91–100 of 130 posts
> Unsustained by the particle or droplet, the wavefront disperses long before reaching its slit, and there’s no interference pattern. The Danish researchers verified these arguments with computer simulations. Wait, what? From what I've always understood, the math behind de Broglie-Bohm interpretation results in the same exact results as the Copenhagen interpretation. It shouldn't be possible for any "computer simulat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're describing has been desired by many (including Einstein). However, John Bell more or less proved it impossible[0] in a landmark, sweepingly general result. He would have won a Nobel for it if he had lived long enough. On the other hand, if you are willing to accept superluminal messages and also unobservable mechanics, there is always the pilot wave interpretation[1]. The fluid analogy is disappointing to…
> On the other hand, if you are willing to accept superluminal messages and also unobservable mechanics, there is always the pilot wave interpretation[1] All quantum interpretations have superluminal characteristics, but that's not the same as superluminal messaging/signaling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surprisingly, physicists are very much aware of the field nature of all "entities" in the world, having invented QFT themselves. Even more surprisingly, popular journalistic explanations simplify things considerably, making it seem that the thoughts of physicists are much less refined than they really are. To complete the trifecta of surprises, in the refined thought process of us physicists, using QFT, many problems…
Regarding "in the refined thought process of us physicists...many problems and paradoxes...remain". It seems to me that a true paradox in physics must mean a theory provides at least two different incompatible predictions for a given physical situation. Given the success of the Standard Model, that surprises me. Do you have an example?
I don't understand why non-locality is a problem. Fields are non-local. If particles are point-like, fields are volume-like and permeate all of space. Problems like spooky action at a distance aren't really problems if there is no distance from the field's point of view.
Fields are not nonlocal. Interactions in a field propagate at the speed of light or force-carrying particles. This is one of Eintein's major contributions to physics, that nothing travels faster than light.
When two particles are entangled, maybe instead the field is 'twisted/warped' at those particles. Entangling particles alters the field, not the particles.
> Unsustained by the particle or droplet, the wavefront disperses long before reaching its slit, and there’s no interference pattern. The Danish researchers verified these arguments with computer simulations. Wait, what? From what I've always understood, the math behind de Broglie-Bohm interpretation results in the same exact results as the Copenhagen interpretation. It shouldn't be possible for any "computer simulat…
> Wait, what? From what I've always understood, the math behind de Broglie-Bohm interpretation results in the same exact results as the Copenhagen interpretation. The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation is not the same as the pilot-wave theory, which was never fully fleshed out. de Broglie-Bohm is valid and makes the same predictions as the standard interpretation, but as I understood it, has never been generalized to the…
Most contexts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory) define pilot-wave theory and the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation as the same. de Broglie himself also proposed a specific pilot-wave theory that is not valid (see article). When referring to a "pilot-wave" theory it is helpful to state specifically who the author is in order to resolve any likely confusion, which this topic usually seems to involve.
> has never been generalized to the relativistic versions of the standard theory
Quantum field theory generalizations( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory...) do exist.
> Unsustained by the particle or droplet, the wavefront disperses long before reaching its slit, and there’s no interference pattern. The Danish researchers verified these arguments with computer simulations. Wait, what? From what I've always understood, the math behind de Broglie-Bohm interpretation results in the same exact results as the Copenhagen interpretation. It shouldn't be possible for any "computer simulat…
> Wait, what? From what I've always understood, the math behind de Broglie-Bohm interpretation results in the same exact results as the Copenhagen interpretation. The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation is not the same as the pilot-wave theory, which was never fully fleshed out. de Broglie-Bohm is valid and makes the same predictions as the standard interpretation, but as I understood it, has never been generalized to the…
Isn't it the other way round? Pilot-Wave theory having issues with non-locality that de Broglie-Bohm hoped to avoid?
I don't understand why non-locality is a problem. Fields are non-local. If particles are point-like, fields are volume-like and permeate all of space. Problems like spooky action at a distance aren't really problems if there is no distance from the field's point of view.
Why isn't there distance from the field's point of view? Isn't the field spread throughout space?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think your whole characterization of pilot theory's value and its relation to other interpretations is incorrect. Firstly, it's primary value is that it's an ontological interpretation, meaning it preserves realism where most other interpretations sacrifice realism. The motion of its beables has nothing to do with this. Secondly, pilot wave theory still requires the fewest number of assumptions, roughly on par with…
I see many-worlds as a strict subset of pilot wave theory, since the pilot waves behave in exactly the same way as a many-worlds wavefunction. Adding a layer of particles-guided-by-the-waves on top of that is an extra complication that can only be justified (if at all) in terms of the intuitive appeal of their resemblance to macroscopic physics. (There's an argument of avoiding nonlocality/spooky-action-at-a-distance…
This "Bohmian mechanics is Many-Worlds in disguise" is simply false [1]. The axiomatic basis is completely different, and this is apparent because with Bohmian mechanics you can easily derive the Born rule, and as a result, it also makes a new prediction that isn't allowed in typical QM, quantum non-equilibrium [2]. Deriving the Born rule with MWI is a hotly debated open problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the link to Bell's Theorem (I recalled there being a result like that, but didn't remember the details of it). If the hidden variables really are in a higher dimensional space, then maybe superluminal communication (in our observable dimensions of space) isn't off the table either? But that comes with its own can of worms that would have to be taken care of as well.
If you give me both sides of a superluminal telephone I can use it along with special relativity to set up a time paradox. If I only have one end of the phone, or if I can't have a phone at all (not all apparently superluminal interactions allow signaling) then it's considered an undesirable trait but not paradoxical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you give me both sides of a superluminal telephone I can use it along with special relativity to set up a time paradox. If I only have one end of the phone, or if I can't have a phone at all (not all apparently superluminal interactions allow signaling) then it's considered an undesirable trait but not paradoxical.
By paradox, do you mean something like reverting order of events in some inertial frames?