Display More(1) Any Hidden Variable interpretation of QM compatible with known experiments must have non-local hidden variables

(not just Bell's inequality - which is approximate - but may similar versions - non-local entanglement forces this)

(2) Whenever concrete hidden variable theories are tested we find new counterexamples which show that experiments are truly non-deterministic

Here is a recent one:

https://www.quantamagazine.org…e-quantum-world-20180725/

You cannotin principlerule out non-local hidden variables as a way to get nondeterminism - and we may in the end get to that through quantum spacetime - but they all look a lot more complex then QM

(3) New proof that Copenhagen-style "collapse" versions of QM cannot be physical:

https://www.quantamagazine.org…quantum-physics-20201203/

(4) Pilot-wave style theories do not cut it (the quantum weirdness is weirder than that)

https://www.quantamagazine.org…antum-weirdness-20181011/

People publish silly things about QM based on slippery English language assumptions that do not stand uphttps://www.quantamagazine.org…eality-go-wrong-20181203/

Really? Read the paper, then readhttps://www.physics.nus.edu.sg…/5/2020/08/hyp-1819-2.pdf

For why it is flawed (as so many "English language" accounts of QM apparent paradoxes are.

Somone set a poor FYP student the job of proving this!

Or -for an easier read:https://mateusaraujo.info/2018…ger-and-renners-argument/

Frauchiger & Renner is a fun and interesting version of classic Wigner's friend that exposes the true nature of quantum physics - it does not however contradict QM.

The well-known argument by Frauchiger and Renner about the consistency of quantum mechanics has finally been published (in Nature Communications). With publication came a substantial change to the conclusion of the paper: while the old version claimed that “no single-world interpretation can be logically consistent”, the new version claims that “quantum theory cannot be extrapolated to complex systems” or, to use the title, that “quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself”.

This is clearly bollocks. We need to find out, though, where exactly has the argument gone wrong. Several discussions popped up on the internet to do so, for example in Scott Aaronson’s blog, but to my surprise nobody pointed out the obvious mistake: the predictions that Frauchiger and Renner claim to follow from quantum mechanics do not actually follow from quantum mechanics. In fact, they are outright wrong.

Anthropocentrism - little electrons buzzing around like planets etc - or "obvious" notions of reality - is a trap. What seems "intuitive" and "simple" may just be "familiar".

Unless you are very arrogant and anthropocentric there is no reason why all space and energy scales should look like the ones we are familiar with.

THH

This shows your ignorance. If you read the linked wikipedia articles and youtoub videos your statement assume that you have independence e.g if

\lambda represent the underlying hidden variables and $X,Y$ are the measurements, then you have,

P(\lambda|XY) = P(\lamnda)

That is, given your measurement, you do not get any more information about the underlying hidden variables. This is the super deterministic loophole as

Bell fraze it. Now I put great effort and care to explain this (multiple weeks behind doing development), so try be a bit more polite and put some serious

work onto going into opposition. I was curious to see what a super deterministic model could look like, as I could not find a good example on the internet. My latest

development actually shows that Mills orbitsphere most likely is such a physical model. Assuming that there is a local super deterministic model behind

QM is a correct scientific stance. It's just not popular.