Determinism and quantum mechanics

[Kasper]

(EDIT)This thread was split off from another thread(/EDIT)

My world view is deterministic, which means, "that every type of event, including human cognition (behaviour, decision, and action) is causally determined by previous events."

You will have to decide for yourself if determinism (which again means that 'everything has a cause') makes sense.

It indeed seems to make sense. But scientific evidence in quantum mechanics like the double split experiment has shown that this is not a good representation of reality.
It seems like many things in the universe just happen randomly, and isn't caused by any previous event.
Even more interesting, it is shown that the act of a human being, in this case measuring/observing a particle, collapses such a probability function.

If I remember correctly.

[panacea]

In science if you have a conflicting theory with the one which explains most phenomenon now (cause and effect vs random) or (evolution vs creation) or (global warming vs no change) your theory has to explain just as much as the old theory, or your findings are just anomalies of the current theory. For example, there are aspects of evolution, global warming, and any other scientific field which are anomalies (usually the most recent areas, just like quantum mechanics is for physics).

In science it's okay to not know something, and not understand exactly what variables are affecting things immediately, we continue researching to find things out, instead of come up with superstitions like creationism or chaos to create superficial explanations for everything, which leaves tremendous holes in perceptions of reality and keeps getting disproven over and over again by science.

Quantum mechanics is the field of the very very small, we are on a planet spinning over 9,000 mph, with the gravity constantly changing in tiny amounts, and who knows what weird laws affect the quantum world exactly - no one understands the intricacies of this fully yet - however one thing is for sure, nothing in science has ever been predominantly led to seem completely random over the test of time, in fact such a thing is complete superstition in and of itself, even the most complex number generation techniques we have today are not random, we just can't foresee their outcome. The same thing happens at the casino at the roulette wheel, variables affect what's going to happen, but we can't account for all variables, so no one can tell what's going to happen. And the same things happen in our brain, which is enormously complex but still follows the laws of physics (one neuron fires another neuron which fires another..) just like (one event such as a baseball player throwing a baseball triggers another baseball player to swing, if the swing hits the baseball goes flying if not then it goes to the catcher, the catcher may catch it or not, etc, there's a lot of things that can happen but they all are easily outside of the illusion of free will, we have no more free will than a baseball we just have the capacity to disregard that because believing we do feels nice, it has nothing to do with looking at the data, no one is raised by disney movies and parents these days to not believe in free will, it's conditioned in us rather than truly taught to us by science).

So, while there may indeed be room for many new and strange behavior in the quantum world which isn't apparent or existent on the Newtonian (our size) level, there is a mountain of evidence which suggests that, just as it has before (pattern of science), that it will be shown not to be truly random, but actually behave according to variables, factors, and laws of physics, even if we haven't documented or discovered all of these variables, factors, or laws yet. Ufologists do the same thing here and point at government documents which have blacked out wording, and say that it's proof of extra-terrestrials being here on our planet. While this may be so, this is not evidence for it, since a more widespread explanation is that it's to prevent terrestrial (humans of this planet) threats, a national security threat if you will, and that the idea of aliens being hidden without their will by our government (us being superior, or the government actually doing a really good job at something for once) is highly unlikely. So, point out the few exceptions to the tremendous mountain of evidence for determinism, (it's good to do so), but also understand that these anomalies exist everywhere in any scientific explanation, yet you will use your computer, your car, your bike, and an airplane at 30,000 feet with very little fear of these things imploding or merging into your leg because you know science models reality and works predictably and according to rules/laws, not random chaos.

I would also like to point out that even if the universe is truly random on some level, there is still no room for free will because randomness does not mean free choice, it just means random. You can't control true randomness so you have no choice just like you can't control true cause and effect, you're a victim of the causes before you and you're a victim of the randomness you can't understand. So, whether randomness exists or not the most viable way to understand our reality is a deterministic view.

[Kasper]

In science if you have a conflicting theory with the one which explains most phenomenon now (cause and effect vs random) or (evolution vs creation) or (global warming vs no change) your theory has to explain just as much as the old theory, or your findings are just anomalies of the current theory. For example, there are aspects of evolution, global warming, and any other scientific field which are anomalies (usually the most recent areas, just like quantum mechanics is for physics).

The double split experiment is done somewhere in the 50's. It's known as a fact in physics for a looong time.
I study physics and I just had a couple of college in physics where the professor is constantly telling that the Newtonian deterministic world view is incorrect.

Albert Einstein was one of those who in the beginning didn't want to believe it, because he didn't want to give up his deterministic world view. The famous quote: "God does not throw dice" was from that time.

In science it's okay to not know something, and not understand exactly what variables are affecting things immediately, we continue researching to find things out, instead of come up with superstitions like creationism or chaos to create superficial explanations for everything, which leaves tremendous holes in perceptions of reality and keeps getting disproven over and over again by science.

Is creatonism disproven ? I thought it is never proven nor disproven.
Determinsm keeps getting disproven over and over again by science..

however one thing is for sure, nothing in science has ever been predominantly led to seem completely random over the test of time

Well, it is. If I remember correctly, the position of an electron at a certain time has predominantly led to seem completely random if it is indirectly observed. If it is being direclty observed it acts deterministic like.

The same thing happens at the casino at the roulette wheel, variables affect what's going to happen, but we can't account for all variables, so no one can tell what's going to happen. And the same things happen in our brain, which is enormously complex but still follows the laws of physics (one neuron fires another neuron which fires another

If one neuron fires another, electron certainly are involved width this, as electrons act randomnly, even if we know all the variables, we couldn't foresee the exact outcome. We can only foresee which outcome has the highest chance...

So, while there may indeed be room for many new and strange behavior in the quantum world which isn't apparent or existent on the Newtonian (our size) level, there is a mountain of evidence which suggests that, just as it has before (pattern of science), that it will be shown not to be truly random, but actually behave according to variables, factors, and laws of physics, even if we haven't documented or discovered all of these variables, factors, or laws yet.

Einstein believed the same for a long period of time. But in the end he admitted that he was probably wrong.

So, point out the few exceptions to the tremendous mountain of evidence for determinism, (it's good to do so), but also understand that these anomalies exist everywhere in any scientific explanation,

Well, there isn't tremendous evidence for determinism. Determinism says that that every type of event, including human cognition (behaviour, decision, and action) is causally determined by previous events.
There is tremendous evidence that many events are causally determined by previous events, but that doesn't prove every event is causally determined...
As far as I know there is no evidence that our world is determinstic. Only evidence that it doesn't.

I would also like to point out that even if the universe is truly random on some level, there is still no room for free will because randomness does not mean free choice, it just means random. You can't control true randomness so you have no choice just like you can't control true cause and effect, you're a victim of the causes before you and you're a victim of the randomness you can't understand. So, whether randomness exists or not the most viable way to understand our reality is a deterministic view.

I don't understand what you mean width the last sentence.. sorry I'm dutch, maybe it's the word viable. I think it means "able to live" or something like that.. But I don't understand why you want a viable way to understand our reality, I think it's about the correct way to understand our reality, and scientific evidence tells us that this isn't deterministic.

Do you know any study about free will ? It's an intresting topic!

[djkvan]

the position of an electron at a certain time has predominantly led to seem completely random

...that can be seen at the present time.

seems like many things in the universe just happen randomly, and isn't caused by any previous event.

"seems" appears to be a word which opens the door to determinism, as again the electron's motion in the absence of direct observation may at some later point be found to be due to other determining factors. Theory is just that: theory. Our best guess with the available information. From that perspective any theory must, by virtue of the fact that it isn't fact, leave the door open to other theories and encourage competing theories in order to come to the best possible guess or even the rare new "fact". The going theory several hundred years ago was that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe. OOPS! Dropped the sphere on that one, didn't they. It's a good thing that the Roman Catholic church didn't kill everyone with opposing theories.

Operating from the hypothesis of a continuous universe would presuppose that everything is connected, and therefore, determinism rules the day.

Free will (within a deterministic universe) rules!

Over-prepare, then go with the flow, I say.

[djkvan]

Er, I meant contiguous universe.

[panacea]

There is still one major question,

If everything (or 99.9% of everything) on the Newtonian level, which we are best at testing and observing, since it isn't as sporadic and sensitive to variables, acts from pure cause and effect, why do you hold the level which we can't play with like putty, which we have to use complex instruments just to get an idea of what is going on, etc, to have more value? Isn't it more likely by far that this area (very tiny quantum phenomena) is more obscured than the feedback the universe is giving us on our level, with the tools (5 senses) and reasoning we have to understand it enough to manipulate it so easily (compared to quantum world). And why is it, if the quantum world is truly random, that the presence of the observer gives the same phenomenon every time? Not sure if it does, but it kind of defeats the argument of it being controlled by pure chaos or randomness.

And about free will, I was simply pointing out that even if electrons caused neurons in our brain to act randomly, which I believe not to be true, then it's not in our control - random doesn't mean it's subject to our human brain. It just means that, yet again, if someone does something, like commit a crime, they shouldn't be blamed because either (1) random phenomena in their neurons caused them to act a certain way coupled with cause and effect, or (2) pure cause and effect caused them to act a certain way. This is why prisons, or correctional facilities, and almost all forms of punishment, even in households, is irrational. People should indeed help each other to learn and not act in a way that hurts others such as in crime or misbehaving, but they take it too far by holding grudges, blame, and all of these superficial things over the person who is no more guilty than a bird pooping on your car window. Sometimes you even see people getting angry at these birds! People are swimming, showering, and washing their hands with an abundant supply of behavior that suggests they don't, or were raised by people who didn't, understand reality at all (a purely non-biased one, random or not).

This does not mean committing crimes is justifiable btw, or that people should not be helped, but it would be far more rational to understand criminal and negligent behavior and strive to help them just as you would train a bird not to poop on your window, rather than lock the bird up, give it less food than normal, and let it get beaten up by other caged birds and call it a correctional facility. Even worse, the people outside of the cage will be smirking and saying the bird deserves it, as the real issue of the bird being the actual victim (to the environment, cause and effect, or random, whichever you believe) flies right over their heads.

If everyone saw it this way people would be working like hell to make the environment better, tear down borders, stop all wars, give up things that don't unify us, stop hoarding wealth and realize that by cooperation we can be much more productive, but only if everyone does it.

Basically by understanding reality, finally physicists and philosophers can say they did something useful and relevant to laypeople and create global peace.

[Kasper]

If everything (or 99.9% of everything) on the Newtonian level, which we are best at testing and observing, since it isn't as sporadic and sensitive to variables, acts from pure cause and effect, why do you hold the level which we can't play with like putty, which we have to use complex instruments just to get an idea of what is going on, etc, to have more value?

If you make the statement
A: Every event is causally determined by a previous event

Than if you find an event that is causally determined, than this doesn't tell you anything about the truth of statement A.
So it has not much value about the truth of statement A, expect that it doesn't disprove statement A.
If you find something that disprove statement A that surely has more value regarding the truth of this statement.

And why is it, if the quantum world is truly random, that the presence of the observer gives the same phenomenon every time? Not sure if it does, but it kind of defeats the argument of it being controlled by pure chaos or randomness.

The presence of the observer gives the same phenomenon every time ??
It's not about the presence, it's about the act of observing. If you directly observe a electron or photon it acts as a normal newton particle, if you observe it indirectly it acts like a probability function. You can say the quantum theory is probabilistic.

And about free will, I was simply pointing out that even if electrons caused neurons in our brain to act randomly, which I believe not to be true

Are you aware that this believe that electrons act deterministic is probably based on superstitious arguments like: "I have the feeling that this make sense".. And your faith that such a feeling represent reality ..
And logical fallacies as: "Many event is causally determined by a previous event", so electron must act deterministic

You once said:

However there is no better way (read: scientific way) to get to the actual truth in matters, that we know of, and we certainly know that what people assume to believe is not anywhere near a good a model as deductive reasoning, scientific method, etc.

There is no emperical evidence that electrons act deterministic. But there is very much empirical evidence that electron act probabilistic.

Besides this, I think I agree about your worldview regarding free will. Although in my personal life, I tend to believe in free will, but that hasn't to do something with science, but because I know I act differently if I believe I have control of my life.

[panacea]

When you get into the more sensitive world of science, the quantum world, I expect you to isolate your experiments more carefully, since even the tiniest variable can affect the outcome, such as the constantly changing gravity on electrons etc etc, you've already said yourself that the act of observing stops the 'probability' effect, so if it was true randomness, this probability effect, and not controlled by variables and causes, why does an observer control it and make it dissapear? Is your randomness tainted by one 'cause' but when the cause isn't there, it's impossible for you to entertain the idea that there may be other complex causes you haven't identified yet creating your supposed probability effect?

The fact is the only way you can attempt to disprove determinism at the present time is to use a more sensitive scientific environment, going on the tiniest most unstable level we can, and then saying that what happens there must disprove our more controlled experiments and observations of reality. The flaw in this is that you assume you have accounted for all variables, and you hasted to conclude that something must be random, when really you haven't even been able to test something in a still state (earth is moving like I said) without constantly fluctuating gravity, and without controlling the electrons and other subatomic particles around the experiment. Basically you just found an environment to carry out tests that you can't control as well as test environments in the Newtonian level, and then hasted to assume your findings were more substantial than the better controlled tests. These extreme isolations are not needed on the Newtonian level, since it's one we can easily control and see what's effecting things - for example we can tell that these tiny things we can't even see called atoms explain phenomenon we see around us, yet it's much harder to see the intricacies of what controls them. Just because you can show that a bunch of them appear to behave randomly isn't in the least proof that they are random any more than a being the size of our galaxy looking at us could fathom why herds of animals on life sustaining planets sometimes move in one direction and sometimes another, when really the cause is the need for food, or temperature is uncomfortable, etc. That's why it's really just plain ridiculous to rely on such obscure test results of environments foreign to us to explain our reality when we have already found cause and effect, which is backed on the Newtonian level completely, already.

I'm all for continuing research on quantum mechanics, and discovering potential new laws or phenomena such as randomness, but these things shouldn't be assumed to be true until we have a good degree of understanding and ways to monitor and isolate such small events. Basically we need to strive for better technology before assuming that our primitive tests in the quantum world disprove our advanced elaborate and well controlled and understood tests (and the variables surrounding them) of the cause and effect nature everywhere else.

This unwillingness to wait for better understanding, and jumping to superstitious conclusions such as gods, randomness, ghosts, etc in areas we can't or couldn't in the past understand very well (quantum for randomness cosmos for gods) is a well known flaw in mankind's reasoning. Since our adventure began in the quest to understand reality, we've found that without exception things like tribal rituals, religions, ghosts, magic, and all other supernatural beliefs don't stand up the model of reality science gives us in the long run. To show that randomness is indeed supernatural is evidenced by the facts that everything we know of, even the double slit experiment, has a cause. We can easily see that the probability effects' cause is a lack of the experiment being directly observed. This shows that at least at the core, this effect is determined, and caused by, some variable (observer). It's the same as saying that if you shoot a basketball, you know the basketball will travel because you caused it to with your motion, then you see that sometimes you miss the shot and sometimes you don't, and call it random. This is superstition and the double slit experiment is no different until you can show that all variables have been accounted for - the burden of proof is on you since random things don't happen on our level, and no other thing in the universe has this supposed trait of randomness that we've found. Unfortunately for you to be able to account for all the variables, you'll have to isolate the experiment far better and you can't do that with current technology. This is not an excuse to say you did the best you could so it must be true, it must be done with a higher degree of certainty since you're dealing with more sensitive test subjects (electrons).

[Kasper]

I spend a great deal of time in this post, so I hope you really read this panacea.

it's impossible for you to entertain the idea that there may be other complex causes you haven't identified yet creating your supposed probability effect?

I could ask you the exact the same question about newtons law. Maybe there is more complex cause, it seems that newtons law are really fundamental, but in reality they are just made up by a god who wants us to think we know something about fundamental laws in physics, while it's actually all bullshit. if God wanted he could break all these laws we think we have discovered, he can make up every law he wants... there is nothing fundemental true about this life, except the existence of God, who rules the universe.

If you try hard enough, you can always come up width a theory that god exist (or really a theory about whatever you want), which can't be disproven (yet) by scientific evidence.

You are using the same arguments, people tend to use to support that the concept of a god can't be disproven.
You can always use the argument that we don't know enough about science to be really sure.

However in science we tend not to believe theories which could be true,
but theories which are supported by empirical evidence, theories which predict in great detail the observations we make, theories which are logical consequence of some axioma's we assume are true.

Of course theories that God exist or that every event must be causally determined by a previous event, can be philosophical intresting, but it isn't called science as long as there is no empirical evidence supporting it.

you've already said yourself that the act of observing stops the 'probability' effect, so if it was true randomness, this probability effect, and not controlled by variables and causes, why does an observer control it and make it dissapear?

If I knew this, I wouldn't tell you before I've published a scientific article about this, because I surely would win a nobel price :p
If you want to learn more about this, this video is a good start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

The fact is the only way you can attempt to disprove determinism at the present time is to use a more sensitive scientific environment, going on the tiniest most unstable level we can, and then saying that what happens there must disprove our more controlled experiments and observations of reality.

Well determinism is disproven by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in 1927.
Einstein spent a great deal of his life to find gaps in this theory, but couldn't find any.
If you don't believe it you can try to disprove it, and if you are able to do so, you will surely win a nobel price (wow, imagine, we both have a nobel price ) and be known as an even greater genius than Einstein.
But as long as you haven't, me and the rest of scientific community will see this principle as a fact.

This unwillingness to wait for better understanding, and jumping to superstitious conclusions such as gods, randomness, ghosts, etc in areas we can't or couldn't in the past understand very well (quantum for randomness cosmos for gods) is a well known flaw in mankind's reasoning. Since our adventure began in the quest to understand reality, we've found that without exception things like tribal rituals, religions, ghosts, magic, and all other supernatural beliefs don't stand up the model of reality science gives us in the long run.

That theories about gods and ghost don't have much support in the scientific community is purely because there is no emperical evidence that support these theories.
It's not because gods, randomness, ghosts, etc. are by itself false theories... That is a dogma.
I've said this before, but it's logical fallacy to think that there is no room for concept as creationism and randomness in a theory just because many theories can be explained without these concepts.
As it comes to science, it's about if a theory is supported by empirical evidence, and if it's logical consequence of other theories/axioms etc.
If there was much emperical evidence god exist, I would believe it.

The flaw in this is that you assume you have accounted for all variables, and you hasted to conclude that something must be random

Is there any experiment where are 100% sure we have accounted for all variables ?
Maybe there are variables we can't even observe with our 5 senses... Also in the newtonian level we are not sure if we have accounted for all variables.

This conclusion about electrons is "just" the consensus in the scientific community.
I don't say it's the fundamental truth... There is not such a thing in science.

Basically you just found an environment to carry out tests that you can't control as well as test environments in the Newtonian level, and then hasted to assume your findings were more substantial than the better controlled tests.

I don't say they are more substantial, I only say they have more value regarding finding the truth of determinism, which you really can't deny.

To show that randomness is indeed supernatural is evidenced by the facts that everything we know of, even the double slit experiment, has a cause.

Logical fallacy.. conclusion is false, and even for your argument there is no evidence...

We can easily see that the probability effects' cause is a lack of the experiment being directly observed. This shows that at least at the core, this effect is determined, and caused by, some variable (observer).

Come on, study quantum mechanics first, before you talk about it in this way.. \

Basically we need to strive for better technology before assuming that our primitive tests in the quantum world disprove our advanced elaborate and well controlled and understood tests (and the variables surrounding them) of the cause and effect nature everywhere else.

They don't disprove them. They can go perfecly hand in hand.
Newton laws are deterministic, general relativity laws are deterministic, and quantum mechanics laws are probabilistic.
The whole universe, must therefore be something in between.
We can never predict exactly what will happen in the future, or what has happened in the past, we can only predict the chance that something will happen.
And the more we know, we can predict this chance in a greater detail, but we'll never know exactly what will happen. And therefore the universe isn't deterministic.

[djkvan]

If you directly observe a electron or photon it acts as a normal newton particle, if you observe it indirectly it acts like a probability function.

Do you not suppose that I (or most anyone for that matter) act differently if I perceive someone to be watching me than when I am alone. Who knows what a thing is doing when no one is watching, (unless you add some hidden camera without their/its knowledge and even then can it be proven that, at some level, the person/object doesn't sense the presence of another attending source; saying not likely doesn't disprove anything). Of course that would suggest that subatomic particles respond to the energy of our attention, which is impossible of course as that is an exclusively human phenomenon and certainly doesn't happen in our interactions between animals and plants.

if electrons caused neurons in our brain to act randomly, which I believe not to be true

.

What if belief is a quantifiable force in and of itself as it does represent the end product of brain activity. I believe it has been shown that there are direct changes to the brain activity of those having a "religious experience". There is science in god and god in science. So within the context of certain physical limitations (genetics, etc...) of the body, our thought processes and beliefs directly impact the organization and activity of electrons (e.g. psychosomatic disorders, superhuman strength in times of crisis). But this is just a theory which can neither be proven nor disproved if I continue to believe it regardless of what anyone says, for unless I allow it, nobody can change my beliefs, and therefore the unique organization of the electrons/neurons in my brain.

My apologies, I haven't read the most recent posts beyond this point, so this is just an early response.

[djkvan]

If you directly observe a electron or photon it acts as a normal newton particle, if you observe it indirectly it acts like a probability function.

Behaving differently when observed could imply consciousness and perhaps even self-consciousness. I believe that each of these criteria are necessary in determining if an entity is intelligent or not, no?

[panacea]

I will be back later tonight to reply, but for now one thing stands out, your comment about heisenburg uncertainty principle,
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle deals with measurement and the accuracy to which it can be achieved. For example, if you know a particle's position, you can't know its momentum and velocity. It's important to note that this does not mean that the momentum and velocity are random. It means that we, as observers, can't know it so to us they may as well be 'random' which is quitting in my mind, when instead we should say we can't measure it yet with the tools and methods available.. As you can see it absolutely does not prove determinism is false.

It all comes back to what your perception is, do you believe that things have causes, or do you believe that things act on their own?
Neither can be disproven, but if things act on their own we live in a very dark world, where evil humans run around killing tons of people, many people are going to hell, and a lot of people just have bad 'luck'. As far as this post was concerned, determinism is a stressor solution perception because it doesn't leave room for that kind of thinking - there is no need to hold onto greedy ideals or fear of gods and death, and in fact you can become ultimately selfish and help mankind to help yourself, rather than hoard all the wealth and power you can to exploit humanity.

That's why it's included in the original post for a world view, I'm not saying I have done some study which will prove the validity of determinism to all people on this planet, I haven't found a single thing all people on this planet believe yet anyway, no matter how obvious it is.

[djkvan]

but if things act on their own we live in a very dark world, where evil humans run around killing tons of people

Some things act on their own (e.g. Hitler, Charles Manson) regardless of how many people are or aren't watching, so both determinism and randomness can apply. There is room for both as both occur. The difficulty arises due to the fact that the acts of the above mentioned people may operate predictably due to their unique neurological organization and life experiences which contributed to their psychological makeups. Even so randomness is an acceptable outcome within the probability model of things.

[djkvan]

These extreme isolations are not needed on the Newtonian level

This is true, if all you are concerned with is gross, observable data, but faulty in its reasoning when one considers the fact that Newtonian objects contain those same electrons that behave differently when being directly observed. That is why in medical research in vivo is vastly different from ex vivo or in vitro. The small intestine, for example as my gastroenterologist told me (after removing a precancerous polyp from the large colon), from an in vivo perspective, is a relative mystery and lends itself poorly to study. But, that's where the action/mystery happens, digestively speaking, all in the absence of the observer. One can can propose that any number of things are going on with this diet or that, but all it is is theory, which is why health food and supplement manufacturers get rich. No one really knows what's happening. But if my reasoning is clear and I observe the balance around me in nature, and follow the breadcrumbs of history it can become more obvious what we once did when we as a species were in harmony with what was going down on a Newtonian level, instead of trying to dominate it.

[Kasper]

I studied some quantum mechanics tonight.

As you can see it absolutely does not prove determinism is false.

That depends on your definition of determinism.
It disprove that an observer is able to predict the future and the past deterministic, because one can't measure all the physical quantities precise enough.
But it indeed doesn't prove that the nature "itself" isn't able to know what will happen in the past or the future.
However I don't know if this is a scientific topic.

Nevertheless, the no hidden variable theorem [1] shows that if if one assumes that all physical quantities (or at least sufficiently many of them) have definite values before being “measured”, then one runs into contradictions.
This suggest that even if we don't measure them, all physical quantities can't have a definite value... I know quantum mechanics is quite hard to understand, (or maybe impossible).
I don't think that determinism and the no hidden variable theorem can go hand in hand.

Of course there are many so-called hidden variable theorems. Suggesting quantum mechanics must be incomplete. The most important one is Bohm's theory. But this theory has some weaknesses:
"The main weakness of Bohm's theory is that it looks contrived - which it is. It was deliberately designed to give predictions which are in all details identical to conventional quantum mechanics. His aim was not to make a serious counterproposal but simply to demonstrate that hidden-variables theories are indeed possible.

Here is some more information about hidden variable theories: http://www.fact-index.com/h/hi/hidden_v ... heory.html

But I hope it's clear that the general consensus under physicists is that there are no hidden variables and quantum mechanics is a complete theory.

[1] D. Mermin, Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, (1993), 803-815.