Talk:Incompleteness of quantum physics

From the article: But these hidden variable theories are wrong. The British physicist, John Bell, who died recently, devised an experimental test that would distinguish hidden variable theories. When the experiment was carried out carefully, the results were inconsistent with hidden variables. Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.

A lot of assertions that need reference! But no one can supply, because no quantum mechanics textbook says that

hidden variable theories are wrong;

all are saying only that

hidden variable LOCAL theories are wrong.

Obviously, wikipedia remains a very, very bad place for some one to inform himself...

r.o.m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.23.128.137 (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is badly named, and will lead to problems of its own. I would like to note that I wasn't the source of that name. If this article is going to exist it should be called Completeness of quantum mechanics (or Is quantum mechanics complete?). The should say what completeness means, why the question is asked and arguments for and against. --CSTAR 04:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea! I don't like the current title either. It was used only because that was preliminary the consensus of the discussion. But I don't see why we can't change it. Which of the two above do you prefer? I slightly prefer Completeness of quantum mechanics or perhaps Completeness issues in quantum mechanics because it is not typical for an article title to be a question.--Carl Hewitt 04:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed it Incompleteness of quantum physics.--Carl Hewitt 08:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuchs

Fuchs, Fuchs, Fuchs. He's a smart guy, but there's a lot of modern quotes from this topic from other people as well. I'll do it when I have time. Dave Kielpinski 06:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, That would be great! Also, if you provide a couple of references, I would be willing to help. Regards, --Carl Hewitt 06:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relational quantum physics

stions, and improvements are appreciated.

Thanks, --Carl Hewitt 03:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection, but the passage is somewhat abrupt. I'm not sure why you want to put it in. Though it is correct to say that "incompleteness" as asserted in the intro, which is now the conventional view is not necessarilly the final view of the matter; this revisionism is possible without violating "Bell's theorem" or the uncertainty principle. For example if we consider

Incompleteness versus indeterminacy

I'm far from an expert on this stuff, at the very least I find the use of the term "incomplete" confusing. It seems that the article is using it in two different ways. I humbly suggest that the term incomplete be used as it was in the EPR paper, to mean that QM does not describe all the knowable properties and indeterminacy to mean that these properties are unknowable.

Again, not an expert, but I really think that this sentence "Although Einstein was one of the first to formulate the necessary incompleteness of quantum physics, he never fully accepted it." is confused.

-- Isaac Vetter

Re: indeterminacy to mean that these properties are unknowable. That's certainly not my understanding of indeterminacy. See quantum indeterminacy for instance. --CSTAR 03:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]