4 ms·

Most of the contradictions arise as epistemological forks in the context of molecular spectroscopy with nuclear decay events. Thusly, it is a question of whose

Most of the contradictions arise as epistemological forks in the context of molecular spectroscopy with nuclear decay events. Thusly, it is a question of whose theories to use, and the Born rule is moot when the distribution of particles is not gaussian. DeBroglie himself states that matter waves propagate according to a defined distribution; whereas Copehagen interprets that they are probabilistically distributed. In the former case there is a stochastic process, whereas it is only a random process in the latter case.

n4r9 11y ago
What do you mean by "moot"? The Born rule is simply that the probability of measuring a particle to be in a certain location is given by the squared amplitude of the wavefunction. This squared amplitude will generate the same predictions whether you are using deBroglie-Bohm or "Copenhagen" to imagine your underlying ontology. The difference in ontology being that deBroglie-Bohm is deterministic, i.e. particles have definite positions of which we are merely ignorant, whereas "Copenhagen" is (usually) non-realist, i.e. it is not meaningful to talk about the positions of particles until the moment we measure it.
- williamjennings 11y ago
  In this context, the word moot is a synonym for false. You are omitting the word "normalized wave function" from your description of the Born Rule; it is a key part of the mathematical justification. The squared amplitude does not generate the same predictions under every theory, because the probability function is different. That is also the difference between the theories of DeBroglie and Bohm, the former is stochastic while the latter is deterministic. Copenhagen theories describe the positions of particles probabilitistically; and the word 'measure' is not being used in the precise mathematical way that it should be. A better translation from Danish would be 'convolute'. The thing to remember is that when one writes about physics which are centuries old, one must be historiographically consistent. If there is a hyphen between two names for a theory, such that one name is being attributed posthumously; then the student should infer the most recent name is making some error in translation. When you separate DeBroglie and Bohm, on the basis of their lack of real cooperation, then it is clear to see who was ahead of their time. Bohm is abusing statistical terms in his translations from French, and the meaning of those words is an extremely important detail in the context of Quantum Information Theory. John Von Neumann was contemporaneously working in that context, but it was classified until recent times.

n4r9 11y ago

What do you mean by "moot"? The Born rule is simply that the probability of measuring a particle to be in a certain location is given by the squared amplitude of the wavefunction. This squared amplitude will generate the same predictions whether you are using deBroglie-Bohm or "Copenhagen" to imagine your underlying ontology. The difference in ontology being that deBroglie-Bohm is deterministic, i.e. particles have definite positions of which we are merely ignorant, whereas "Copenhagen" is (usually) non-realist, i.e. it is not meaningful to talk about the positions of particles until the moment we measure it.

williamjennings 11y ago
In this context, the word moot is a synonym for false. You are omitting the word "normalized wave function" from your description of the Born Rule; it is a key part of the mathematical justification. The squared amplitude does not generate the same predictions under every theory, because the probability function is different. That is also the difference between the theories of DeBroglie and Bohm, the former is stochastic while the latter is deterministic. Copenhagen theories describe the positions of particles probabilitistically; and the word 'measure' is not being used in the precise mathematical way that it should be. A better translation from Danish would be 'convolute'. The thing to remember is that when one writes about physics which are centuries old, one must be historiographically consistent. If there is a hyphen between two names for a theory, such that one name is being attributed posthumously; then the student should infer the most recent name is making some error in translation. When you separate DeBroglie and Bohm, on the basis of their lack of real cooperation, then it is clear to see who was ahead of their time. Bohm is abusing statistical terms in his translations from French, and the meaning of those words is an extremely important detail in the context of Quantum Information Theory. John Von Neumann was contemporaneously working in that context, but it was classified until recent times.