- #1
JohnLuck
- 21
- 0
Intuitively it seems more plausible that there should be a hidden variable influencing the path of particles when they travel, than having a fundamental mechanism of nature be truly random, but what do I know. I just don't understand how you can ever completely rule out a hidden variable. I know that Bells theorem shows that because of quantum entanglement all determining variables cannot be local (ie a feature of the particle). I just read his paper and he shows an example of how entanglement can be used to influence the flight of a particle, thus proving that not all relevant variables can be purely local and disproving that part of Einsteins theory, but he does not (and doesn't claim to) completely rule out other hidden variables, local or not.
So I guess my questions are these:
In the abstract, how could you ever claim to disprove the existence of further unknown influencing variables, if your model can't predict a result with exactly 100% accuracy?
Are there other indications that hidden variables do not exist?
If not, why isn't the generally agreed upon theory not that hidden variables exist, given that it seems more intuitive and that is generally the default assumption about systems we can't (yet) model?
Also with uncertainty you can now have a cat in a superposition of dead and alive, which again doesn't seem very intuitive. The thing that triggers the collapse of the superposition is supposedly observation, which begs the question if consciousness is required for this. I guess we can assume that a cat isn't conscious (I think it probably is to some extend, but that's irrelevant here), but if it was a human in the box, surely that person would experience either life or death? If wave functions really only collapse when being observed by consciousness, then the vast majority of the universe must be in a super position by now. Also all matter should be in superposition right after the big bang so the first life would have to arise from matter in superposition, but that shouldn't happen...
I think I like the hidden variable solution a lot better.
So I guess my questions are these:
In the abstract, how could you ever claim to disprove the existence of further unknown influencing variables, if your model can't predict a result with exactly 100% accuracy?
Are there other indications that hidden variables do not exist?
If not, why isn't the generally agreed upon theory not that hidden variables exist, given that it seems more intuitive and that is generally the default assumption about systems we can't (yet) model?
Also with uncertainty you can now have a cat in a superposition of dead and alive, which again doesn't seem very intuitive. The thing that triggers the collapse of the superposition is supposedly observation, which begs the question if consciousness is required for this. I guess we can assume that a cat isn't conscious (I think it probably is to some extend, but that's irrelevant here), but if it was a human in the box, surely that person would experience either life or death? If wave functions really only collapse when being observed by consciousness, then the vast majority of the universe must be in a super position by now. Also all matter should be in superposition right after the big bang so the first life would have to arise from matter in superposition, but that shouldn't happen...
I think I like the hidden variable solution a lot better.