Timeline for How do we know that Quantum Mechanics isn't simply a theory of approximations? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2017 at 16:42 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | I am closing this question as a duplicate, because the essentials ("how do we know QM isn't just a hidden-variable theory?") are so much of a well-trod ground on this site that this question should not go on the Hot Network Questions sidebar - it's just not constructive enough to be representative of this site, and to the extent that the topic is worthy of further discussion, this question is simply not couched in sufficient nuance to really advance that conversation. I'm reluctant to answer-then-close, but this one really doesn't deserve the spotlight. | |
| Jun 17, 2017 at 16:34 | history | duplicates list edited | Emilio Pisanty | duplicates list edited from How do we know that there isn't a classical solution to the measurement problem/Quantum Mechanical uncertainty? to How can we be sure that nature isn't "faking" quantum statistics? [closed], How do we know that there isn't a classical solution to the measurement problem/Quantum Mechanical uncertainty? | |
| Jun 17, 2017 at 16:34 | history | closed | Emilio Pisanty quantum-mechanics Users with the quantum-mechanics badge or a synonym can single-handedly close quantum-mechanics questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed. | Duplicate of How do we know that there isn't a classical solution to the measurement problem/Quantum Mechanical uncertainty? | |
| Jun 17, 2017 at 14:58 | answer | added | Cham | timeline score: -2 | |
| Jun 17, 2017 at 13:39 | answer | added | Emilio Pisanty | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jun 17, 2017 at 13:22 | comment | added | Alfred Centauri | TreFox, I'm just guessing on why anyone would down-vote but I do think it helps to put into a question at least some passing mention of what you've looked up here or elsewhere and tie that in with your question. For example, see this similar question: Is the Copenhagen interpretation merely an approximation to quantum mechanics? | |
| Jun 17, 2017 at 13:01 | comment | added | Nico A | @AlfredCentauri To be honest, there was research effort, but not many results - googling this question is very tricky if you don't know the terminology (even putting it into words here was hard). The wiki page for hidden variables explains all of this, but I'll leave this up in case anyone else is having trouble finding reference on this problem. | |
| Jun 17, 2017 at 12:55 | comment | added | Alfred Centauri | @AccidentalFourierTransform, a question may be well written and not silly and still not show any research effort. I suspect that's the reason for the downvotes. | |
| Jun 17, 2017 at 12:50 | comment | added | AccidentalFourierTransform | I really dont understand the downvotes to this question. Sure, the idea in the OP has been rejected by the scientific community, but that doesn't mean that the question is bad. The post is well-written, and the question is not silly. | |
| Jun 17, 2017 at 12:48 | comment | added | Alfred Centauri | @Alubeixu, it's not true that Bell's Theorem shows 'hidden variable' theories are not possible, only that local hidden variable theories are excluded by experiment (and even this conclusion has a 'superdeterminism' loophole) | |
| Jun 17, 2017 at 12:45 | comment | added | Alfred Centauri | Are you familiar with De Broglie–Bohm theory? | |
| Jun 17, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 17, 2017 at 12:21 | comment | added | Alubeixu | This sounds like hidden variables, which are found by Bell's Theorem and subsequent experiments to not be possible. I recommend reading the wikipedia page for this :) Hidden variables | |
| Jun 17, 2017 at 11:50 | history | asked | Nico A | CC BY-SA 3.0 |