QM Incompleteness: Can We Predict Uncertainty?

  • I
  • Thread starter Johan0001
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Qm
In summary: Bell, Aspect, Quantum erasure , they all seem to imply that you can't accept Local reality because of instantaneous 'collapse ' of the unobserved entangled photon , that only gets its state once the other is measured.Well, the problem with accepting local realism is that it would require us to accept that the universe is purely classical (in the sense that there are no quantum effects), which is obviously not supported by our observations. The experiments you mention do suggest that there might be somekind of 'collapse' of the quantum state when the observer is made aware of the entangled particles, but it's not clear
  • #36
atyy said:
There is no QM without a classical-quantum cut. Does the universe have a classical-quantum cut as real?

This is irrelevant. In your terminology, the question is about internal completeness, not whether the theory can describe the actual universe.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
To the OP: it is uncontroversial that QM in the Copenhagen is incomplete eg. https://www.amazon.com/dp/3527403914/?tag=pfamazon01-20. One can finesse the statement, but it is essentially correct. To make QM complete, one needs another interpretation eg. MWI or Bohmian Mechanics.
 
  • #38
atyy said:
While some parts of classical physics are complete, the classical observer in quantum mechanics is not fully described by classical laws, since he has to interact with a quantum system. Only a theory that describes both the classical observer and the quantum system as a single system with no observer is complete.
QM does not describe the classical observer and the quantum system as a single system with no observer.

What do you mean it doesn't? May be you mean that it doesn't describe them in a way that you expect it should? But there is no such requirement for a theory.
 
  • #39
martinbn said:
This is irrelevant. In your terminology, the question is about internal completeness, not whether the theory can describe the actual universe.

Yes, but internal completeness is not the same as internal coherence. So you miss the point. The point is the classical-quantum cut, which is the definition of incompleteness, unless there is a theory in which classical and quantum objects co-exist and are described by a single set of laws.
 
  • #40
martinbn said:
What do you mean it doesn't? May be you mean that it doesn't describe them in a way that you expect it should? But there is no such requirement for a theory.

QM does not say when a measurement is made.
 
  • #41
atyy said:
Yes, but internal completeness is not the same as internal coherence. So you miss the point. The point is the classical-quantum cut, which is the definition of incompleteness, unless there is a theory in which classical and quantum objects co-exist and are described by a single set of laws.

This is a strange definition of incompleteness!

Why should there be a single set of laws? You are imposing arbitrary restrictions on the theory.
 
  • #42
atyy said:
QM does not say when a measurement is made.

So?
 
  • #44
To all who are still interested in the topic, I'd like to recommend our archive (use the search function), which already contains a vast number of threads about quantum theory and this one won't certainly be the last one. So thread remains closed.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba

Similar threads

Replies
225
Views
12K
Replies
8
Views
932
Replies
81
Views
8K
Replies
31
Views
5K
Replies
68
Views
6K
Replies
43
Views
7K
Replies
10
Views
729
Replies
89
Views
7K
Back
Top