From: snodgras@crash.cts.com (John Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: Hidden Variables
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:27:29 GMT

In <1992Aug16.203826.10685@galois.mit.edu> tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:

>In _Quantum_Mechanics_ be P.J.E. Peebles he states that a local hidden
>variables theory is wrong and gives a convincing argument.  ("Local" means
>that is satisfies certain locality assumptions---that the hidden variables
>are not coupled to the choice of measurements made.)  My questions:

>1. How accurate is Peebles' claim?  To what extent can it be proved that
>nobody will ever devise a local hidden variables theory?

      The notion that it can be proved one way or another is itself a notion
part-in-parcel with the current paradigm. One often reads that Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle has been proved, or put another way that it is a fact
of nature that was discovered. In truth it is merely a mathematical formulation
based on a history of assumptions, a formulation which has been taken as
literal truth. The layers of assumption start with the origins of quantum
theory, i.e. that 'energy' (which was first considered a substance, then
recognized as motion, then again viewed as 'packetized' and hence a substance
for the second time) that energy is REAL, and that the mathematical formalisms
used to describe quantum emission are actual -- a notion Planck himself
disputed. From there we move into statistical description of e.g. orbits
of electron (or shells) and based on properties of these highly abstract
formalisms, we end up with Heisenberg's principle and the rejection of
'determinism'. Now, when you talk about undermining such a notion, or bringing
together evidence against it, you're talking about events which must take
place for the overthrow of a paradigm, not about some little experiment
someone does somewhere. A shift in belief systems is required.


>2. Are there any plausible non-local hidden variables theories around?

      The very manner in which the question is phrased precludes a
positive answer. A theory which obviates the uncertainty principle would
have to be alot more than plausible to overthrow quantum theory.


>I frequently encounter technically naive philosophers who have a strong
>feeling that nature is fundamentally deterministic, and so I'm interested
>in seeing how strongly one can argue against hidden variable theories.

      I frequently encounter philosophically (or historically) naive
scientists, who seem to overlook the most obvious philosophical contradictions
in favor of strict belief in the current paradigm. As far as your interest
in arguing against hidden variables, you'll only be satisfied (I suspect)
with an argument phrased in the terms of quantum theory itself, or at least
within the geometrical paradigm of 'explanation by equation'. But how much
interest do you have in an argument which rejects this notion that
mathematics, whether statistical or geometric, can fill the role of cause
in scientific explanation? Otherwise, you might as well read Einstein's
arguments! Wasn't he just about the last official holdout against quantum
physics?

>-- 
>Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu

      John Snodgrass
      --------------
      snodgras@crash.cts.com
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech