Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I just recently stumbled over and

As the title suggests these are presentations of mathematical models capable of simulating quantum "effects" on an event-by-event basis using "Deterministic Learning Machine" Models.

What is the state of discussion regarding this? Is this bad science? or really accepted alternative way to tackle the pure output side of the experiments?

What does this add to the available interpretations of quantum-phenomena?

share|cite|improve this question
I can answer some of your questions but could you clarify what you mean by "pure output side of the experiments"? – Chris Ferrie Mar 18 '12 at 23:23
actually that is bad wording, i guess. In other words I mean: is this really an alternative way to calculate the expected outputs of the experiments ... in contrast to: an alternative explanation of the experiments. Are those just alternative/additional tools allowing to calculate the outputs/results in accordance with quantum mechanics? Not being a native speaker nor a scientist I'm struggling here to find the "correct" words ;) cheers – pointernil Mar 19 '12 at 5:23
up vote 2 down vote accepted

First the easy part: this is not bad science and it is a valid explanation of current experiments. Now, in my personal opinion, the authors did not do the best job presenting these results to the quantum foundations community -- I'm referring to the simulation of Bell inequality violation experiments here. In the later papers (here is a list) in this series, however, it is explicitly stated which so-called "loopholes" the authors are exploiting.

So, to be clear, the authors have a valid local hidden variable model of real experiments, not of the hypothetical ideal experiments for which Bell's original theorem applies. However, other authors have generalized the theorem to apply to more experimentally realistic situations. For example, the relevant one for these models is the inclusion of the "time-coincidence" loophole by Larsson and Gill (initiated in this paper).

Explicitly constructed models which exploit the loopholes in Bell experiments are not really an active area of research. My impression is the vast majority of the quantum community believes that there will eventually be a "loophole-free" test which refutes them all. Moreover, since most hidden variable models which exploit loopholes are contrived to to do just that, they do not give us any deeper insights into nature -- and hence offer no contribution to interpretations of quantum theory.

share|cite|improve this answer
any hints reg. what the availability of those discrete models means for the interpretations of quantum mechanics? Isn't this giving any insight behind the curtain of nature? just curious. thanks! – pointernil Mar 19 '12 at 16:54
I added the last sentence to address that part of the question. – Chris Ferrie Mar 19 '12 at 17:42
Did i get it right: the models can only be made to deliver the right/expected numbers because they exploit some "loopholes" which are believed to not exist in nature? – pointernil Mar 19 '12 at 21:34
You're close to the right idea. Although, loopholes do indeed exist -- they are a property of the experiment, not nature. And it is believed that some future experiment will have none. – Chris Ferrie Mar 19 '12 at 23:57
Thanks you for the explanations. cheers – pointernil Mar 20 '12 at 10:27

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.