Content deleted Content added
→Motivation: grammar: fix S/V-NUM-agreement (use plural verb) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: title. Add: s2cid, authors 1-1. Removed proxy/dead URL that duplicated identifier. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Corvus florensis | #UCB_webform 1989/2499 |
||
Line 13:
Such a classical mechanics would eliminate unsettling characteristics of quantum theory like the [[uncertainty principle]]. More fundamentally however, a successful model of quantum phenomena with hidden variables implies quantum entities with intrinsic values independent of measurements. Existing quantum mechanics asserts that state properties can only be known after a measurement. As [[N. David Mermin]] puts it:
{{quote |"It is a fundamental quantum doctrine that a measurement does not, in general, reveal a pre-existing value of the measured property. On the contrary, the outcome of a measurement is brought into being by the act of measurement itself..."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mermin |first=N. David |date=1993-07-01 |title=Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell |url=https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.65.803 |journal=Reviews of Modern Physics |language=en |volume=65 |issue=3 |pages=803–815 |doi=10.1103/RevModPhys.65.803 |issn=0034-6861|arxiv=1802.10119 |s2cid=119546199 }}</ref>}}
For example, whereas a hidden-variable theory would imply intrinsic particle properties, in quantum mechanics an electron has no definite position and velocity to even ''be'' revealed.
Line 19:
=== "God does not play dice" ===
In June 1926, [[Max Born]] published a paper,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Born |first=Max |date=1926 |title=Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF01397477 |journal=Zeitschrift für Physik |language=de |volume=37 |issue=12 |pages=863–867 |doi=10.1007/BF01397477 |s2cid=119896026 |issn=1434-6001}}</ref> in which he was the first to clearly enunciate the probabilistic interpretation of the quantum [[wavefunction|wave function]], which had been introduced by [[Erwin Schrödinger]] earlier in the year. Born concluded the paper as follows:
<blockquote>Here the whole problem of determinism comes up. From the standpoint of our quantum mechanics there is no quantity which in any individual case causally fixes the consequence of the collision; but also experimentally we have so far no reason to believe that there are some inner properties of the atom which conditions a definite outcome for the collision. Ought we to hope later to discover such properties ... and determine them in individual cases? Or ought we to believe that the agreement of theory and experiment—as to the impossibility of prescribing conditions for a causal evolution—is a pre-established harmony founded on the nonexistence of such conditions? I myself am inclined to give up determinism in the world of atoms. But that is a philosophical question for which physical arguments alone are not decisive.</blockquote>
Line 48:
der Fries’schen Schule 6, 75–152 (1935). English translation: Chapter 15 of “Grete Hermann —
Between physics and philosophy”, Elise Crull and Guido Bacciagaluppi, eds., Springer, 2016, 239-
278. [Volume 42 of Studies in History and Philosophy of Science]</ref> and later by [[John Stewart Bell]]; the critical issue concerned averages over ensembles.<ref>{{Cite journal |
=== EPR paradox ===
| |||