From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,sci.physics

Subject: Re: Are there truly random phenomena?
Summary: A workable alternative to quantum mechanics exists.
Message-ID: <151@mtnmath.UUCP>
Date: 19 Aug 91 04:35:16 GMT
References: <> <1991Aug04.135708.6689@elevia.UUCP>
+           <>
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga, CA 95070
Lines: 57
Xref: sci.crypt:3867 sci.physics:14334

In article <>, (Lee Campbell) writes:
>    Quantum Mechanics (and its children quantum electrodynamics, quantum
> chromodynamics, etc) are based on the assumption that all phenomena have
> some randomness. There are theories called hidden variable theories that
> postulate that the "randomness" we see is only the predictable behavior
> of deeper level structures of which we are ignorant. Unfortunately, the
> quantum theories, which assume true randomness, have been spectacularly
> successful in predicting results, in some cases to 12 or more decimal
> places (certain electron energy levels). Meanwhile, nobody has come up
> with a working hidden variable theory despite the fact that such notables
> as Dirac and Einstein devoted decades to the problem.
>    Please show me a working theory of subatomic particles that doesn't
> *assume* randomness before making broad statements about predetermination
> and the "perception" theory of randomness.
> 						- Lee

Happy to oblige. Local quantum mechanics is a theory identical to standard
quantum mechanics except for the collapse postulate. That is replaced
by the following:

   Quantum collapse is engendered by experimental conditions designed to
   observe the classical parameters of a system. It is an objective event
   that occurs for a variety of reasons that are not fully understood or
   part of current theory. It has a local Lorentz invariant structure and
   will thus occur spontaneously before the point that an experiment would
   result in violating locality.

Local quantum mechanics is consistent with standard quantum mechanics on all
known experimental results. It differs from standard quantum mechanics because
it does not violate locality. The experimentally testable claim of standard
quantum mechanics that information can be transmitted instantly over arbitrarily 
large distances is not consistent with local quantum mechanics. (This
information transfer can not be used to send a faster than light signal as
I explained in a previous posting.) Local quantum mechanics is neutral on the
subject of randomness. The unknown structure of quantum collapse may or may
not be nondeterministic. 

It is an error to use the extreme success of some aspects of quantum
mechanics to argue for other aspects that are irrelevant to these results.
Many physicists question the current form of the collapse postulate with
its quasi-mystical reference to an observer. But if, as seems most reasonable,
quantum collapse has an objective cause then quantum theory must be incomplete.

I think it far more likely that local quantum mechanics is the correct theory
and that this will be verified when an effective experimental test of Bell's
inequality is devised. This will provide experimental proof that quantum
mechanics is incomplete and will open physics to search for the (probably
deterministic) structure of quantum collapse. 

Randomness in the fundamental laws of physics comes what the Greeks
called hubris or arrogant pride. The founders of quantum mechanics had no
idea how to construct a more complete theory so they proclaimed that none

Paul Budnik