-5

Is it too strong a claim (i.e. unprovable) to say that no being (hypothetical or otherwise) could possibly predict the outcome of every individual measurement of any quantum system with certainty? Give your best reasonings on the topic.

Joseph Robert Jepson
  • 62
  • 6
  • What experiment do you propose to test your hypothesis? – John Doty Dec 13 '23 at 20:19
  • Good question, always the one that should be asked. :-) Not sure actually. I know the measurement problem is a big one in physics. – Joseph Robert Jepson Dec 13 '23 at 20:21
  • 3
    Nah, the measurement problem isn't much of a problem at all: experiment matches theory. It's only a "problem" because the way the Universe works doesn't match how we'd like to imagine it works. – John Doty Dec 13 '23 at 20:24
  • There is no such thing as "proven fundamental" until all knowledge is found. – Themis Dec 13 '23 at 20:27
  • The behaviour of a truly random system can still be predicted so your definition (as it stands) is incorrect. – Prahar Dec 13 '23 at 20:28
  • I'm talking specifically about the outcome of an individual measurement. – Joseph Robert Jepson Dec 13 '23 at 20:29
  • You can do quantum mechanics without any particular (quantum) interpretation. – Tobias Fünke Dec 13 '23 at 21:19
  • Even the outcome of an individual quantum measurement can be shown to be directly contradictory to some of the assumptions you are making (and can even be predicted exactly). The GHZ Theorem does exactly that. But you should read my answer below and learn about Bell and Uncertainty before tackling GHZ, which is extremely complex to follow. – DrChinese Dec 13 '23 at 21:30
  • https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116595/why-is-the-application-of-probability-in-quantum-mechanics-fundamentally-differe/116604#116604 – alanf Dec 14 '23 at 08:56

1 Answers1

2

You are asking 2 different questions.

  1. Randomness: Of course, the outcomes of quantum processes appear random and can be certified as such to a high degree. So what you are then asking is "how can you prove there is no underlying root cause" that would itself explain each and every outcome?

That in turn brings up EPR, Bell's Theorem and the experiments of Aspect (and thousands of others). Are you familiar with these? If not, you need to study those. There are literally thousands of papers and references on these, google them to gain insight on hidden variables and the like.

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

My own page on Bell: https://www.drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem.htm

  1. Do quantum particles have definite properties? Sure, experiments show they do. Do quantum particles have all properties, definite at all times? That is a direct contradiction to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP). Non-commuting properties - such as position and momentum of an electron - do not have sharply defined values at all times. This too has been demonstrated in thousands of experiments. It clearly has nothing to do with our ability to measure some of these properties very precisely.

Again, if you are not familiar with the HUP, you won't get far towards answering your question(s).

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Stanford's Plato: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/#:~:text=Roughly%20speaking%2C%20the%20uncertainty%20principle,momentum%20of%20a%20physical%20system.

DrChinese
  • 1,036