncertainty Principle IS fundamental. Reality appears to change according to what we choose to observe.

That does not make sense at all. What is the Uncertainty Principle fundamental to? Reality? Or our understanding of reality?

 

[etamorphmagus]

You cannot know for certain what you cannot observe. Scientific meaning of "know".
And you cannot observe unobserved universe, because you see having an observer pollutes the experiment.

You are correct but when you look at the double slit experiment and notice wave-particle duality, how can it not trigger the idea that there must be an underlying different behavior that governs a world that is beyond our ability to measure it classically. Instead of saying that an observer pollutes the experiment, you can integrate that into this worldview. No one said that our human brain is enough to know the universe, but we can imagine what it's like really, by inferring from the experiment.

I understand that this is not something you can "know", but using ideas that are "beyond" what we can really know usually helps in advancing physics forward.

 

[DrChinese]

That does not make sense at all. What is the Uncertainty Principle fundamental to? Reality? Or our understanding of reality?

It is a fundamental consequence of Quantum Theory. According to tenets of the scientific method, we should consider the HUP as supported due to experimental considerations. You could call it "true" or "accurate" or a "description of reality" as well. Those are simply terms.

The distinction between "reality" and "our understanding of reality" is more philosophical than scientific. In my opinion, theories are distinct from reality. They may be considered useful descriptions. Past that, you end up mostly in a semantics discussion - and those bore me to tears.

 

[dx]

That does not make sense at all. What is the Uncertainty Principle fundamental to? Reality? Or our understanding of reality?

All theorems/results/principles of theoretical physics are about our description of reality. Realizing the logical presuppositions for the use of the concepts of momentum and position in our description of reality is what the uncertainty relation is about.

 

[Upisoft]

You are correct but when you look at the double slit experiment and notice wave-particle duality, how can it not trigger the idea that there must be an underlying different behavior that governs a world that is beyond our ability to measure it classically.

And how do you suggest we will start to collect non classical measurements? Using psychics? If so, I want the job...

Instead of saying that an observer pollutes the experiment, you can integrate that into this worldview. No one said that our human brain is enough to know the universe, but we can imagine what it's like really, by inferring from the experiment.

OK. I'm listening. Tell me more about the experiment.

I understand that this is not something you can "know", but using ideas that are "beyond" what we can really know usually helps in advancing physics forward.

That's true. But it will not help unless we have created equipment able to use "beyond" forces so we can interact this possible reality.

 

[etamorphmagus]

All theorems/results/principles of theoretical physics are about our description of reality. Realizing the logical presuppositions for the use of the concepts of momentum and position in our description of reality is what the uncertainty relation is about.

Do you think it makes sense to think of the HUP as a representation of deeper quantum-mechanical-behavior in the form of classical position and momentum, which is equivalent of classical particles and waves? I am not talking about the different philosophical interpretations.

Or is it a philosophical argument on its own - that HUP is the fundamental statement and the world is "run" by waves a particles, or the quantum-mechanical-behavior — a.k.a something more fundamental than particles and waves is the fundamental concept?
I don't think it is, because I don't dictate the nature of the "hidden behavior" just saying that it is there.

 

[DrChinese]

I don't think it is, because I don't dictate the nature of the "hidden behavior" just saying that it is there.

Well, now you are running afoul of Bell. Or at least coming very close.