Essay Abstract
There is a tug-of-war between Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and the hidden variables hypothesis. Up to now Copenhagen interpretation is the dominant theory. The dictum "shut up and calculate" is not an answer. Physics community hope some time in the future Determinism will strike back.
Author Bio
I am an accountant during working days and a Physicist during weekends and Holidays.
Dear Edward Levi,
Very simple and nice essay. you told the facts bluntly and in a straight forward manner. I also discussed some such facts in my essay... "A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory's Philosophy"
Hope you will have a look
Best
=snp
Dear Edward,
Lovely job simplifying the fundamental issues of QM. I applaud; "..determinism will strike back". John Bell actually agreed despite his 'theorem' which most think prevents that. But it only does so for Bohr's 'assumptions', of which Bell thought "the founding fathers were wrong". (see my essay.
Actually if you read my last years finalist essay you'll see you're right & determinism HAS struck back! The problem now is not identifying a physical solution but overcoming embedded irrational beliefs!
Let me give you a quick taster; Use a spinning sphere instead of a 2D coin (nature is 3D!). Now ask each time of the point closest to you;,1. is the motion clockwise or anti clockwise? and 2. It it moving Up or Down? OK?
That's easy,..until a pole or a point on the equator is facing you!
If that dynamic (as 'absorption & re-emission vectors) simplifies momentum exchange on particle interactions (with just a few more parts to the sequence) then the rebel alliance wins! Unfortunately the troglodyte Empire of Academia just ignores it! The problem is perhaps really then one of cognitive dissonance.
This year I dig down to the foundations, and show the implications of the more solid & coherent causal ones. I hope you'll read and score it. Your 1.5 is a disgrace, but probably trolls, as mine's had a few 1's as well. Mine will take it back up a bit!
Thanks for the breath of fresh air.
Very best
Peter
Dear Ed,
A fine essay. You make many good points about statistics and QM, and the need for a deeper ontological framework as QM is not a complete theory, nor can it ever be one.
Another statistician, Caroline H. Thompson, has also presented many fine arguments against QM in the early EPR experiments, some years ago. (Her papers are well worth a read, and are available on arXiv and Researchgate. See for example A Hidden Variable Explanation of Aspect's Asymmetry Anomalies or EPR, Magic and the Nature of Light)
I will pick up a point you made in your essay. You said "If you throw a book in the fire then the information contained in the book is not lost, but it is impossible to get it afterwards from the ashes, but here statistics cannot help you."
I would argue that the laws of physics do not equally run forward and backward in time, hence the information contained in the book is lost forever. However, the matter that formed the book (protons, neutrons and electrons) are not lost but continue their existence. [Unless of course one or more particles are annihilated by a corresponding anti-particle]
Check out my essay "Wandering towards a 'Theory of Everything' and how I was stopped from achieving my goal by Nature", where I make an observation about wave/particle duality, based on one's interpretation of the nature of a photon and whether the laws of physics work the same forward and backward in time.
Good luck,
Lockie Cresswell
