Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hidden variable theory
Hidden variable theory
Hidden variable theory
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
Background
Fundamentals
Experiments
Formulations
Equations
Interpretations
Bayesian
Consistent histories
Copenhagen
de Broglie–Bohm
Ensemble
Hidden-variable
o Local
Many-worlds
Objective collapse
Quantum logic
Relational
Transactional
Advanced topics
Scientists
v
t
e
Albert Einstein objected to aspects of quantum mechanics,[1] and famously declared "I am
convinced God does not play dice".[2][3] Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argued while assuming
local causality that quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of reality. [4][5][6] Bell's
theorem and the related Bell test experiments have subsequently ruled out nearly all local hidden
variable theories,[7] with the exception of the superdeterminism loophole which cannot be closed
by Bell test experiments.
Motivation
Per its mathematical formulation, quantum mechanics is non-deterministic, meaning that it
generally does not predict the outcome of any measurement with certainty. Instead, it indicates
what the probabilities of the outcomes are, with the indeterminism of observable quantities
constrained by the uncertainty principle. The question arises whether there might be some deeper
reality hidden beneath quantum mechanics, to be described by a more fundamental theory that
can always predict the outcome of each measurement with certainty: if the exact properties of
every subatomic particle were known, the entire system could be modeled exactly using
deterministic physics similar to classical physics.
In other words, it is conceivable that quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of nature.
The designation of variables as underlying "hidden" variables depends on the level of physical
description (so, for example, "if a gas is described in terms of temperature, pressure, and volume,
then the velocities of the individual atoms in the gas would be hidden variables"[8]). Physicists
supporting De Broglie–Bohm theory maintain that underlying the observed probabilistic nature
of the universe is a deterministic objective foundation/property—the hidden variable. Others,
however, believe that there is no deeper deterministic reality in quantum mechanics. [citation needed]
A lack of a kind of realism (understood here as asserting independent existence and evolution of
physical quantities, such as position or momentum, without the process of measurement) is
crucial in the Copenhagen interpretation. Realistic interpretations (which were already
incorporated, to an extent, into the physics of Feynman[9]), on the other hand, assume that
particles have certain trajectories. Under such view, these trajectories will almost always be
continuous, which follows both from the finitude of the perceived speed of light ("leaps" should
rather be precluded) and, more importantly, from the principle of least action, as deduced in
quantum physics by Dirac. But continuous movement, in accordance with the mathematical
definition, implies deterministic movement for a range of time arguments;[10] and thus realism is,
under modern physics, one more reason for seeking (at least certain limited) determinism and
thus a hidden-variable theory (especially that such theory exists: see De Broglie–Bohm
interpretation).
Although determinism was initially a major motivation for physicists looking for hidden-variable
theories, non-deterministic theories trying to explain what the supposed reality underlying the
quantum mechanics formalism looks like are also considered hidden-variable theories; for
example Edward Nelson's stochastic mechanics.
Here the whole problem of determinism comes up. From the standpoint of our quantum
mechanics there is no quantity which in any individual case causally fixes the consequence of the
collision; but also experimentally we have so far no reason to believe that there are some inner
properties of the atom which conditions a definite outcome for the collision. Ought we to hope
later to discover such properties ... and determine them in individual cases? Or ought we to
believe that the agreement of theory and experiment—as to the impossibility of prescribing
conditions for a causal evolution—is a pre-established harmony founded on the nonexistence of
such conditions? I myself am inclined to give up determinism in the world of atoms. But that is a
philosophical question for which physical arguments alone are not decisive.
Born's interpretation of the wave function was criticized by Schrödinger, who had previously
attempted to interpret it in real physical terms, but Albert Einstein's response became one of the
earliest and most famous assertions that quantum mechanics is incomplete:
Quantum mechanics is very worthy of respect. But an inner voice tells me this is not the genuine
article after all. The theory delivers much but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secret. In
any event, I am convinced that He is not playing dice.[3][11]
Niels Bohr reportedly replied to Einstein's later expression of this sentiment by advising him to
"stop telling God what to do."[12]
At the Fifth Solvay Congress, held in Belgium in October 1927 and attended by all the major
theoretical physicists of the era, Louis de Broglie presented his own version of a deterministic
hidden-variable theory, apparently unaware of Einstein's aborted attempt earlier in the year. In
his theory, every particle had an associated, hidden "pilot wave" which served to guide its
trajectory through space. The theory was subject to criticism at the Congress, particularly by
Wolfgang Pauli, which de Broglie did not adequately answer. De Broglie abandoned the theory
shortly thereafter.
Also at the Fifth Solvay Congress, Max Born and Werner Heisenberg made a presentation
summarizing the recent tremendous theoretical development of quantum mechanics. At the
conclusion of the presentation, they declared:
[W]hile we consider ... a quantum mechanical treatment of the electromagnetic field ... as not yet
finished, we consider quantum mechanics to be a closed theory, whose fundamental physical and
mathematical assumptions are no longer susceptible of any modification.... On the question of
the 'validity of the law of causality' we have this opinion: as long as one takes into account only
experiments that lie in the domain of our currently acquired physical and quantum mechanical
experience, the assumption of indeterminism in principle, here taken as fundamental, agrees with
experience.[16]
Although there is no record of Einstein responding to Born and Heisenberg during the technical
sessions of the Fifth Solvay Congress, he did challenge the completeness of quantum mechanics
during informal discussions over meals, presenting a thought experiment intended to demonstrate
that quantum mechanics could not be entirely correct. He did likewise during the Sixth Solvay
Congress held in 1930. Both times, Niels Bohr is generally considered to have successfully
defended quantum mechanics by discovering errors in Einstein's arguments.
EPR paradox
Main article: EPR paradox
The debates between Bohr and Einstein essentially concluded in 1935, when Einstein finally
expressed what is widely considered his best argument for the incompleteness of quantum
mechanics. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen had proposed their definition of a "complete"
description as one that uniquely determines the values of all its measurable properties. [17] Einstein
later summarized their argument as follows:
Consider a mechanical system consisting of two partial systems A and B which interact with each
other only during a limited time. Let the ψ function [i.e., wavefunction] before their interaction
be given. Then the Schrödinger equation will furnish the ψ function after the interaction has
taken place. Let us now determine the physical state of the partial system A as completely as
possible by measurements. Then quantum mechanics allows us to determine the ψ function of
the partial system B from the measurements made, and from the ψ function of the total system.
This determination, however, gives a result which depends upon which of the physical quantities
(observables) of A have been measured (for instance, coordinates or momenta). Since there can
be only one physical state of B after the interaction which cannot reasonably be considered to
depend on the particular measurement we perform on the system A separated from B it may be
concluded that the ψ function is not unambiguously coordinated to the physical state. This
coordination of several ψ functions to the same physical state of system B shows again that the ψ
function cannot be interpreted as a (complete) description of a physical state of a single system.
[18]
[The argument of] Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen contains an ambiguity as regards the meaning
of the expression "without in any way disturbing a system." ... [E]ven at this stage [i.e., the
measurement of, for example, a particle that is part of an entangled pair], there is essentially the
question of an influence on the very conditions which define the possible types of predictions
regarding the future behavior of the system. Since these conditions constitute an inherent element
of the description of any phenomenon to which the term "physical reality" can be properly
attached, we see that the argumentation of the mentioned authors does not justify their
conclusion that quantum-mechanical description is essentially incomplete."[19]
Bohr is here choosing to define a "physical reality" as limited to a phenomenon that is
immediately observable by an arbitrarily chosen and explicitly specified technique, using his
own special definition of the term 'phenomenon'. He wrote in 1948:
As a more appropriate way of expression, one may strongly advocate limitation of the use of the
word phenomenon to refer exclusively to observations obtained under specified circumstances,
including an account of the whole experiment."[20][21]
This was, of course, in conflict with the definition used by the EPR paper, as follows:
If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability
equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality
corresponding to this physical quantity. [Italics in original][5]
Bell's theorem
Main article: Bell's theorem
In 1964, John Bell showed through his famous theorem that if local hidden variables exist,
certain experiments could be performed involving quantum entanglement where the result would
satisfy a Bell inequality. If, on the other hand, statistical correlations resulting from quantum
entanglement could not be explained by local hidden variables, the Bell inequality would be
violated. Another no-go theorem concerning hidden-variable theories is the Kochen–Specker
theorem.
Physicists such as Alain Aspect and Paul Kwiat have performed experiments that have found
violations of these inequalities up to 242 standard deviations.[22] This rules out local hidden-
variable theories, but does not rule out non-local ones. Theoretically, there could be experimental
problems that affect the validity of the experimental findings.
Gerard 't Hooft has disputed the validity of Bell's theorem on the basis of the superdeterminism
loophole and proposed some ideas to construct local deterministic models.[23]
Assuming the validity of Bell's theorem, any deterministic hidden-variable theory that is
consistent with quantum mechanics would have to be non-local, maintaining the existence of
instantaneous or faster-than-light relations (correlations) between physically separated entities.
The currently best-known hidden-variable theory, the "causal" interpretation of the physicist and
philosopher David Bohm, originally published in 1952, is a non-local hidden-variable theory.
Bohm unknowingly rediscovered (and extended) the idea that Louis de Broglie had proposed in
1927 (and abandoned) – hence this theory is commonly called "de Broglie-Bohm theory". Bohm
posited both the quantum particle, e.g. an electron, and a hidden 'guiding wave' that governs its
motion. Thus, in this theory electrons are quite clearly particles—when a double-slit experiment
is performed, its trajectory goes through one slit rather than the other. Also, the slit passed
through is not random but is governed by the (hidden) guiding wave, resulting in the wave
pattern that is observed. Since the location where the particles start in the double-slit experiment
is unknown, the initial position of the particle is the hidden variable.
Such a view does not contradict the idea of local events that is used in both classical atomism
and relativity theory as Bohm's theory (and quantum mechanics) are still locally causal (that is,
information travel is still restricted to the speed of light) but allow non-local correlations. It
points to a view of a more holistic, mutually interpenetrating and interacting world. Indeed,
Bohm himself stressed the holistic aspect of quantum theory in his later years, when he became
interested in the ideas of Jiddu Krishnamurti.
A possible weakness of Bohm's theory is that some (including Einstein, Pauli, and Heisenberg)
feel that it looks contrived.[28] (Indeed, Bohm thought this of his original formulation of the
theory.[29]) It was deliberately designed to give predictions that are in all details identical to
conventional quantum mechanics.[29] Bohm's original aim was not to make a serious counter
proposal but simply to demonstrate that hidden-variable theories are indeed possible.[29] (It thus
provided a supposed counterexample to the famous proof by John von Neumann that was
generally believed to demonstrate that no deterministic theory reproducing the statistical
predictions of quantum mechanics is possible.) Bohm said he considered his theory to be
unacceptable as a physical theory due to the guiding wave's existence in an abstract multi-
dimensional configuration space, rather than three-dimensional space.[29] His hope was that the
theory would lead to new insights and experiments that would lead ultimately to an acceptable
one;[29] his aim was not to set out a deterministic, mechanical viewpoint, but rather to show that it
was possible to attribute properties to an underlying reality, in contrast to the conventional
approach to quantum mechanics.[30]
Recent developments
In August 2011, Roger Colbeck and Renato Renner published a proof that any extension of
quantum mechanical theory, whether using hidden variables or otherwise, cannot provide a more
accurate prediction of outcomes, assuming that observers can freely choose the measurement
settings.[31] Colbeck and Renner write: "In the present work, we have ... excluded the possibility
that any extension of quantum theory (not necessarily in the form of local hidden variables) can
help predict the outcomes of any measurement on any quantum state. In this sense, we show the
following: under the assumption that measurement settings can be chosen freely, quantum theory
really is complete".
In January 2013, Giancarlo Ghirardi and Raffaele Romano described a model which, "under a
different free choice assumption [...] violates [the statement by Colbeck and Renner] for almost
all states of a bipartite two-level system, in a possibly experimentally testable way". [32]
See also
Local hidden-variable theory
Bell's theorem
Bell test experiments
Einstein's thought experiments
Quantum mechanics
Bohm interpretation
Spekkens toy model
Grete Hermann
References
1.
The Born-Einstein letters: correspondence between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig
Born from 1916–1955, with commentaries by Max Born. Macmillan. 1971. p. 158., (Private
letter from Einstein to Max Born, 3 March 1947: "I admit, of course, that there is a considerable
amount of validity in the statistical approach which you were the first to recognize clearly as
necessary given the framework of the existing formalism. I cannot seriously believe in it because
the theory cannot be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality in time and
space, free from spooky actions at a distance.... I am quite convinced that someone will
eventually come up with a theory whose objects, connected by laws, are not probabilities but
considered facts, as used to be taken for granted until quite recently".)
This is a common paraphrase of a sentence in a private letter from Einstein to Max Born, 4
December 1926, Albert Einstein Archives reel 8, item 180
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 15: The Berlin Years: Writings &
Correspondence, June 1925-May 1927 (English Translation Supplement), p. 403
see Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox
Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B.; Rosen, N. (1935). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of
Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?". Physical Review. 47 (10): 777–780.
Bibcode:1935PhRv...47..777E. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777.
"The debate whether Quantum Mechanics is a complete theory and probabilities have a
non-epistemic character (i.e. nature is intrinsically probabilistic) or whether it is a statistical
approximation of a deterministic theory and probabilities are due to our ignorance of some
parameters (i.e. they are epistemic) dates to the beginning of the theory itself". See: arXiv:quant-
ph/0701071v1 12 Jan 2007
Markoff, Jack (21 October 2015). "Sorry, Einstein. Quantum Study Suggests 'Spooky
Action' Is Real". New York Times. Retrieved 21 October 2015.
Senechal M, Cronin J (2001). "Social influences on quantum mechanics?-I". The
Mathematical Intelligencer. 23 (4): 15–17. doi:10.1007/BF03024596. S2CID 120478477.
Individual diagrams are often split into several parts, which may occur beyond
observation; only the diagram as a whole describes an observed event.
For every subset of points within a range, a value for every argument from the subset will
be determined by the points in the neighbourhood. Thus, as a whole, the evolution in time can be
described (for a specific time interval) as a function, e.g. a linear one or an arc. See Continuous
function#Definition in terms of limits of functions
The Born–Einstein letters: correspondence between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig
Born from 1916–1955, with commentaries by Max Born. Macmillan. 1971. p. 91.
This is a common paraphrasing. Bohr recollected his reply to Einstein at the 1927 Solvay
Congress in his essay "Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic
Physics", in Albert Einstein, Philosopher–Scientist, ed. Paul Arthur Shilpp, Harper, 1949, p. 211:
"...in spite of all divergencies of approach and opinion, a most humorous spirit animated the
discussions. On his side, Einstein mockingly asked us whether we could really believe that the
providential authorities took recourse to dice-playing ("ob der liebe Gott würfelt"), to which I
replied by pointing at the great caution, already called for by ancient thinkers, in ascribing
attributes to Providence in everyday language." Werner Heisenberg, who also attended the
congress, recalled the exchange in Encounters with Einstein, Princeton University Press, 1983, p.
117,: "But he [Einstein] still stood by his watchword, which he clothed in the words: 'God does
not play at dice.' To which Bohr could only answer: 'But still, it cannot be for us to tell God, how
he is to run the world.'"
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 15: The Berlin Years: Writings &
Correspondence, June 1925-May 1927 (English Translation Supplement), p. 512
Albert Einstein Archives reel 2, item 100
Baggott, Jim (2011). The Quantum Story: A History in 40 Moments. New York: Oxford
University Press. pp. 116–117. ISBN 978-0-19-956684-6.
Max Born and Werner Heisenberg, "Quantum mechanics", proceedings of the Fifth Solvay
Congress.
Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B.; Rosen, N. (1935). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of
Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?". Physical Review. 47 (10): 777–780.
Bibcode:1935PhRv...47..777E. doi:10.1103/physrev.47.777.
Einstein A (1936). "Physics and Reality". Journal of the Franklin Institute. 221.
Bohr N (1935). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered
Complete?". Physical Review. 48 (8): 700. Bibcode:1935PhRv...48..696B.
doi:10.1103/physrev.48.696.
Bohr N. (1948). "On the notions of causality and complementarity". Dialectica. 2 (3–4):
312–319 [317]. doi:10.1111/j.1746-8361.1948.tb00703.x.
Rosenfeld, L. (). 'Niels Bohr's contribution to epistemology', pp. 522–535 in Selected
Papers of Léon Rosenfeld, Cohen, R.S., Stachel, J.J. (editors), D. Riedel, Dordrecht, ISBN 978-
90-277-0652-2, p. 531: "Moreover, the complete definition of the phenomenon must essentially
contain the indication of some permanent mark left upon a recording device which is part of the
apparatus; only by thus envisaging the phenomenon as a closed event, terminated by a permanent
record, can we do justice to the typical wholeness of the quantal processes."
Kwiat P. G.; et al. (1999). "Ultrabright source of polarization-entangled photons".
Physical Review A. 60 (2): R773–R776. arXiv:quant-ph/9810003.
Bibcode:1999PhRvA..60..773K. doi:10.1103/physreva.60.r773. S2CID 16417960.
G 't Hooft, The Free-Will Postulate in Quantum Mechanics [1]; Entangled quantum states
in a local deterministic theory [2]
David Pratt: "David Bohm and the Implicate Order". Appeared in Sunrise magazine,
February/March 1993, Theosophical University Press
Michael K.-H. Kiessling: "Misleading Signposts Along the de Broglie–Bohm Road to
Quantum Mechanics", Foundations of Physics, volume 40, number 4, 2010, pp. 418–429
(abstract)
"While the testable predictions of Bohmian mechanics are isomorphic to standard
Copenhagen quantum mechanics, its underlying hidden variables have to be, in principle,
unobservable. If one could observe them, one would be able to take advantage of that and signal
faster than light, which – according to the special theory of relativity – leads to physical temporal
paradoxes." J. Kofler and A. Zeiliinger, "Quantum Information and Randomness", European
Review (2010), Vol. 18, No. 4, 469–480.
D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe, Routledge, 1993, ISBN 0-415-06588-
7.
Wayne C. Myrvold (2003). "On some early objections to Bohm's theory" (PDF).
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science. 17 (1): 8–24. doi:10.1080/02698590305233.
S2CID 10965929. Archived from the original on 2014-07-02.
David Bohm (1957). Causality and Chance in Modern Physics. Routledge & Kegan Paul
and D. Van Nostrand. p. 110. ISBN 0-8122-1002-6.
B. J. Hiley: Some remarks on the evolution of Bohm's proposals for an alternative to
quantum mechanics, 30 January 2010
Roger Colbeck; Renato Renner (2011). "No extension of quantum theory can have
improved predictive power". Nature Communications. 2 (8): 411. arXiv:1005.5173.
Bibcode:2011NatCo...2..411C. doi:10.1038/ncomms1416. PMC 3265370. PMID 21811240.
Bibliography
This further reading section may contain inappropriate or excessive suggestions that
may not follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Please ensure that only a reasonable number of
balanced, topical, reliable, and notable further reading suggestions are given; removing
less relevant or redundant publications with the same point of view where appropriate.
Consider utilising appropriate texts as inline sources or creating a separate bibliography
article. (June 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
External links
The David Bohm Society