No, it is not sure that it is a final theory.

Besides the strange renormalizations needed by QFT, there is a major question in quantum mechanics (QM) that seems not to be answered finally - whether measurement results can be explained in terms of local hidden variables (LHV).

The general opinion until now, especially after showing the violation of Bell-type inequalities, was that LHV are unfit for explaining measurement results. However, in an article of Antonio Valentini I found a hint of an interesting idea. LHV can explain measurement results if they are interactive, i.e. the relationship between them and measurement results is not one-directional,

value of LHV ==> measurement result,

but bidirectional

value of LHV measurement result.

In early years of QM the proposal for local hidden variables was rejected in favor of theories on variables that can be measured.

In recent threads I proposed that physical laws reside in microstates of the vacuum, requiring a small volume to contain a complete set of laws, but a volume that is somewhat larger than the space of quantum particle interactions. Then the single quantum event has a chance encounter with a partial set of laws, but not a complete set.

On average in about 30 events of the same type, the classical law is always found. There is enough particle collision data in libraries to estimate the size and contents of volume fragments, suggesting that local hidden variables may become unhidden in future research.

@Jerry, would you be more careful on what you write?

There is no antagony between local hidden variables and observables. There is no need that one replace the other as there is no need for a mountain to replace a conference.

Physical laws cannot reside in microstates of vacuum, physical laws govern the world, do not reside in parts of it. Also, they do not need volumes to inhabit.

There is no quantum event, there are quantum objects, quantum states, laws of quantum mechanics.

A quantum object does not meet a law, it obeys rigorously all the laws of the quantum mechanics, not at chance but always.

Quantum mechanics and classical physics are two disjoint domains. An object has either quantum behavior, or classical behavior.

Dear Sofia and Jerry,

thank you for your valuable and very practical comments. You may agree, that QM related research is still in quite earlier stage. There are examples of quite focused and applied research, such as:

1) IBM Q is an industry-first initiative to build commercially available universal quantum computers for business and science (more: https://www.research.ibm.com/ibm-q/)

2) Gogle team of physicists have just demonstrated a proof-of-principle for a quantum system, showing that its supported qubits reliably represented 512 numbers at once (more: https://futurism.com/google-just-revealed-how-theyll-build-quantum-computers/ )

3) Chinese scientists have successfully built the world's first quantum computing machine which that is 24,000 times faster, may dominate existing supercomputers (more: http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/worlds-first-quantum-computing-machine-built-in-china-4638707/ )

@Eduard,

One should distinguish between quantum theory, and quantum engineering - e.g. quantum computers. Your question is about the theory.

Like EPR I believe QM is not a final theory. Hidden variable models are possible. I have shown one. See arXiv 1604.01805

Dear Eduard!

A short response to your question: In no case!

As you say by yourself: It's a theory or better to say: an amount of different theories respectively a theoretical hotchpotch. It is no reliable knowledge!

Always the fact that the most particles of the standard model are initially invented by theoretical necessites and not observed by independent experiments justified doubts.

It's incredible in regards to the inflated theories in particle physics: You can analyse the particle decays and interactions similar to the analysis of chemical reactions and conversions of materials and recognise on this way the structures of the microcosm.

My Regards! Hans

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

Thank you all for your valuable comments. The argument of differentiating the Q theories from Q engineering encourages further research.

Sears and Zemansky's in their text on University Physics in chapter on quantum mechanics shows that particles can behave like waves, and that solving the Schrödinger equation automatically gives the possible energy levels for the system. They present a new quantum-mechanical scheme for describing a particle has a lot in common with the language of classical wave motion. The wave function for a particle contains all of the information about that particle.

Source: Text on Sears and Zemansky's University Physics with Modern Physics Technology Update, Hugh D. Young Roger A. Freedman, Thirteenth Edition, Chapter 40.

Sofia, you wrote "However, in an article of Antonio Valentini I found a hint of an interesting idea. LHV can explain measurement results if they are interactive,"

Can you please give me the reference?

I suspect that this is a misunderstanding. Of course, Valentini knows that "measurement" results are interactive, they depend not only on the hidden variables of the "measured object", but also on those of the "measurement" device. Which is standard knowledge for those who have some understanding of Bohmian mechanics, and Valentini is one of the leading Bohmian mechanics researchers.

But Valentini also knows that this does not help the so-called "local" hidden variables, which should be named "Einstein-local", because a theory with highest speed much greater than c would be nonetheless a local theory.

Current quantum physics theory is not final. Most of the theory is a patch work of purterbation theories. It does not fit well with Einstein’s field equations. Quantum electrodynamics with its virtual photons explaining Lamb shift does not make much sense. Dirac’s theory is built around Sommerfeld’s empirical formula for fine structure. It does not have its own formula to present. 1s hyperfine structure is another patch work. There is not a single formula to explain all three together. The theory given in following article addresses all these issues. This article points out that Coulomb force must be a fundamental force like Gravity and it cannot be dismissed as an electromagnetic force due to virtual photons of QED. Just as the mass experiencing gravitational force is subject to acceleration, the electron subject to Coulomb force also experiences acceleration. So how can you dismiss Coulomb force as an electromagnetic force? Virtual photons are not even detected.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319291737_Hydrogen_spectra_using_Einstein%27s_field_equations

om@�2�L�

What is ruled out, according to general view, by the violation of Bell's inequalities, after the detection loop hole has been closed in the meantime, are local realistic hidden-variable theories. They are not compatible with quantum mechanics, for which there is a mathematical proof. Mathematical proofs are not negotiable.

Some authors maintain that a more rigorous scrutiny of the structure of Bell's approach demonstrates that whatever you need of realism in it already follows from experimental results, so it is indeed local hidden-variable theories that are ruled out, emphasizing that it is locality that is violated by qm, not realism. I tend to agree with these authors insofar as while there are interpretations of quantum mechanics that manage to keep it local, such as the consistent-histories interpretation or the many-worlds interpretation, the way these interpretations deviate from standard realism (because both locality and realism cannot be upheld) renders what remains in them to be called realism so exotic that it largely differs from the "naive" realism that seems to follow from experiment directly. Hence their way of escaping the limitations put on correlations by Bell's inequalities, does not seem an attractive explanation.

I actually write a paper about reinterpretation of the formula

E(AB|a,b) = int A(a,b,l)B(a,b,l) rho(l)dl

as not a formula of frequentist interpretation of probability interpretation, but of the objective Bayesian interpretation, along the lines of Jaynes. In this case, the formula is simply part of logic - the logic of plausible reasoning. So, no realism is really necessary (at least nothing which goes beyond the reliance of logic on realism - one can talk about poetry, magic, mysticism, religion, even scientific communism, without caring about the laws of logic, the rules of logic are obligatory only if you talk about reality, about statements which can be true or false, in correspondence with reality).

In fact, the formula is nothing but the one for the expectation value, except that rho is not allowed to depend on a,b. But standard probability theory is part of the logic of plausible reasoning. The "elementary events" of the frequency interpretation will be "elementary statements" in the Bayesian one, thus, they are simply part of the statements one evaluates and assigns probabilities. And the zero hypothesis is also not a hypothesis about nature, but a necessary consequence if there is no information about some correlation.

Of course, this will not change much - those ready to give up realism and causality will give up logic as well. With MWI as a proof that proving that something is false by showing the absurdity of the consequences is no longer possible. Schroedinger has tried, with his cat, at that time it was yet possible, but MWI proves that this is hopeless today. Nothing is too absurd not to be accepted by the mainstream if it saves the Holy Lorentz Symmetry as fundamental. SCNR

@K. Kassner

Bell had argued that if nature allowed only local effects, the results of polarization measurements would only depend on polarizer position and a possible hidden parameter. He then concluded that the expected values ​​of different measurements must be in a certain context, namely, that they followed Bell's inequality derived from him. If, as often measured, nature violates Bell's inequality, then, according to Bell, it can not be based on local effects.

What's wrong with Bell's argument?

Bell has argued imprecisely. His theorem is valid only if the dependency of polarizer position and hidden parameter on the polarization is the only one possible. If other models are possible, which correctly predict the measurement results with entangled photons, his theorem loses its generality. Bell has thus failed to prove the universality. A counter-example suffices to refute his theorem. I presented such a counterexample. The measurement results also depend on the polarization of the incoming photons.

Explanation of the counterexample is found on: https://goo.gl/K1vjCy

Bell theorem and EPR type experiments exclude a class of theories of quantum phenomena. Loosely speaking, they are completions of quantum theory with local hidden variable, but the criterion for each candidate theory is whether it violates Bell inequalities in an EPR type experiment. That doesn't mean quantum mechanics is an intergalactic success and must never be replaced. Of course on a day it will be replaced like every theory before it. For almost a century of existence, some fact have been gathered and should be kept in mind to look for a better theory:

• Quantum mechanics (and probably Nature) is invariant under time reversal. The failure of many of its interpretations stem from the use of statistical concepts that aren't invariant.
• It is expected that non-linear phenomena, including chaos, take an important part. On the first days of ondulatory mechanics, alternate theories and interpretation were intensively sought, but they lack the recent development in non-linear science, so this conundrum grew the reputation of being unsolvable.

If we take the Planck' energy as the fundamental energy unit, then the electron is composed of a cloud of 1.23 x10^20 such units ( from which we derive the Schrodinger wave function). The collapse is just a phenomenonon where these 1.23 x 10^20 units of energy decided where to be and what state to be in, dependant on our measurement -exceedingly simples. P.S. with the greatest of respect, grow up quantum physicists stuck in the early 20th century

T