129 reputation
5
bio website jheriko-rtw.blogspot.com
location United Kingdom
age 30
visits member for 1 year, 5 months
seen Jan 20 at 16:12
I'm a self taught C/C++/PHP/C#/VB/JavaScript/etc. programmer.

Jan
9
comment How is this not a violation of CPT symmetry?
now, if i use a neutron instead and pretend there are no residual forces at play and consider gravity I get a similar situation - except that the trajectory is not reversed under a charge or parity reversal. now i believe that this disobeys the laws of gravitation unless the law is transformed as well (there are no repulsive forces without negative mass afaik, and unlike signs will repel) - but then this seems to be nearly trivial - it will take exceptional cases to break that symmetry then, surely - like the values involved not being regular old real numbers?
Jan
9
comment How is this not a violation of CPT symmetry?
"only that the transformed situation (which may be different) is also a valid solution of the laws" - does this mean the laws having the transformation applied as well? i came to a similar conclusion as the op but thinking about electron and a proton, in the proton's frame time reversal does nothing to it, but it makes the electron behave as a positive charge would if time were not reversed...
Mar
12
awarded  Teacher
Mar
12
answered How do we show that no hidden variable theories can replace QM?
Mar
12
comment How do we show that no hidden variable theories can replace QM?
thanks. i have no problem with the calculations or math - but trying to understand the framework and what it means is much more challenging. :) I have a much better feel for this now... and my original objection was valid - just scary how many people I have asked this and gotten either the wrong answer back or no answer - perhaps because of my unfamiliarity with classical physics the ideas of locality and reality seem far crazier to me than schrodinger's cat! I didn't realise that this isn't considered a special corner case... it feels like, intuitively, it is just that. Any book suggestions?
Feb
28
comment How do we show that no hidden variable theories can replace QM?
Cool. I'd like to understand this better... but i'm struggling to find good reference material. Perhaps spending a lot more time calculating things will give me more insight. :)
Feb
26
awarded  Commentator
Feb
25
comment How do we show that no hidden variable theories can replace QM?
Thanks for confirming that my use of 'hidden local variables' is incorrect - I've always construed this to mean something more like something computable in a deterministic fashion. I should stop abusing the comment system now... :)
Feb
25
comment How do we show that no hidden variable theories can replace QM?
So, to address the first issue, I like your answer, but I feel it glosses over a point that I fail to explain in enough detail, and perhaps I use bad terminology... You say "We can only predetermine probabilities, and this does not make QM deterministic in any way." - I think that the model is deterministic in terms of the complex valued wave function and that the conversion into probability by taking the norm is the operation which makes it probabilistic, and correspond with our perceptions of the universe. The fact that it is empirically proven and not explained, for me, misses something...
Feb
25
awarded  Supporter
Feb
25
comment How do we show that no hidden variable theories can replace QM?
Thanks for the reply. I have continued to do research after being frustrated with the comments etc. I think I am learning something...
Feb
25
comment How do we show that no hidden variable theories can replace QM?
Importantly the existing answers found through search don't seem consistent... there seem to be conflicting opinions and tremendous amount of defensiveness with no justification.
Feb
25
comment How do we show that no hidden variable theories can replace QM?
My personal belief is that I don't understand what is meant by hidden (local or not) variable theories. However, this is incredibly easy to point out for nobody to have ever done it - further everyone I have asked this seems to act as if my interpretation is correct. However, the most direct and useful answers on here seem to confirm that the term is confusing and also that my understanding is spot on. This is an uncomfortable situation... it leads me to believe that most of the community have no idea what they are doing and are just practising some kind of advanced rote memorisation...
Feb
25
comment How do we show that no hidden variable theories can replace QM?
I have read several of these. They do not seem to address the point clearly, if at all - I am clearly missing something and nobody seems willing to offer information to fill the gap. I've been asking this question for 10 years now - maybe I am very stupid and incapable of learning - on the other hand no physics student at university or teacher at school has ever answered the question with anything better than 'i am convinced you can't model qm with a lower level classical theory and if i had my textbooks i could show you, but right now i don't know enough to address the question'.
Feb
25
comment How do we show that no hidden variable theories can replace QM?
i can show you by instruction exactly how to produce equations that conform precisely with experiments (up to measurement errors) - a number of interpolation schemes have this property, but it does not validate them as laws of nature... despite overwhelming experimental evidence. now, my key problem is that because i can do this i feel it is a hidden variable theory and disproves that no hidden variable theory is possible because i can construct N which produce the same or better agreement with experiments as QM... or am i deluding myself somewhere in that chain of thought?
Feb
25
comment How do we show that no hidden variable theories can replace QM?
@Lubos why so offended? your attitude is exactly what gives academics a bad rep with guys like me (maybe i am jumping to assumptions by assuming you are academic) - your ohm's law example is flawed to me because i can say a lot about the quantities involved, where they come from and even a bit about why the law is obeyed. also, i can construct arbitrary fudgy equations that agree with experiments to any precision - this does not validate those equations - they might be specific to a range etc. this is fine for practical application, but its not what i am after...
Feb
25
comment How do we show that no hidden variable theories can replace QM?
fyi i am completely self taught.
Feb
25
comment How do we show that no hidden variable theories can replace QM?
maybe my tone is demeaning - it was not intended. i really am missing something. clearly the first thing here is that the probabilistic nature is more than just a fudge that agrees with experiment - understanding this one thing might solve my problems. can you point me at something less vague than pointing out the nobel prize? i am aware of that work - it is fairly famous - but i have not seen anything explanatory about it... i'm not questioning that it doesn't hold up experimentally - maybe that is another problem - i want to grasp the theory rather than merely calculate with it.
Feb
25
awarded  Student
Feb
25
asked How do we show that no hidden variable theories can replace QM?