Do you mean the EPR paradox? If so then a lot has been done to understand it. Einstein put forward a hypothesis of hidden variables. It was falsified by Bell. First measurements of quantum spin correlations date back to 70-ties but the first meaningful result is due to A. Aspect in 1982 and confirmed the result expected from QM. Since then dozens of experiments have been performed, mainly with entangled photons.  So there has been  a lot of work done to study the issue.   Einstein  put in doubt only the probabilistic nature of QM (Copenhagen inperpretation).  There are other interpretations of QM that are deterministic, like that of David Bohm.   I do not understand your last two sentences.

Hello Brahim,

In my last 2 papers I suggested if we take position and momentum to Hilbert space, we can eliminate uncertainty. 

I am attaching my last 2 papers for your reference, may be you will get your answers from it.

Regards,

Bhushan Poojary

Thesis Certainty Principle Using Complex Plane

Thesis Energy equation in complex plane

I tried to answer that question in my own way:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265381033_Unified_Field_Theory_in_a_Nutshell_Elicit_Dreams_of_a_Final_Theory

Article Unified Field Theory in a Nutshell—Elicit Dreams of a Final ...

Do you mean the EPR paradox? If so then a lot has been done to understand it. Einstein put forward a hypothesis of hidden variables. It was falsified by Bell. First measurements of quantum spin correlations date back to 70-ties but the first meaningful result is due to A. Aspect in 1982 and confirmed the result expected from QM. Since then dozens of experiments have been performed, mainly with entangled photons.  So there has been  a lot of work done to study the issue.   Einstein  put in doubt only the probabilistic nature of QM (Copenhagen inperpretation).  There are other interpretations of QM that are deterministic, like that of David Bohm.   I do not understand your last two sentences.

Jacek - i think the next-to-last sentence asks if there might be a deterministic mechanism behind what is usually thought to be the complete randomness of quantum mechanics. and the answer is of course what you have already stated, that there are such approaches, notably that of Bohm. but the vast majority of physicists think that is not correct.

the last sentence maybe contains a (common) misunderstanding about quantum theory, that it is the disturbance made by the measurement that causes the uncertainty. In fact there are numerous examples of uncertainty NOT caused by  "disturbance" - e.g., because the experiments are not even done! - for example, the background scatter in neutron diffraction.

Dear Behrman,

Thank you for this clarification-you are definitely right.

To my mind, the problem is very simple-we need an equation solid enough to answer why 0 and 1 can be at the same time..

And as Charles Sanders pierce once puce put it , it has to have "actual" consequences. Einstein's law that light curves in a magnetic field was actually endorsed by astronomers who watched a star that is normally behind the sun during an eclipse.

Anyone can give a hypothesis but hypotheses are subject to various variables-the observer's paradox, the observer's bias ...

Excuse my stupidity but if Einstein thinks there is something missing then I believe there is something missing... I do believe I have part of the clue but right now I'm busy doing something completely different and besides even Einstein spent ten years on his 10 equations while helped by the best mathematicians of his time including his wife I suppose.

Thanks again for your highly accurate observations and please do not stop.

I think it is not exactly that "Einstein thought there was someting missing" although they (EPR)  gave the title to the basic paper:  "Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?"   This  was year  1935 and physicists were convinced of several facts in Nature,  for example  that  QM should be a local theory. Measurements half a century later proved that this is not true.  This fact is surprising even for  contemporary physicists. The line of reasoning of EPR was perfectly logical  and many of us would have done  the same prior to   subsequent  developments. So  hidden variables (this what one might call something missing) were introduced to save locality, according to ideas of that time (btw  note that people were also convinced of parity conservation till it was found violated  in weak interactions). Personally, I consider this thread of achievements,  paved by EPR, Bell's inequalities and later unambiguous measurements, really spectacular and of prime importance to physics. I am really  impatient to  see explained the basic physics underlying non-locality of QM.  

It will not be easy to prove that he was right. Mankind will receive the relative understanding of the origin of life and intelligence along with the answer to this question.

Dear Jacek and Johannes,

I'm not personally satisfied that we still cannot pinpoint the exact position of an electron and have to deal with the probability of its whereabouts. I want an equation that solves this gap and be actualized by being able to help us observe the right place of the Electron.

What if quantum mechanics is not different from classical Newtonian physics? What if we just have missed something? You see these are legitimate questions to my mind..

Do you mean that if the tools work then we understand the phenomenon?

Newton's law of gravity worked but it was not totally right...

But again, you might be right, it is just my opinion. I think we are able to create an equation that helps us being in spaciotimes at the same time.My purpose is to apply it to computer science and you can imagine the superpower that computers may have in the future-if I am right of course!

I don't know man.. Everybody keeps telling me roughly the same thing and yet I am not satisfied..

You are definitely right when you speak about improvement and not eradication...

Only one thing keeps bothering me: why there are different laws within the macro and micro level?

My simple episteme is the following: If quantum laws exist and are part of nature, then they are reproducible at the macro level? Does it make sense..

But again may be you are right-may be my philosophical background is distorting my mind. But again philosophy and mathematics are the only tools that brought civilization as we know.

Anyway, I'm praying to hear somebody to tell that I might have some sense in what I say...

Brahim,  you definitely have sense to expect something like  you write but one should formulate  the issues precisely.  First, you may use the quantum description for macroscopic objects but the results  will  not change the general picture. E.g.  apply the uncertainty principle to the Earth's movement around the Sun and you will see that it has no practical sense at these scales.  On the other side, if you read the first paper by Bohm you will see that his interpretation  invokes the classical  Newton equation  but with an additional "quantum" potential term.   So  I would summarise that the situation is not so bad as you tend to see it.  I am of course simplifying the entire picture very much to give you more courage...

Einstein basically maintained that, QM is incomplete.  If the missing part is due to noise sourced in all the remaining universe, then humankind will never be able to complete it.

As for the EPR-B story, there are those (me too) who hold that Bell made a mistake in that he failed to incorporate conditional probabilities needed to describe correlated events in his analysis.  Fixing this error, obviates the whole issue!

Halleluiah! I m not crazy...

Thank you  Kracklauer ...very interesting feedback.

A. > Do you know of any paper accounting for  conditional probabilities related to the Bell inequalities? 

Probability is statistics and not Physics.

While tossing the coin if you can say what would be outcome that is science.

Anybody can tell that from the multiple out come there is 50% probability that heads will come. 

Regarding: errors of statistical analysis for EPR-B, I have published a series of papers. All can be found on my website: nonloco-physics.0catch.com.  The whole story historically is complex, the more I think about it the more there is to understand about the error, which I too made (joined, accepted) for 20 years!

Physics is not statistics---but the analysis of experimental data is. 

A big Yes -I agree with Bhushan: Physics is not statistics..,In other words if we resort to probability then there is something wrong..Something we do not know

Perhaps "statistics ==> ignorance" is not absolute.  If I'm not mistaken, bifurcation theory provides some examples, albeit mathematical.  But, in any case, a good argument can be made that, QM compensates for residual interactions with all the universe not directly the object of study, such as a single atom.

Dear Brahim

The problem of quantum mechanics is originated from the complex transformations that relate the quantum particles with classical ones. this is due to our space time is not static, it's dynamic and the smaller mass particles tend to move with it with higher response (speeds) than the heavier ones. The higher response objects will have extra dimensions and accordingly we will only see the projection of their movement not their real movement. This is the origin of complexity of wave function according to a new theory which is on the following link:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259996539_Solving_the_instantaneous_response_paradox_of_entangled_particles_using_the_time_of_events_theory

regards

Article Solving the instantaneous response paradox of entangled part...

Hi Brahim,

EPR paradox concluded that there were hidden variables which was not found by Bell.

But I explained the process of entanglement with help of holographic principle.

May be EPR they referred it as hidden variables.

Kindly read my attached manuscript for more detail.

Regards,

Bhushan Poojary

Thesis Dark Matter and Quantum Entanglement Decoded

Dear Brahim, in my humble opinion, one way to solve that quantum paradox is by using Neutrosophic Logic which is beyond traditional Aristotelian/Boolean logic. If you are interested, see the physics section in Prof. Florentin Smarandache's homepage: http://fs.gallup.unm.edu. Best wishes

@Brahim, to answer a part of your question: "why there are different laws within the macro and micro level?". This is because statistics kicks in. In principle, you (as a whole person) may tunnel through a solid wall, but the probability of this event to happen is so small that you'd have to wait many times the age of the universe for it to happen. So at the macro world, we tend to observe those phenomena that are "typical", and quantum behaviours are somewhat "washed out". The same issue arise in classical physics also: at micro/mezo-scopic level, the nature behaves different than at the thermodynamic limit (i.e. macro level). 

The first part of your question is probably best answered by Bell, who first showed the non-existence of local hidden variables.

Dear Vlad,

Thank you for your beautiful response. The mistake is mine because I did not formulate well my question nor my answers. My philosophical background always "kicks in". I just believe, and this is my opinion, that we can catch the electron without destroying the wave function. We do not need a complex number I think we need something else- whatever this something else the answer is to my mind laying there...

All we need is the right equation-very simply.

dear all,

I m planning to design an ESP course for Quantum Theory. I believe that ESL has to move from the easiness of skilled-based approaches that does not help second language learners see the difference between Newtonian classical physics with modern physics to a more efficient content-based approach that teaches basic concepts in QT while focusing on structural and functional aspects peculiar to QT such as metaphors, phrasal verbs, if-clauses etc. The problem is that I have always pursued Math as a hobby therefore I do not have the expertise nor the credentials to attest for the accuracy of information. People in the English department are not familiar with Quantum theory let alone  the complexity of the equations. Is there any one who wills to check my thesis if the department agrees to let me do it... 

Any suggestion would be very helpful!