Sci.Physics.Foundations

So, a strange thing happens after this hidden variable saga is shot down. Neither quantum nor classical mechanics actually predict what Nature does. They both predict a continuous negative cosine curve with no hidden variable but that is not what Nature does in the experiments. And there doesn't see...

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 11:07 am ... I think QM is just fine as is. ...

I should qualify that statement somewhat. It is fine without a bunch of the misinterpretations that have been put on it over the years.
.

Well Ok, thanks for trying but you seem to think a concise definition for "hidden variable" is not required any more. It can just be a free for all and defined however one wants to define it. To me, that is a bunch of nonsense. But here is what Joy and I agreed to for the definition, 1. A...

Well Ok, thanks for trying but you seem to think a concise definition for "hidden variable" is not required any more. It can just be a free for all and defined however one wants to define it. To me, that is a bunch of nonsense. But here is what Joy and I agreed to for the definition, 1. A...

Well, thanks but it doesn't resolve the dispute. Joy claims the singlet spin vector, "s", above is a hidden variable. I say it is not a hidden variable since quantum mechanics knows about it via the singlet wavefunction. What say you? What we have here is two different local EPR-Bohm mode...

The Original EPR paper proved that the Quantum Mechanical Wavefunction was not a complete description of physical reality: Previously we proved that either (1) the quantum-mechanical description of reality given by the wave function is not complete or (2) when the operators corresponding to two phy...

Anyways, we have a huge implication since there are two different local EPR-Bohm models with no hidden variables! It means that Bell's theorem may be correct but it doesn't matter because it is nonsense anyways due to specifying hidden variables that aren't even needed. So, Bell made a huge mistake...

Anyways, we have a huge implication since there are two different local EPR-Bohm models with no hidden variables! It means that Bell's theorem may be correct but it doesn't matter because it is nonsense anyways due to specifying hidden variables that aren't even needed. So, Bell made a huge mistake...

Anyways, we have a huge implication since there are two different local EPR-Bohm models with no hidden variables! It means that Bell's theorem may be correct but it doesn't matter because it is nonsense anyways due to specifying hidden variables that aren't even needed.
.

"n" is not a random variable. It is a fixed vector. "s", on the other hand, is a random hidden variable in your model. This is confirmed because, as you say, A(a, s) depends on the setting "a" and a random variable "s", which can only be a hidden variable sin...

"n" is an ordinary vector in R^3. It is not a variable in a complex-valued Hilbert space like psi is. If you want "s" not to be a hidden variable, then you must not have it in your function A(a, s). You should write that function as A(a), showing its dependence only on the setti...

Because it is. It is a random point on a 2-sphere. It is a hidden variable that originates from the source. It is not a quantum mechanical variable. The easiest way to see this is to look at your definition of the function A(a, s). It depends on the setting "a" and the hidden variable &qu...

I agree with all three. Bell also agrees with all three. In fact, everyone agrees with all three. Good. Then why are you claiming "s" is a hidden variable? It does not meet criteria number 3. "s" is in the quantum mechanical wavefunction. It is a quantum mechanical variable. . B...

In deterministic hidden variable theories, hidden variables emerge from the source, as in Bell's local model from Section 3 of his 1964 paper. But you are of course free to reject this definition and everything else from the standard hidden variable program, which goes back to Einstein. I didn't sa...

Bell's 1964 paper is online, so there is your online reference. He explains very clearly what is meant by a hidden variable. My recent paper is also online, so that is another online reference: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.09519 (see section II and III). This is what Bell wrote in his paper: By "...

The standard definition of the hidden variable "h" is that it is a random variable that originates at the source. Therefore, it can be thought of as an initial condition for the measurement functions A(a, h) = +/-1, which is supposed to be a solution of a hypothetical differential equatio...

That is better. But it is still vague. The meaning was made mathematically very precise by Bell by defining the functions A(a, h) = +/-1 as he did. That can't be very precise because we don't agree on the definition of "h". That is what this whole thread is about. So, what or how would yo...

The sentence you have quoted from Wiktionary is a confused nonsense. "Classical mechanics" is not the same thing as local and realistic. Local realism has to do with completing quantum mechanics in the sense envisaged by Einstein. Classical mechanics cannot complete quantum mechanics beca...

Ok, you can have that for your definition of a hidden variable if you wish. I suppose no one can stop you from that. I'm going to stick to, "Any parameter that would supplement quantum mechanics so as to make it like classical mechanics." For the hidden variable definition. "s" ...

You have to think about what is happening physically. Only "s" originates from the source as a random variable. So only "s" is a hidden variable in your simulation. In the old model, only orientation +/-1 originated from the source. So only orientation +/-1 was a hidden variable...