Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics

nybooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 126 posts

Re: The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics

#11

Post by baytrailcat »

EGreg wrote: post #9

What is wrong with the Pilot Wave Theory intepretation? I'm ok with FTL information transfer, and so Bell's inequalities are satisfied. And anyway the other interpretations DO NOT rule out FTL information transfer. For example if one entangled electron flies into a black hole then we would be able to know its spin by measuring the other one even if light from it won't reach us. Also there is this: https://en.m.wikipe…

>I'm ok with FTL information transfer

Which will lead to the conclusion that Special Relativity (which was extensively validated) is either wrong or incomplete.

I have seen a revival of Pilot-wave theory here on HN, but the real conclusion (a real particle pushed around by the enigmatic pilot wave or quantum potential or whatever) is as bizarre or as satisfying as saying particle is in a superposition. Also, I haven't seen anyone satisfyingly explain, in a classical-deterministic sense, the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment (also, see the the Wheeler Thought Experiment)

Re: The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics

#12

Post by lisivka »

wolfgke wrote: post #3

Relevant for those who are interested in the topic: Two rather unusual interpretations if quantum mechanics: - De Brogle-Bohm theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory - Gerard 't Hooft - The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548 (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism )

- Loop quantum gravity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity

Re: The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics

#13

Post by goatlover »

baytrailcat wrote: post #11
EGreg wrote: post #9

What is wrong with the Pilot Wave Theory intepretation? I'm ok with FTL information transfer, and so Bell's inequalities are satisfied. And anyway the other interpretations DO NOT rule out FTL information transfer. For example if one entangled electron flies into a black hole then we would be able to know its spin by measuring the other one even if light from it won't reach us. Also there is this: https://en.m.wikipe…

>I'm ok with FTL information transfer Which will lead to the conclusion that Special Relativity (which was extensively validated) is either wrong or incomplete. I have seen a revival of Pilot-wave theory here on HN, but the real conclusion (a real particle pushed around by the enigmatic pilot wave or quantum potential or whatever) is as bizarre or as satisfying as saying particle is in a superposition. Also, I haven'…

There is the silicone oil droplet phenomena which is a classical version of the pilot wave, and it does reproduce some quantum behavior, including the double slit. That a pilot wave has been discovered (granted at macro scale) does make one reconsider.

https://youtu.be/WIyTZDHuarQ

Re: The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics

#14

Post by lisivka »

baytrailcat wrote: post #11
EGreg wrote: post #9

What is wrong with the Pilot Wave Theory intepretation? I'm ok with FTL information transfer, and so Bell's inequalities are satisfied. And anyway the other interpretations DO NOT rule out FTL information transfer. For example if one entangled electron flies into a black hole then we would be able to know its spin by measuring the other one even if light from it won't reach us. Also there is this: https://en.m.wikipe…

>I'm ok with FTL information transfer Which will lead to the conclusion that Special Relativity (which was extensively validated) is either wrong or incomplete. I have seen a revival of Pilot-wave theory here on HN, but the real conclusion (a real particle pushed around by the enigmatic pilot wave or quantum potential or whatever) is as bizarre or as satisfying as saying particle is in a superposition. Also, I haven'…

Did you saw double slit experiment reproduction in 2D macro?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8

Observer breaks interference pattern.

Re: The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics

#15

Post by runn1ng »

I know that Eliezer Yudkowsky is very controversial and some of his statements cannot be taken seriously, but I really liked his sequence of articles on QM. It made it a little bit more accessible to me, who knows very little about it.

I cannot judge how accurate it is; but from googling around, it doesn't seem he does any strong errors. Also he makes some very strong statements in the end which I found preposterous (mainly, that Bayes reasoning is better than scientific reasoning, and that Bayes reasoning must lead to Many Worlds theory).

The sequence is here

http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/

Re: The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics

#17

Post by posterboy »

EGreg wrote: post #9

What is wrong with the Pilot Wave Theory intepretation? I'm ok with FTL information transfer, and so Bell's inequalities are satisfied. And anyway the other interpretations DO NOT rule out FTL information transfer. For example if one entangled electron flies into a black hole then we would be able to know its spin by measuring the other one even if light from it won't reach us. Also there is this: https://en.m.wikipe…

Wouldn't the entanglement just break? The preassure would rip the electron apart to begin with. I'm not sure if that erases entanglement already or if the quarks needed to be annihilated. Either way, are the known laws of physics applicable inside a black hole at all? I don't think so.

Re: The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics

#18

Post by kkylin »

EGreg wrote: post #9

What is wrong with the Pilot Wave Theory intepretation? I'm ok with FTL information transfer, and so Bell's inequalities are satisfied. And anyway the other interpretations DO NOT rule out FTL information transfer. For example if one entangled electron flies into a black hole then we would be able to know its spin by measuring the other one even if light from it won't reach us. Also there is this: https://en.m.wikipe…

What I personally do not like about pilot wave theory is that in the many body versions of the theory that I've seen, you still need a wave function that depends on the positions of all the particles. That is, the "pilot wave", unlike physical fields like electric or magnetic fields, is not a function of location in spacetime, nor is it attached to a particle, but to all particles. This means in a certain sense the amount of information in a given space grows exponentially with the number of particles. To me this has always been one of the mysteries of QM, and in pilot wave theory it is as much of a mystery.

(The main thing that pilot wave theory clarifies for me is wave function collapse.)

Re: The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics

#19

Post by krastanov »

EGreg wrote: post #9

What is wrong with the Pilot Wave Theory intepretation? I'm ok with FTL information transfer, and so Bell's inequalities are satisfied. And anyway the other interpretations DO NOT rule out FTL information transfer. For example if one entangled electron flies into a black hole then we would be able to know its spin by measuring the other one even if light from it won't reach us. Also there is this: https://en.m.wikipe…

There is no information transfer in your black hole example. Entanglement can not be used for FTL communication no matter the interpretation you choose.

As for why pilot wave theory is not popular: it generalises poorly. Sure, you can build a multi-particle theory or even field theory on top of it, but they are clumsy to work with and after their initial study they did not show any promising way forward that was not available to the typical approach to quantum mechanics.

Edit: Wiki article about why entanglement does not provide FTL communication even if naively it looks like it should be possible https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

Re: The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics

#20

Post by thisrod »

EGreg wrote: post #9

What is wrong with the Pilot Wave Theory intepretation? I'm ok with FTL information transfer, and so Bell's inequalities are satisfied. And anyway the other interpretations DO NOT rule out FTL information transfer. For example if one entangled electron flies into a black hole then we would be able to know its spin by measuring the other one even if light from it won't reach us. Also there is this: https://en.m.wikipe…

Do you understand the arguments that the ability to send a signal faster than light allows you to send that signal backwards in time? I've never met anyone who who understood special relativity but was OK with that.
Post reply on HN