Quantum mechanics is just plain weird. I don’t really understand it at all, partly because of the strange nature of the probabilities in QM. They certainly seem to fit observation (so physicists say), but what do they mean? Well, it just might be that they are traditional probabilities after all. That is, Gerard ’t Hooft has proposed a new deterministic interpretation of QM which makes sense of all of the numbers. Nature has an elementary article about it, and the preprint is available for the hard-core physicists among you. It looks neat from here, but as I have said, I don’t really understand the details. Those of you who do, let me know: does this account avoid the usual objections to “hidden variables”?
I’m Greg Restall, and this is my personal website. I teach philosophy and logic as Professor of Philosophy at the University of Melbourne. ¶ Start at the home page of this site—a compendium of recent additions around here—and go from there to learn more about who I am and what I do. ¶ This is my personal site on the web. Nothing here is in any way endorsed by the University of Melbourne.