From: ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de
In sci.physics.relativity, guido wugi wrote or quoted:
>Long before our scientist has opened the box or told his friend, the
>cat, and flask, and hammer, and Geiger counter, have each already (or
>not) suffered interaction and "know" their state, each from its own
>wavefunction as it were.
So in this setup, that state would count as a "hidden parameter". But
quantum mechanics doesn't allow for those, at least not if you stick
to its usual assumptions.
The thing is, quantum mechanics keeps pumping out results that pret-
ty much mess with our normal idea of cause and effect. For a long
time, people thought maybe there were unseen "hidden variables" be-
hind the scenes, quietly deciding what actually happens in those
quantum experiments - like maybe all the weirdness was just because
we were missing some info. But experiments based on Bell's inequal-
ities and the Kochen-Specker theorem have pretty much ruled that
out. You just can't build any local or non-contextual hidden-vari-
able model that nails everything quantum mechanics predicts.
Still, those results depend on the assumptions you make. Bell's in-
equalities knock out local hidden variables - stuff that acts indepen-
dently at each spot - when the correlations between particles go past
a certain point. And yeah, that's been backed up again and again in
loophole-free tests. The Kochen-Specker theorem kills off the idea
of non-contextual hidden variables, meaning measurement results can't
be locked in ahead of time without considering how you're measuring.
So the only way hidden-variable theories survive is by ditching lo-
cality, realism, or non-contextuality - like in "contextual" models or
straight-up non-local takes such as Bohmian mechanics.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
