For me You mixed two classical things. first is determinism and the second is a classical probability with is definitions of randomnes for You. QM is not a statistical theory. if theory is deterministic it means that could not be randomnes (If i have delta dirac distributions?) ? This question is like „is earth round around sun or sun around earth” .

Daniel,

My understanding is that so-called 'hidden variables' (ie, particles have fixed properties that are then measured imperfectly at some later time) have been (almost unequivocally) ruled out as explanations for the correlations.

Bell's theorem, I recall.

@ Garry

Hello James

Many impossibility proofs are known. The Greeks proved that there is no number whose square is 2. During the Renaissance it was proved that there was no number whose square equals -1. None other than Henri Poincare, hearing about coming attempts by Marconi, published a proof that long distance radio communication was impossible. Auguste Comte, a philosopher, stated that it would be forever impossible to analyze the chemical elements of the Sun (maybe only an opinion, perhaps he did not claim a proof).

Of course there are actual impossibility examples. It is impossible to find a polynomial with integer coefficients such that Pi (or e, or ln 2) is a root of the polynomial (these are transcendental numbers).

It may be instructive to check the details of the alleged proofs of impossibility of hidden variables before pledging allegiance to such negative idea.

For example, maybe the hidden variable is the one required to properly represent photons so that the system, say of the hydrogen atom, becomes a sort of wave mechanical three body problem, proton-electron-photon, where determinism can be recovered. If so, do impossibility proofs apply?

Not only are there in QM hidden variables but there is also an absent particle which is in fact none other than the photon. No theory of hidden variables can surpass QM as long as you stay with the two body proton-electron system. The trivial reason is that, in the atom, the photon has the role giving and taking away energy.

Ignore the photon and you will have to ignore the kinetic energy. The history of QM shows that, as consequence of this mistake, insurmountable problems appear.

With cordial regards,

Daniel

-------------------------

@ Zając

Hello Sebastian

Thanks for your comments. Best regards, Daniel

.

Dear Daniel,

Having astonished me is that most scientists have even given up to looking for a simple rightful explanation for Quantum Physics - but not you! It is not me neither!

With all my respect, you are not alone by all aspects and QM theory is indeed incomplete. I am the one among those who are believed in Einstein’s local-realism theorem of elementary particles.

Professor Roychoudhuri, Chandrasekhar of University of Connecticut said in his article: “Thus we are forever challenged to create a causal theory about nature without inventing (imaginary) human logics to fill in the gap of incomplete information to construct a theory that hopefully will map the cosmic logics behind the interactions we are studying.” (Roychoudhuri, Chandrasekhar. "Inevitable incompleteness of all theories: an epistemology to continuously refine human logics towards cosmic logics." The Nature of Light. CRC Press, 2017. 103-132.)

In the article, he propose an epistemology that will encourage the next generation to carry out such re-evaluation to advance physics further which is exactly like you are striving to for so many years.

Hope it can be helped with your great works to be contributing to the human beings eventually.

Dear Daniel,

Hope it helped, one more correspondence of mine being:

Professor Thompson, Caroline H. (she was a professor of University of Wales, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom before) indicated in a series of her articles : Most experiments for Bell-test required certain free-will subtraction changes resulted that the outcomes can be explained realistically into ones that require FTL (Faster-Than-Light) quantum magic. This free-will agreement is spurious, a result of the experimenters’ decisions, yet faith in theory has left it almost unchallenged.

There is no mention in published papers of the assumptions behind the adjustment, and insufficient information given for the reader to work out what the unadjusted data was. What the very considerable change is. That is why Prof. Thompson indicated that anyone can formulate the Aspect’s test results by using simply the Einstein’s local-realism theorem together with Malus’ law so as to get the complete description of Bell-test against paired photons.

Citations, ”The tangled methods of quantum entanglement experiments." Published in “Accountability in Research”6.4 (1999): 311-332.

It is not called determinism plainly because is it not deterministic. Randomness is necessary in order to have entanglement, so basically, entanglement and determinism are two mutually exclusive concepts.

@Mickey Ken

Dear Mickey

In the Bohr model and in Schrödinger model one deals with an ideal universe consisting of one proton and one electron. The natural model adds a photon but is also an idealization. In all the cases the mathematically obtained knowledge is partial and biased. There are differences and one model can be more rational, common sense and consistent than the others but in none is the physical universe exhausted. Regardless of how the mathematical objects of the models are interpreted the epistemology is always incomplete and perfectible. Roychoudhuri is right declaring all epistemologies temporary.

The case of Professor Caroline H. Thompson is remarkable. Clearly, she had a sharp, well articulate mind, a brave heart and was inspired to pursuit and grasp the truth. It seems that she was academically harassed by people of the same class that centuries ago refused to look through the telescope of Galileo and went on to condemn and imprison him. Her viewpoints and analysis should be proven correct and her ideas will prevail beyond her censors. It is a pity she no longer is. I found that several of her published papers are available in Internet, but not all.

Summing up the entanglement thing, in the experiments they find full correlation at 1cm, at 10cm, at 1Km, at 1000Km, and beyond. The results of such experiments are obvious confirmation that the supposed uncertainty of the measured observable does not exists. The correlation will be perfect all along the paths of the particles as long as perturbations are kept out.

The natural model shows that, beyond being desirable, a causal and deterministic atomic physics is possible. I hope that soon the quantum nightmare will be left behind.

Thanks four the references and your encouraging words. Let us stay in contact.

With best regards,

Daniel Crespin

There can be correlation if there is determinism. Correlation is defined only between random variables.

@ Claude Pierre Massé

Thanks Claude Pierre Massé

Perhaps "supposed correlation between supposedly random variables" may be more purist, but I prefer to keep it simple and the statement seems understandable as expressed above.

Best regards,

Daniel Crespin

Thanks very much Sydney Ernest for contributing to the discussion.

To decide with absolute certainty that the universe in its totality is deterministic or, contrary to that, that it is non-deterministic, is beyond the possibilities of science. The problem is metaphysical and cannot be decided by scientific argument. At any given time the scientific community may prefer one answer, or the other, or perhaps some hypothetical third alternative. As referred by @Mickey Ken, there should be an epistemology always ready to grow and change.

Your definition (?) of determinism, "our universe has invariant properties" is novel for me. Note that Quantum Mechanics appeals to invariant properties, like in "Schrödinger operator is invariant under the group SO(3)", and simultaneously proposes a non-deterministic universe. Your apparent definition fails, at least initially for QM.

I prefer a more straightforward definition of determinism, one that applies not to the universe but to theories and models we human beings make and may or may not freely endorse. A model or theory is deterministic if the mathematical object that corresponds with the physical entity under study is governed by some honest differential equation (DE). Honest means that in the model the mathematical object, say $\Psi$, moves according to the DE and this mathematically predicted movement corresponds within reasonable limits with the movements of the physical object. QM is definitely not deterministic because the Schrödinger time dependent equation (STDE) cannot predict transitions between different energy levels. This failure forces the introduction of random quantum jumps.

Along its century long saga QM has accumulated too many contradictions and inconsistencies and remains deeply unsatisfactory. Its various versions and interpretations are a Babel Tower as pictured in the immense list compiled in [1] below. Remarkably, however, QM can be formulated without the STDE. You can do with:

1.- the Schrödinger self adjoint operator H

2.- the eigenvalues of H

3.- the eigenfunctions of H, and

4.- quantum jumps based on perturbations of eigenstates and transition probabilities.

In QM there is no use at all for the STDE. Nevertheless practitioners of Quantism would not eliminate STDE because every theory worth its paper and ink must have an evolution DE. Differential equations are the undisputed favorites to express laws of changes, or at least to pretend there is one.

Ultimately we can only appeal to personal preferences, that is, to our sense of esthetics. The deterministic natural model of the hydrogen atom appears in various papers downloadable from [2] below. My preferences are definitely with this model which I think is the seed of a general, rational, understandable, consistent, deterministic, casual, natural theory of photons, protons and electrons.

Well, Sydney Ernest, my regards to you and your people.

Daniel Crespin

[1] Cabello, A. Bibliographic guide to the foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum information. arXiv:quant-ph/0012089 v12

[2] Crespin, D. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Crespin/research

@Sydney Ernest Grimm

Hello Sydney

What you say is very interesting and, in my opinion, rather philosophical. My viewpoint is that reality works exactly as if it were independent of my desires. Most likely that is the very essence of reality. I control my body and certain things within its reach, but permanently constrained by restrictions contrary to wishes I could harbor. Wishes like superhero powers, paranormal knowledge, utmost financial power and immortality seem to be unreachable. Is this empiricism? If so, I accept the tag.

Certain physical phenomena are often interpreted in terms of mathematical structures called fields. Mathematical fields are sections of vector bundles. They can be manipulated according to mathematical rules and often we want to believe that the physical phenomena are identical, or very much like, the mathematical thing. But physical fields are invisible and have to be inferred. You are free to accept that, because of certain resemblances, physical fields out there are identical to the mathematical fields within your mind. But just in case I personally prefer to stay aware of their different nature.

The ultimate essence of physical fields remains as remote as the ultimate nature of physical forces. In contrast with physical entities mathematical vectors, say triples of real numbers, and vector fields, say triples of real valued functions with domains in R^3, are much better understood because they belong to the world of platonic ideas where the illusion of ideal perfection strives, although under permanent harassment from internal deep rooted paradoxes and inconsistencies. Indifferent to our ignorance and to all these typically human, idealistic and individual troubles the Universe keeps going in its own relentless way. We are forced to play by its rules.

The hypotheses non fingo of Isaac Newton can here be taken as a practical guide. I understand his declaration as an advice or exhortation for theoreticians to look more at equations and their consequences and less to metaphysical properties attributable to physical phenomena.

With cordial regards,

Daniel Crespin