Gordon wrote:
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> [Gordon]
> I dont know how you come to that?

##
Advertising

Very simply, if Nature is described by a single universe local classical
deterministic theory and if local hidden variables are excluded
experimentally, the only way out is that the objects to which the hidden
variables are supposed to be associated with, don't exist.
> [Saibal]
> 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.
> >
> [Gordon]
> Why, if anything it would be closer to Bohm(1952 Mech version) or
> MWI(1957 version) than saying than CI,In fact HV say that they is
> something beneath lower sub levels where CI dont,or aleast can explain
> them !
>
>
> Funny thing is that 't Hooft and some other who first laught about
> Ontological theory are now look at them for answers, however the one
> they found are too simple and may have more problem when takening it
> onto a broader view?
>
>
> I would prefer to look further into Bohm/Hiley or Deutsch/Dewitt area
> myself!
>
I never studied Bohm theory in any detail. From what I know it makes the
same predictions for experimental outcomes as ordinary quantum mechanics.
According to 't Hooft's theory QM would have to break down at the planck
scale. Also, there would be a limit on the performance of quantum computers.
Saibal