EPR, Bell verses Global Hidden Variable

[antonvrba]

Richard wrote in another thread:
“I wish to raise a new point:
EPR argued, assuming locality, that QM was wrong or incomplete
Bell argued that QM was wrong or nonlocal
He also argued in other papers that it was incomplete

I think most people here think it is incomplete - almost everyone is trying to add to it.”

In my opinion QM is wrong.  Bell is very clear, and all experiments confirm his view, that no local variable accounts for the QM phenomena.  The physics community is reluctant to overthrow previous agreed interpretation and searches for addons, however each addon brings new problems. 

What is needed is to question the Copenhagen Interpretation.

We must also remember that Bell’s theorem cannot discriminate between wavefunction collapse (a mathematical modelling tool) and a global hidden variable such as a momentum and energy conservation that Noether’s theorem demands.

In the past
 https://groups.google.com/g/Bell_quantum_foundations/c/kRAToGmxvEw/m/1hPio-MvDAAJ
I urged Bryan to consider a global hidden variable, because if he can show that the disproof of Bell theorem is no longer a question.  Unfortunately, such a heuristic statement in Bryan’s GA approach will not hold, because he cannot establish a link between his GA modelling and fundamental principles of reality, over and above the many mathematical inconsistencies, heuristic statements, etc that cloud his papers.

I maintain that Nature develops on simple laws from a simple field theory, it does not obey mathematical models with Hilbert spaces, wave functions, and Nature cannot solve the ten tensors with 100 variables (GR).

The purpose of this thread, is to discuss what is required to design an experiment that discriminates the Copenhagen Interpretation and show the existence of a global hidden variable

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Anton,

Generally interpretations do not give new results. And there are good reasons why we can't tell the difference. For a fact QM gives probabilities of experimental outcomes.

In each experiment the probabilities of all outcomes must add to one.

Similarly for an incompatible experiment.

This pretty will forces a Hilbert space structure for the probabilities.

Cheers

Mark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/c6875e87-6b77-49d4-bbc8-b0ea0c7b47e3n%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

By Gleason’s theorem?

Sent from my iPad

On 13 Jul 2026, at 12:27, 'Mark Hadley' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo2VMasumbmzT%3Dg62jVTwScYB510nCjjyU2mMpxUhCVaiA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

PS, and from Gleason’s theorem one obtains a no-go theorem for non-contextual hidden variables - the famous Kochen-Specker theorem. This paper gave me an Erdös number of three. Not bad, heh!?

Sent from my iPad

On 13 Jul 2026, at 12:31, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com> wrote:

By Gleason’s theorem?

[Mark Hadley]

Not just Gleason's theorem.

The first is that the Hilbert space structure is the same as the logical structure of propositions. It's a required structure for contextuality. I see contextuality as primary, because that is a physics statement.

Yes, then Gleason's theorem says there is only one consistent way to give probabilitiesnon the Hilbert space. The born rule (Trace) With classical probability as a special case.

Next is that the Hilbert space must be over the field of complex numbers to get non trivial equations. Reals or quaternions give 0=0.

Then add symmetry and continuity of spacetime, and Schroedinger equations etc can be derived uniquely and a non zero constant is introduced. hbar

All that without any explanation or insight of the underlying cause. 

I seek an underlying explanation. Believing QM is incomplete, but the completion needs a non local element.

This group is interesting to see how that nonlocal element is introduced.

Cheers

Mark 

[anton vrba]

Mark and Richard your initial replies echo the mindset of the Copenhagen Interpretation, that is fine I am not criticising.  All that I am asking is an open mind approach for an alternative (which can only be a global hidden variable approach) and not an immediate rejection.  

A global hidden variable theory would be a causal and deterministic. 

A global hidden variable is only ruled out by ontology and not by empirical experiment. Can an experiment be designed that discriminates between probabilistic and causal QM?

Richard, the de Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave Theory is the most famous example of a hidden variable theory that completely bypasses Gleason's theorem. 

Mark, your statement: "I seek an underlying explanation. Believing QM is incomplete, but the completion needs a non local element.  This group is interesting to see how that nonlocal element is introduced." is encouraging as it echoes my believe.

[Mark Hadley]

To be clear: global, nonlocal, contextual are very closely related. But I think global needs a prefered reference frame. Am I wrong?

EPR and non locality get a lot of debate, but arguably Kochen Speker is more powerful and tells us the same.

No. De Broglie Bohm necessarily satisfies Gleason's theory. It is part of the formalism. The probability of the particle being at x is the \psi(x) squared. It the quadratic expression for probability as per Gleason's theorem. You can see the necessity by doing a Fourier transformation to get a function of momentum with it's own probabilities.

Interestingly Bohms theory calls this the equilibrium distribution and predicts that the mod squared distribution will be rapidly achieved even if it starts out of equilibrium.

Cheers

Mark 

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Mark,

Global means I reply to you all at once, it is not a statement about physics

Bryan

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo3LVH2tgefQxiD1pFJ4QuraMqsPQitYO53ChkLRNhUe6g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

Mark wrote: "EPR and non locality get a lot of debate, but arguably Kochen Speker is more powerful and tells us the same."

Thanks for that spur. Retrocausality solves Bell.  I now have the skeleton of a paper to show 2-slit interference using Cramer and my quantum retrocausality.  Next I need to look at KS which I have stayed completely away from previously.

A quick look tells me that I should not need to worry. Three alternative measurements on one particle may show that no fixed eigenvalue can be inherent in the particle.  But in a retrocausal model, the future after the measurement comes back in the confirmation wave (my antipreons) and affects the contenets of the particle.  I do not need to worry about the roads not taken as there is no need to for consistency with paths not travelled.

Bryan, Your 'global' was on another thread.  The global on this thread was I believe from Anton.

[Richard Gill]

I think the Copenhagen interpretation can be made rigorous and consistent by following Belavkin’s approach of placing the Heisenberg cut at the boundary between past and future, by adopting his non demolition principle, and by embracing irreducible quantum randomness as an axiomatically legitimate building block of physical reality.

Sent from my iPad

On 13 Jul 2026, at 13:11, anton vrba <anto...@gmail.com> wrote: