Quantum mechanics is random in nature?

[DrChinese]

Assuming reality, Bell's theorem guarantees nonlocality.

Your premise is flawed. There is no element of Bell's Theorem that says: IF realism, THEN non-locality. Nor does it imply: IF non-locality, THEN not realism.

Bell implies (assuming QM is correct): Realism and locality cannot BOTH be correct. (It is not "one or the other", although that is possible. BOTH may be bad assumptions.)

Even in Bohmian Mechanics, where the idea is that there are root causes for quantum behavior: true randomness cannot be ruled out. There is just too much unknown to make a firm statement about that point. How would you ever tell the difference?

 

[atyy]

In what sense is it practical to not look? To look means to interact with some other particle. It doesn't mean to look in the animal sense and to comprehend.

The observer is privileged in quantum mechanics, and so to look is subjective, not an objective interaction with some other particle.

 

[atyy]

Your premise is flawed. There is no element of Bell's Theorem that says: IF realism, THEN non-locality. Nor does it imply: IF non-locality, THEN not realism.

Bell implies (assuming QM is correct): Realism and locality cannot BOTH be correct. (It is not "one or the other", although that is possible. BOTH may be bad assumptions.)

Even in Bohmian Mechanics, where the idea is that there are root causes for quantum behavior: true randomness cannot be ruled out. There is just too much unknown to make a firm statement about that point. How would you ever tell the difference?

You are missing my big point - Bell's theorem guarantees randomness under the operational view of quantum mechanics.

 

[vanhees71]

If the moon is always there, then a particle is always there too. That means a particle has a trajectory.

Come on! This is really an ageold discussion answered by modern QT clearly being wrong. You have only probability distributions for position and momentum!

 

[DrChinese]

You are missing my big point - Bell's theorem guarantees randomness under the operational view of quantum mechanics.

No, it doesn't. It is silent on that point, and I can't imagine what relevance that is to this thread. It is only INTERPRETATIONS of QM that have anything to say about randomness.

 

[atyy]

Come on! This is really an ageold discussion answered by modern QT clearly being wrong. You have only probability distributions for position and momentum!

You cannot have simultaneous canonically conjugate position and momentum, but that does not rule out a trajectory. A person who says the moon is there when he is not looking at it is a closet Bohmian.

 

[atyy]

No, it doesn't. It is silent on that point, and I can't imagine what relevance that is to this thread. It is only INTERPRETATIONS of QM that have anything to say about randomness.

No it really does! That's one of the main points about Bell's theorem - under the operational view, it guarantees randomness - and randomness is the subject of this thread.

 

[vanhees71]

What has Bohmian mechanics to do with that? I think, we should stop the discussion here. I admit, I shouldn't have gotten involved again.

 

[atyy]

Here is how Bell's theorem can guarantee randomness https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.3427

 

[DrChinese]

Here is how Bell's theorem can guarantee randomness https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.3427

Sorry, that reference has nothing to do with your assertion (beyond a casual reading of the title). I would challenge you to provide a suitable source that says that Bell's Theorem guarantees the world is - or is not - random. Short of that, it is time for you to drop this line, as it represents personal speculation on your part.

It is clear that any Bohmian would assert that Bohmian mechanics is viable and explains randomness in observations. Whether you agree with that or not, it is also clear that all suitable observations of quantum behavior demonstrate what appears to be random behavior. So we gain nothing past this.

 

[atyy]

Sorry, that reference has nothing to do with your assertion (beyond a casual reading of the title). I would challenge you to provide a suitable source that says that Bell's Theorem guarantees the world is - or is not - random. Short of that, it is time for you to drop this line, as it represents personal speculation on your part.

It is a theorem, not my personal speculation.

 

[DrChinese]

It is a theorem, not my personal speculation.

Please: what is that theorem and where is it published in peer reviewed literature?

 

[atyy]

Please: what is that theorem and where is it published in peer reviewed literature?

Read the reference. And stop distorting what I am saying.

 

[DrChinese]

1. Read the reference.

2. And stop distorting what I am saying.

1. The reference is unsuitable, and saying "read it" is ridiculous when you can quote whatever you think supports your assertion.

Other theorems are other theorems. Really not much to discuss about that. And there are no other theorems, the reference included, that proves whether there is or is not randomness in nature. What we have to tell us about that is observation, which clearly supports randomness in nature. But there are counter-interpretations that are viable.

If you will not support your assertions with suitable references, you can probably predict the next appropriate step. Your line of reasoning has derailed meaningful discussion of this topic.2. You are stating your position clearly, and it is incorrect. Bell is silent about the role of randomness in quantum mechanics. There is nothing in the accepted literature that says otherwise.

 

[atyy]

1. The reference is unsuitable, and saying "read it" is ridiculous when you can quote whatever you think supports your assertion.

Other theorems are other theorems. Really not much to discuss about that. And there are no other theorems, the reference included, that proves whether there is or is not randomness in nature. What we have to tell us about that is observation, which clearly supports randomness in nature. But there are counter-interpretations that are viable.

If you will not support your assertions with suitable references, you can probably predict the next appropriate step. Your line of reasoning has derailed meaningful discussion of this topic.2. You are stating your position clearly, and it is incorrect. Bell is silent about the role of randomness in quantum mechanics. There is nothing in the accepted literature that says otherwise.

Stop distorting my position! I have said that if we take the operational view of quantum mechanics, Bell's theorem does guarantee randomness.

The reference I provided is suitable.

 

[Drakkith]

Thread locked, pending moderation.