From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Hidden variable theories, was: Uncertainty Princi
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:51:00 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1992Sep8.144555.455@cine88.cineca.it>, campo@sunthpi3.difi.unipi.it (Massimo Campostrini) writes:

>   To be precise, any "hidden variables"-type theory consistent with
> quantum mechanics must be nonlocal. Quantum electrodynamics and other
> relativistic quantum field theories are local, according to any
> reasonable definition of locality. (I agree that locality of
> non-relativistic quantum mechanics is debatable.)

The Schrodinger equation is local. Quantum mechanics plus the collapse
postulate is a nonlocal theory that predicts nonlocal experimentally
detectable effects.  Any theory of any form that is consistent with quantum
mechanics must also be nonlocal. 

> Again, instantaneous transmission of information happens in an
> underlying hidden variables theory. In the quantum theory, since it
> cannot be used to send a signal, this transmission of information is
> absent by definition.

This is false. The Shannon definition of information is that it allows one
to select a limited number of alternatives from a wider range of
possibilities. Encrypted data is information even though you cannot
determine what the data is without a decryption key. In a test of Bell's
inequality, we know from a local observation something about two things
that happened at a distant site. These two things are the observation made
at the distant site and the angle of a polarizer at a distant site. We do
not know either of these, but we know something about the combination
of the two of them. This is information and it is transmitted instantaneously
if the instantaneous collapse postulate is true.

> Also only the hidden variables theory has to
> give up causality; e.g. quantum electrodynamics strictly respects
> causality.

You are dead wrong again. In a test of Bell's inequality manipulating a
local polarizer must instantaneously *affect* what happens at a remote
location. Thus either relativity, which is part of quantum electrodynamics
is false, or causality is violated. See P. H. Eberhard, Il Nuvo Cimento 46 B,
392, (1978) for a complete detailed analysis of this.

>    Since quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics etc. give
> (unambiguous) predictions verified by experiments with an incredible
> accuracy (e.g.: hydrogen atom and positronium energy levels, electron
> and muon magnetic moment), according to Occam's Razor we must held
> these theories true until experimental evidence suggests otherwise. 
>    I find "methodologically wrong" to think that, since a few
> predictions of an otherwise very successful theory have not (yet) been
> tested, the theory should be considered wrong.

But I do not think the parts of the theory that give these
validated results are wrong. There is a trivial change one
can make to quantum mechanics to produce a theory that has been validated
to the same degree and that is completely local. One replaces the collapse
postulate with the following alternative.

   Quantum collapse is engendered by experimental conditions designed to
   observe the classical parameters of a system. It is an objective event
   that occurs for a variety of reasons that are not fully understood or
   part of current theory. It has a local Lorentz invariant structure and
   will thus occur spontaneously before the point that an experiment would
   result in violating locality.

The alternatives we face are a local incomplete theory or a nonlocal
quasi-mystical (quantum collapse is caused by a conscious observer)
complete theory. I see no reason to prefer the existing
collapse postulate. On two occasions I have challenged the readers
of this newsgroup to come up with an *objective* reason for preferring the
nonlocal theory and none has been forthcoming.

Paul Budnik
Newsgroups: sci.physics