Saibal Mitra > This all assumes that photons, electrons, etc. are real. We don't know that. > If you were Einstein, and you were faced with Bell's result, you could have > concluded that the nonexistence of local hidden variables implies that > elementary paricles don't exist. They are mere mathematical tools to compute > the outcome of experiments. The real underlying theory of Nature could be > still be deterministic. Recently 't Hooft has shown how QM can emerge out of > a deterministic theory. In this case QM has to be interpreted according to > the Copenhagen interpretation.

## Advertising

Nice question. Einstein wrote a beautiful paper (1927) "Does Schroedinger's Wave Mechanics Determine the Motion of a System Completely or Only in the Sense of Statistics?" but it is still unpublished! It's an interesting hidden variables theory! References: -J.T. Cushing, Quantum Mechanics, Un. Chicago Press, 1994, pages 128-129, and 139-140, and 251. -D. Howard, "Space-Time and Separability", in "Potentiality, Entanglement and Passion-at-a-Distance", R.S.Cohen + M.Horne + J.Stachel (eds.), Kluwer A.P., 1997 -J. Stachel, "Feynman Paths and Quantum Entanglement", in "Potentiality, Entanglement and Passion-at-a-Distance", R.S.Cohen + M.Horne + J.Stachel (eds.), Kluwer A.P., 1997. Anyway I think that Einstein would say something like ... ' This statistical interpretation is now universally accepted as the best possible interpretation for quantum mechanics, even though many people are unhappy with it. People had got used to the determinism of the last century, where the present determines the future completely, and they now have to get used to a different situation in which the present only gives one information of a statistical nature about the future. A good many people find this unpleasant; Einstein has always objected to it. The way he expressed it was: 'The good God does not play with dice'. Schroedinger also did not like the statistical interpretation and tried for many years to find an interpretation involving determinism for his waves. But it was not successful as a general method. I must say that I also do not like indeterminism. I have to accept it because it is certainly the best that we can do with our present knowledge. One can always hope that there will be future developments which will lead to a drastically different theory from the present quantum mechanics and for which there may be a partial return of determinism. However, so long as one keeps to the present formalism, one has to have this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ indeterminism. ' from P.A.M. Dirac, The Development Of Quantum Mechanics, Conferenza Tenuta il 14 Aprile 1972, Roma Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1974 [page 6]