Skip to main content
Physics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

11
  • $\begingroup$ I am not sure if there is one, but how would you know that there isn't? For sure Bohmian mechanics works, but the question is if there isn't a reasonable one. No one has argued well that it is impossible, so why should 'tHooft not look? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 21, 2011 at 19:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ -1 this is not true, see my answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 21, 2011 at 20:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @newman: Bohm's theory is logically fine, it is just too big and implausible and contrived. t'Hooft is not looking for a theory which reproduces quantum mechanics. He is looking for a theory which is different from QM in a measurable way, ruling out exponentially faster quantum computation for one. Not all people who look for a different theory do not like Quantum Mechanics philosophically. I personally find the quantum philosophy incredible and profound, and it is my first love. But that doesn't make it the final answer, so it is irresponsible not to dig deeper. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 21, 2011 at 23:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Newman: quantum mechanics is a non-probability calculus, because it deals with probability amplitudes which only become probabilities during the act of measurement. A probability amplitude is not a probability, because there is no good way to put together answers to the questions "probability of what?" It is much more physical than probability, because of interference effects. But it is not quite as physical as a separate universe, because you can't solve NP complete problems. So it is intermediate between ignorance and many-worlds, how far it goes this way or that, you decide. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 22, 2011 at 19:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The new version v3 of my paper quant-ph/ 1405.1548 was sent to the ArXiv today (Dec 21, 2015): "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”. Criticism is always welcome, even if it comes from amateurs, although I cannot guarantee response. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 21, 2015 at 20:28