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

Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]

tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 80 posts

Re: Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]

#4

Post by gipp »

Koshkin wrote: post #2

I am sure that laymen like it - because it seems to offer an "intuitive" picture of the wave-particle dualism. Problem is, neither QFT nor modern deeper theories such as strings gain anything from this kind of metaphysical image.

Isn't that true of any of the major "interpretations" of QM? Copenhagen etc.

Re: Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]

#5

Post by empath75 »

gipp wrote: post #4
Koshkin wrote: post #2

I am sure that laymen like it - because it seems to offer an "intuitive" picture of the wave-particle dualism. Problem is, neither QFT nor modern deeper theories such as strings gain anything from this kind of metaphysical image.

Isn't that true of any of the major "interpretations" of QM? Copenhagen etc.

The others are simpler.

Re: Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]

#6

Post by meri_dian »

Koshkin wrote: post #2

I am sure that laymen like it - because it seems to offer an "intuitive" picture of the wave-particle dualism. Problem is, neither QFT nor modern deeper theories such as strings gain anything from this kind of metaphysical image.

Equivalently we can say that neither QFT nor string theory gains anything from the empty hand-waviness of the copehagen interpretation, Everett's many-world's, etc.

Re: Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]

#8

Post by Barrin92 »

meri_dian wrote: post #6
Koshkin wrote: post #2

I am sure that laymen like it - because it seems to offer an "intuitive" picture of the wave-particle dualism. Problem is, neither QFT nor modern deeper theories such as strings gain anything from this kind of metaphysical image.

Equivalently we can say that neither QFT nor string theory gains anything from the empty hand-waviness of the copehagen interpretation, Everett's many-world's, etc.

Those also don't really play a role in the professional life of a physicist, nowadays you really do stare at computer screens a lot and try to find things in data, it's not like physicists sit around and discuss many-world theory as part of their day job.

These are just the popular things that make it out into public discourse

Re: Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]

#9

Post by olegkikin »

I have an unrelated question to the physics nerds. Is it even possible to determine whether the universe is deterministic or not from inside the universe?

Let's imagine a simplified example. I give you two sets of numbers (let's pretend they are atom coordinates). One set is purely random, another one is generated with a very simple formula (example: f(n) = SHA256(N + salt)). I will give you as many of the numbers as you want. Can you determine which set is which (if you don't know the formula ahead of time)?

Re: Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]

#10

Post by Govindae »

olegkikin wrote: post #9

I have an unrelated question to the physics nerds. Is it even possible to determine whether the universe is deterministic or not from inside the universe? Let's imagine a simplified example. I give you two sets of numbers (let's pretend they are atom coordinates). One set is purely random, another one is generated with a very simple formula (example: f(n) = SHA256(N + salt)). I will give you as many of the numbers as…

Any randomness could in principle be predetermined. God could have rolled the dice ahead of time.
Post reply on HN