Doubt in a RC passage

Quantum mechanics is a highly successful theory: it
supplies methods for accurately calculating the results
of diverse experiments, especially with minute particles.
Line The predictions of quantum mechanics, however, give
(5) only the probability of an event, not a deterministic
statement of whether or not the event will occur.
Because of this probabilism, Einstein remained strongly
dissatisfied with the theory throughout his life, though
he did not maintain that quantum mechanics is wrong.
(10) Rather, he held that it is incomplete: in quantum
mechanics the motion of a particle must be described
in terms of probabilities, he argued, only because some
parameters that determine the motion have not been
specified. If these hypothetical “hidden parameters”
(15) were known, a fully deterministic trajectory could be
defined. Significantly, this hidden-parameter quantum
theory leads to experimental predictions different from
those of traditional quantum mechanics. Einstein’s ideas
have been tested by experiments performed since his
(20) death, and as most of these experiments support traditional
quantum mechanics, Einstein’s approach is almost
certainly erroneous.

Hi,
I have a doubt in the above mentioned RC passage.

In line 17 starting from Significantly…
I understood the sentence as this probability theory was different from the traditional quantum mechanics.(TQM). I went with the assumption that something called TQM existed and this whole hidden parameter and probability oriented is different. ( I understood about Einstein and determinism). This led to me interpreting the last sentence as - Since the experiments carried out were based on the old theory, Einstein’s idea could not be proved correct.

In Greg’s in the Old GRE walkthrough’s, he has mentioned that this TQM is the probabilistic one and the passage doesn’t talk of anything else.

It would be great if someone could help me with this, thanks in advance! :slight_smile:

You almost certainly don’t need to understand the subject matter in any passage, including this one, to the level you’re trying to understand it.

To prove my point, we can answer all the questions without having any clue about the distinction you’re talking about (go ahead and post one if you’d like and see if you can do it without understanding the line you’re referencing).