Is quantum theory predictably complete?

Quantum theory (QT) provides statistical predictions for various physical phenomena. To verify these predictions a considerable amount of data has been accumulated in the 'measurements' performed on the ensembles of identically prepared physical systems or in the repeated 'measurements' on some trapped 'individual physical systems'. The outcomes of these measurements are, in general, some numerical time series registered by some macroscopic instruments. The various empirical probability distributions extracted from these time series were shown to be consistent with the probabilistic predictions of QT. More than 70 years ago the claim was made that QT provided the most complete description of 'individual' physical systems and outcomes of the measurements performed on 'individual' physical systems were obtained in an intrinsically random way. Spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCEs), performed to test the validity of Bell inequalities, clearly demonstrated the existence of strong long-range correlations and confirmed that the beams hitting far away detectors somehow preserve the memory of their common source which would be destroyed if the individual counts of far away detectors were purely random. Since the probabilities describe the random experiments and are not the attributes of the 'individual' physical systems, the claim that QT provides a complete description of 'individual' physical systems seems not only unjustified but also misleading and counter productive. In this paper, we point out that we even do not know whether QT is predictably complete because it has not been tested carefully enough. Namely, it was not proven that the time series of existing experimental data did not contain some stochastic fine structures that could have been averaged out by describing them in terms of the empirical probability distributions. In this paper, we advocate various statistical tests that could be used to search for such fine structures in the data and to answer the title question of this paper. In our opinion a proper understanding of the statistical character of QT and of its limitations is crucial in the domains such as quantum optics and quantum information.

[1]  Gwilym M. Jenkins,et al.  Time series analysis, forecasting and control , 1972 .

[2]  Luigi Accardi,et al.  Universality of the EPR-chameleon model , 2007 .

[3]  M. Kupczynski,et al.  Entanglement and Bell Inequalities , 2004 .

[4]  M. Kupczynski Is the Hilbert space language too rich? , 1974 .

[5]  M. Kupczyński,et al.  Pitovsky model and complementarity , 1987 .

[6]  I. Bialynicki-Birula On the linearity of the Schrödinger equation , 2005 .

[7]  George E. P. Box,et al.  Time Series Analysis: Box/Time Series Analysis , 2008 .

[8]  Marian Kupczynski EPR Paradox, Locality and Completeness of Quantum Theory , 2007 .

[9]  M. Kupczyński,et al.  Tests for the purity of the initial ensemble of states in scattering experiments , 1974 .

[10]  R. B. Lindsay,et al.  Essays 1958-1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge , 1987 .

[11]  Weinberg,et al.  Precision tests of quantum mechanics. , 1989, Physical review letters.

[12]  Günther Ludwig Foundations of quantum mechanics , 1983 .

[13]  W. De Baere On conditional bell inequalities and quantum mechanics , 1984 .

[14]  M. Kupczyński,et al.  On some new tests of completeness of quantum mechanics , 1986 .

[15]  A. Shimony,et al.  Bell's theorem. Experimental tests and implications , 1978 .

[16]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Reconstruction of quantum theory on the basis of the formula of total probability , 2003, quant-ph/0302194.

[17]  Gwilym M. Jenkins,et al.  Time series analysis, forecasting and control , 1971 .

[18]  J. Gajewski,et al.  Purity tests for π-d charge multiplicity distributions , 1979 .

[19]  Marian Kupczynski On the Completeness of Quantum Mechanics , 2002 .

[20]  Andrei Khrennikov Interference of probabilities in the classical probabilistic framework , 2005, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[21]  Albert Einstein,et al.  Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? , 1935 .

[22]  Marian Kupczynski Seventy Years of the EPR Paradox , 2006 .

[23]  J. Bell On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox , 1964 .

[24]  Guillaume Adenier,et al.  Is the fair sampling assumption supported by EPR experiments , 2007 .

[25]  R. Balian,et al.  The quantum measurement process: an exactly solvable model , 2003, cond-mat/0408316.

[26]  W. M. de Muynck,et al.  Interpretations of quantum mechanics, joint measurement of incompatible observables, and counterfactual definiteness , 1994 .

[27]  M. Kupczynski,et al.  On some important statistical tests , 1977 .

[28]  Luigi Accardi,et al.  Some loopholes to save quantum nonlocality , 2005 .

[29]  David R. Brillinger,et al.  Time Series: Data Analysis and Theory. , 1982 .

[30]  Leslie E Ballentine,et al.  The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics , 1970 .

[31]  M. Kupczyński,et al.  Bertrand's paradox and Bell's inequalities , 1987 .

[32]  I. Pitowsky Resolution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen and Bell Paradoxes , 1982 .

[33]  L. Ballentine Quantum mechanics : a modern development , 1998 .

[34]  Andrei Khrennikov Bell's Inequality: Nonlocalty, “Death of Reality”, or Incompatibility of Random Variables? , 2007 .

[35]  W. De Baere On the significance of Bell's inequality for hidden-variable theories , 1984 .