> 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.
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 but it is still unpublished!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!
-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
from P.A.M. Dirac, The Development Of Quantum Mechanics,
Conferenza Tenuta il 14 Aprile 1972, Roma
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1974