(April 7, 2016 at 5:04 pm)Alex K Wrote: I think it goes too far to say that the consensus is that #2 true randomness is at the bottom of Quantum uncertainty. There is a consensus to use something like the Copenhagen interpretation (or should I say prescription) for virtually all practical calculations in order to not get bogged down with metaphysical questions. That means that virtually everyone uses a prescription to calculate results which does not contain rhe additional information (so called hidden variables) which would uniquely determine the result of a measurement involving quantum uncertainty. I believe people don't necessarily choose to do that because they believe in their hearts that there must be true randomness at the bottom of QM, but rather because it makes no difference for the result of any calculation if we included a deterministic description with hidden variables : we don't know the values these hidden variables anyways, and they are constructed precisely such that ignorance of the hidden variable reproduces the same statistical distribution as true quantum randomness. Someone who "believes" in a deterministic interpretation of qm will generally still use the copenhagen or similar prescriptions to calculate concrete results because it is simple.
Is there an uncertainty principle for Quantum physicists themselves which prevents them from all reaching the same conclusions? Perhaps we should be studying the scientists instead of tiny particles.
