2,469 reputation
1222
bio website staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101
location Utrecht, Netherlands
age
visits member for 2 years
seen Feb 4 at 15:15

Theoretical physicist, Utrecht University.

University Professor. Elementary particle physics, quantum gravity, black holes, quantum mechanics.

Won some prizes (such as the nobel prize 1999), but please don't hold that against me.


Aug
9
awarded  Yearling
Dec
16
awarded  Nice Answer
Dec
16
awarded  Necromancer
Oct
21
awarded  Nice Answer
Oct
14
awarded  Nice Answer
Sep
23
awarded  Nice Answer
Sep
1
awarded  Enthusiast
Aug
9
awarded  Yearling
Jul
24
awarded  Necromancer
May
10
awarded  Nice Answer
Mar
25
awarded  Favorite Question
Mar
1
comment How does Bell's theorem rule out the possibility of local hidden variables?
@Gugg: I just don't agree with the Zeilinger quote. Determinism indeed implies that the experimenter's decisions, and questions, are generated by physical forces themselves, so his attitude would dismiss determinism categorically, and I am not ready to go that far. And my bottom line remains to be a simple one: I now have models telling me what might happen, and what they say does not disturb me. Important: I still keep causality intact.
Mar
1
comment How does Bell's theorem rule out the possibility of local hidden variables?
@user7348 : Non-locality would generate serious trouble with special relativity and causality. And I don't need it. That's why I don't introduce it. Non-local correlations is not the same as non-locality in the equations of motion. In QFT, the equations of motion are local but the vacuum-correlations are not. This is because the vacuum is a special solution of the e.o.m.
Feb
27
revised How does Bell's theorem rule out the possibility of local hidden variables?
deleted 4 characters in body
Feb
27
answered How does Bell's theorem rule out the possibility of local hidden variables?
Feb
27
comment What are the 't Hooft papers about classical models underlying QM?
except that it raises the suspicion that what's really happening in this world might be just these ontological states, and the rest is due to our limited understanding, somewhat contaminated with some sort of religious feeling that God likes to superimpose. So, the answer to @Motl's objection is that it's our equations used to describe observed reality that allow for superpositions, not reality itself. I thought that this statement would be trivial and unimportant, but if not understanding it causes someone to reject the models first-hand, apparently the statement is important after all.
Feb
27
comment What are the 't Hooft papers about classical models underlying QM?
Our theory is now that physicists describing the real world have no way of knowing whether they are describing an ontological event, or just any other solution of their equations (except when it's about cats, where we think we DO know!). The simple reason for this is that Schroedinger's equation is linear. We keep that property throughout. But now I add something new: a true, ontological state should, some way or other, evolve to become again a true, ontological state. That's just a constraint on the set of Schroedinger's equations that we impose. What's wrong with that? Nothing of course,
Feb
27
comment What are the 't Hooft papers about classical models underlying QM?
There's this little point that @Motl failed to grasp about these models: It's the "ontological, true" events described here that are such that any superposition of such events is NOT an ontological event. That's just like cats: the dead cat is ontological, the live one is, but any superposition of the two isn't, or at least, that's the case in our models. Now the superposition of the two cats DOES obey Schroedinger's equation. What I have done is take all "ontological" states of a system and look at the equations they obey. Now superpositions of ontological states also obey the equations.
Dec
27
awarded  Good Answer
Nov
8
comment Will Determinism be ever possible?
sigoldberg1 and Seamus's remarks about Laplace apply if the world is described by real numbers. The problem with real numbers is that they each require infinite sets of digits. If you can't control the millionth digit you will have indeterminism. This problem would not arise if we would have theories based only on integers, or even better, bounded integers.