# Can the laws of quantum mechanics be derived from a more fundamental theory?

+ 7 like - 0 dislike
1275 views

String theory takes quantum mechanics and tries to make it compatible with gravity. If it turns out to be a theory of everything then would it explain why our world is described by the laws of quantum mechanics?

I want to understand if the laws of quantum mechanics are the only logical possibility for a low-energy theory potentially derivable from a better understanding of string theory. The other possibility is that they are just strange laws that are discovered through experiments that can't be reached by pure theoretical reasoning.

Which of the two possibilities is more reasonable from a physics point of view and why?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:41 (UCT), posted by SE-user bill
I am not sure if you are looking for something along the lines of contextuality? In quantum information theory, quantum states are simply states with a higher degree of correlation than possible within classical theories. There is, however, the possibility of theories where there are even stronger correlations. These would include quantum mechanics, but be distinct from it. I think (I am not sure though), there are certain experimentally verifiable bounds and correlations, but so far no experiment has, to my knowledge, broken them.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:41 (UCT), posted by SE-user S. Gammelmark
@dmckee I have edited the formulation of this question to make it more to the point. I think asking if the laws of quantum mechanics can be derived from a more fundamental theory is a legitimate fundamental physics question. It can be answered in accordance with the actual point of view hold by theoretical physicists, as Lubos Motls has shown in his comment or in more detail in his blog article he linkes too. So can the question now be reopend? (I think people who do not properly understand the questions discussing too much nonsense in the comments does not invalidate the question itself)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:41 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton

The question asks if there is a more fundamental theory behind quantum mechanics(QM). This is a huge subject starting with e.g. hidden variable theories, Bohm's pilot wave theory, 't Hooft's deterministic models, etc.; and continuing with the latest ideas of quantum gravity. Perhaps it would be more constructive if OP would ask about a concrete proposal that extends QM? Related: The reference frame, this and this posts.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:41 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic

I think this question should get reopend to obtain a nice and clear answer which clears all misconceptions up once and for all.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:41 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton
Just like any physical theory, quantum theory can be wrong, and will almost certainly be proven to be wrong by future experiments. In fact, the combination of quantum theory and general relativity suggests that any theory formulated in terms of real numbers are wrong, which include quantum theory and general relativity. This is because if quantum theory and general relativity are correct, then real number cannot exist, since real number can never be measured. So quantum theory and general relativity are not self consistent. One of them must be wrong. Most likely, both of them are wrong.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:41 (UCT), posted by SE-user Xiao-Gang Wen
Conventional string theory assumes quantum mechanical axioms from the very beginning.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:41 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
@Qmechanic yes I know ... :-). So saying that it is rather the other way round together with Lumo's comment and article about why QM can not be different would make a good correct answer I think.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:41 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysicsO$\varnothing$erflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.