Gerhard 't Hooft received the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics for
- elucidating the quantum structure of electroweak interactions in physics.
On Wikipedia he is presented as a Quantum Mechanics QM theory dissident:
- 't Hooft has "deviating views on the physical interpretation of quantum theory".
- He believes that there could be a deterministic explanation underlying quantum mechanics.
- Using a speculative model he has argued that such a theory could avoid the usual Bell inequality arguments that would disallow such a local hidden-variable theory.
- In 2016 he published a book length exposition of his ideas which, according to 't Hooft, has encountered mixed reactions.
Here we can listen to what how Gerhard explains his position to a general audience:
- QM is first of all a theory which is correct.
- I am not going to put any doubt to the fundamental correct nature of QM.
- The entire world is controlled by QM.
- But a question was not answered properly: What is reality?
- What is a particle, a field?
- Bohr framed an agreement to not ask such questions.
- I disagree, I am asking these questions.
- Many worlds and pilot waves theories cannot be right.
- QM sounds crazy, QM sounds wrong, but it works.
- There should be a real world.
- This is a dangerous thing to say.
- I you say so you place yourself outside the discussion area.
- I am convinced we will get the truth about what QM really means, but it may take a long time...
So Gerhard says that QM is correct but at the same time that it cannot be correct. There must be something better yet to discover...
I have suggested Gerhard to take a look at RealQM and will report if I get a reaction.
Do you think there is a parallel between CI and Bayesian logic, which is commonly treated as a more subjective thing than frequentist statistics?
SvaraRaderaI do not think that statistics is useful to describe atoms and molecules since these are stable deterministic building blocks.
SvaraRadera