|
|
|
|
|
|
by vecter
1955 days ago
|
|
|
What you want is a theory of local hidden variables. [0] They are at odds with what quantum mechanics predicts (and what we have observed). On a semi-related note, I might be reading too much into your comment, but I very much dislike when people imply that scientists haven’t thought outside or the box or tried other non-mainstream theories. They try all the time, but fail because those theories often aren’t true. What we’re left with are the best extant theories, even if they’re obvious incomplete. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_hidden-variable_theory?w... |
|
|
My point is that the notion of "measurement" or "wave function collapse" simply don't seem to explain anything. Instead they are just different words for what we observe. So yes, that is certainly useful but it also seems to be limiting.
A simple question would be: What is "measurement", i.e. what is the fundamental thing that forces a probability distribution to yield a concrete value? And why does it exist separately from said probability distribution?
Edit: to make things even clearer: I am not lamenting that there is no one working on mathematically consistent interpretations of QM. I know people are doing that and I know that this is difficult. Instead I am asking what would be a clearly visible limit of QM. Where would we, as a society, encounter a situation where we say: "We really need to explain the reasons behind QM or we won't get that problem here solved."