arXiv:quant-ph/0504089

Hidden variables and hidden time in quantum theory

Pavel Vyacheslavovich Kurakin

Published Apr 12, 2005• 3 citations

Abstract

Bell's theorem proves only that hidden variables evolving in true physical time can't exist; still the theorem's meaning is usually interpreted intolerably wide. The concept of hidden time (and, in general, hidden space-time) is introduced. Such concept provides a whole new class of physical theories, fully compatible with current knowledge, but giving new tremendous possibilities. Those theories do not violate Bell's theorem.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0504089

Related papers

Hidden time interpretation of quantum mechanics and no-protocol argument

P. V. Kurakin

Previously suggested hidden time interpretation of quantum mechanics allows to reproduce the same predictions as standard quantum mechanics provides, since it is based on Feynman many - paths formulation of QM. While new experimental consequences of this interpretation are under investigation, some advantages can be enumerated. (1) The interpretation is much field theoretic - like in classical sense, so it is local in mathematical sense, though quantum (physical) non-locality is preserved. (2) The interpretation is based on one type of mathematical objects, rather than two different (Hilbert space vectors and operators). (3) The interpretation, as it was argued, overcomes the problem of hidden variables in a radically new way, with no conflict to Bell's theorem. Recently an important argument against hidden variables - like formulations of quantum theory was risen - "no protocol" argument. It is argued in the paper, that hidden time interpretation successfully overcomes this argument.

arXiv:0711.2380Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIEMar 3, 20080 citations

The EPR paradox, hidden variables, and Bell's theorem

Marlan O. Scully, Muhammad Suhail Zubairy

Quantum mechanics is an immensely successful theory, occupying a unique position in the history of science. It has solved mysteries ranging from macroscopic superconductivity to the microscopic theory of elementary particles and has provided deep insights into the nature of vacuum on the one hand and the description of the nucleon on the other. Whole new fields such as quantum optics and quantum electronics owe their very existence to this body of knowledge. However, despite the stunning successes of quantum mechanics, there is no general agreement on the conceptual foundations and interpretation of the subject. The theory provides unambiguous information about the outcome of a measurement of a physical object. However, many feel that it does not provide a satisfactory answer to the nature of the “reality” we should attribute to the physical objects between the acts of measurement. The conceptual difficulty comes about because the wave function |ψ〉 is usually given by a coherent superposition of various distinguishable experimental outcomes. If we denote the collection of states that represent the possible outcomes of an experiment by |ψ j 〉, then |ψ〉 = ∑ j c j |ψ j 〉 where c j = 〈ψ j |ψ〉. The probability of the outcome |ψ j 〉 is P j =|c j | 2 . In the process of measurement, the so called collapse of the wave function takes place and a single, definite state |ψ i 〉 of the physical object is chosen. The difficulty comes about in the interpretation of the mechanism by which this definite state is chosen from amongst all the possible outcomes.

Cambridge University Press eBooksSep 4, 19971 citation

What is wrong with von Neumann's theorem on "no hidden variables"

Elemér Elad Rosinger

It is shown that, although correct mathematically, the celebrated 1932 theorem of von Neumann which is often interpreted as proving the impossibility of the existence of "hidden variables" in Quantum Mechanics, is in fact based on an assumption which is physically not reasonable. Apart from that, the alleged conclusion of von Neumann proving the impossibility of the existence of "hidden variables" was already set aside in 1952 by the counterexample of the possibility of a physical theory, such as given by what is usually called the "Bohmian Mechanics". Similar arguments apply to other two well known mathematical theorems, namely, of Gleason, and of Kochen and Specker, which have often been seen as equally proving the impossibility of the existence of "hidden variables" in Quantum Mechanics.

arXiv:quant-ph/0408191Aug 31, 20047 citations

A possible loophole in the theorem of Bell

K. Hess, Walter Philipp

The celebrated inequalities of Bell are based on the assumption that local hidden parameters exist. When combined with conflicting experimental results, these inequalities appear to prove that local hidden parameters cannot exist. This contradiction suggests to many that only instantaneous action at a distance can explain the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen type of experiments. We show that, in addition to the assumption that hidden parameters exist, Bell tacitly makes a variety of other assumptions that contribute to his being able to obtain the desired contradiction. For instance, Bell assumes that the hidden parameters do not depend on time and are governed by a single probability measure independent of the analyzer settings. We argue that the exclusion of time has neither a physical nor a mathematical basis but is based on Bell's translation of the concept of Einstein locality into the language of probability theory. Our additional set of local hidden variables includes time-like correlated parameters and a generalized probability density. We prove that our extended space of local hidden variables does not permit Bell-type proofs to go forward.

Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesNov 27, 200181 citations

Hidden Variables and Incompatible Observables in Quantum Mechanics

Benjamin H. Feintzeig

This article takes up a suggestion that the reason we cannot find certain hidden variable theories for quantum mechanics, as in Bell’s theorem, is that we require them to assign joint probability distributions on incompatible observables. These joint distributions are problematic because they are empirically meaningless on one standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. Some have proposed getting around this problem by using generalized probability spaces. I present a theorem to show a sense in which generalized probability spaces can’t serve as hidden variable theories for quantum mechanics, so the proposal for getting around Bell’s theorem fails. 1 Introduction2 Bell’s Theorem and Classical Probability Spaces 2.1 Bell’s derivation of the Bell inequalities 2.2 Pitowsky’s derivation of the Bell inequalities3 Incompatible Observables4 Generalized Probability Spaces5 A ‘No-Go’ Theorem6 Conclusions

The British Journal for the Philosophy of ScienceAug 31, 20145 citations

Against Bell's Theorem

Andrea Aiello

Bell's theorem supposedly demonstrates an irreconcilable conflict between quantum mechanics and local, realistic hidden variable theories. In this paper we show that all experiments that aim to prove Bell's theorem do not actually achieve this goal. Our conclusions are based on a straightforward statistical analysis of the outcomes of these experiments. The key tool in our study is probability theory and, in particular, the concept of sample space for the dichotomic random variables that quantifies the outcomes of such experiments. We also show that an experimental proof of Bell's theorem is not, in principle, impossible, but it would require a completely different experimental apparatus than those commonly used to allegedly achieve this objective. The main consequence of our work is that we cannot dismiss local realistic hidden variable theories on the basis of currently available experimental data.

arXiv:2406.03028Jun 5, 20240 citations