Reputation
3,195
Top tag
Next privilege 5,000 Rep.
Approve tag wiki edits
Badges
1 15 28
Newest
 Nice Answer
Impact
~41k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 1 helpful flag
  • 3 votes cast
Jan
19
answered Deterministic quantum mechanics
Jan
19
revised Deterministic quantum mechanics
edited body
Jan
19
answered Deterministic quantum mechanics
Sep
24
awarded  Autobiographer
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.