0
$\begingroup$

I've thought of an interpretation of quantum mechanics which I have so far been unable to find anywhere in the literature. Since the subject has been studied for so long, I am fairly sure that my interpretation is nothing new; however, it would be very helpful to know whether it agrees with experimental results, and if so, what its name is.

My interpretation is a local, counterfactually definite hidden variable theory; however, it remains consistent with the experimental violation of Bell's Inequality by contesting the possibility of consistent measurement. The result of the measurement is so sensitive to the measurement device setup (exact orientation of a polarizer, etc.) that we cannot realistically measure the "same" property multiple times. In this way, the well-known probability distribution associated with the wavefunction does not reflect a true internal randomness, but a chaotic sensitivity to small unknown deviations in our measuring apparatus; this averages out to give the appearance of intrinsic randomness. While this interpretation technically violates Bell's Theorem, it is not currently falsifiable because it yields the same predictions as QM with our current measurement devices.

In other words, my interpretation is identical to the Copenhagen interpretation, albeit with a different source of "randomness." Should our measurement devices become consistent enough (which they are not yet today), experiments will no longer show a Bell Theorem violation.

Are there any experimental results contradicting this interpretation? If not, does anybody know who invented it and what it is called?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How would this interpretation work for something like the double slit experiment? It seems like this is just trying to make your measurement device the quantum device so that uncertainty can be removed from the particles you are measuring. Original interpretations of uncertainty in measurement were based on the concept of imprecise measurement devices but the uncertainty principle itself says that there is inherent uncertainty in the ability to know exactly what is the momentum and position of a particle at the same time, it was originally proposed that measurement affect the system. $\endgroup$ – A. C. A. C. Sep 13 '17 at 22:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As a practical matter, you would have to explain why subsequent measurements when we believe we have set the polarizer to the same setting are highly repeatable, while this chaos is only relevant when we use different settings. I'm not sure this will work without assuming something like superdeterminism, that is that the universe is conspiring to make just the measurements that would disprove QM difficult. $\endgroup$ – Rococo Sep 14 '17 at 0:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.