7 ms·

I highly recommend to watch this video first: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8 , to get the idea. Then t

by lisivka 10y ago

I highly recommend to watch this video first: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8 , to get the idea. Then this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ , for explanation. No need to read long books.

tedsanders 10y ago
The pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics is not a consensus, or even mainstream view. It is not helpful to blankly suggest that these videos illustrate the answer.
- phest 10y ago
  It's an interesting theory though. What makes it less mainstream than other interpretations? (And is any interpretation of quantum mechanics a consensus?)
  - jfoutz 10y ago
    Can't say i can explain it, but the words you're looking for are "local realism". I really like the pretty pictures from walking droplets, and it makes the thing seem very intuitive. But they're a little disingenuous. It's easy to imagine, or just see a drop of water bouncing in the air on a wave of water. But all this stuff happens in 3d. There's (as far as i know) no separation like air and water. It's more like a sound wave expanding out in all directions. How do you surf on a sound wave? Not saying it can't be done, it's just that the pretty picture has to be a lot more complicated for the particle to have something to bounce off of. Maybe there are some weird hard thin shells that hover around particles. Who knows? For sure i can say 'not me'.
    - lisivka 10y ago
      Yep, you are right — 3D version will be very different. Why not to conduct such experiment in space, where 3D version can be constructed with ease? Moreover, electromagnetic waves are very different from sound waves, so physic process involving them will be very different. Can you imagine an experiment, which will be closer to reality?, e.g. spinning eccentric charged particles in space.
  - Osmium 10y ago
    > (And is any interpretation of quantum mechanics a consensus?) There is, broadly speaking, a consensus view. Whether this is because the consensus best matches reality or whether it's dogmatic is probably up for debate, but I don't personally know any professional scientists who believe pilot wave theory (Bell's theorem largely disproved it).
    - lisivka 10y ago
      As you may already known, paradigm shifts in science happens when old generation dies.
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    We have, at this point, strong evidence [1,2] against the straight-forward version of pilot wave theory. Thus pilot wave theory is forced to add more and more epicycles. This, IMO, is part of the reason why it's not becoming more mainstream today. [1] http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250401 http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115... [2] http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250402 http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115...
    - lisivka 10y ago
      Can you explain it in plain English, please?
      - fdgdasfadsf 10y ago
        When any theory has to add more and more complexity to explain the data it tends to be an indication that there is something wrong with the theory and that another theory may be more supported. Occam's razor.
        lisivka 10y ago
        Of course. Can you provide an explanation of double-slit experiment using Standard Model of QM?
        fdgdasfadsf 10y ago
        No idea not a physicist I was merely providing a translation of the GP into plain English.
        lisivka 10y ago
        Thanks for your service then.
    - om2 10y ago
      Can you explain how these are evidence against pilot wave theory? It's entirely compatible with Bell's inequality and indeed makes all the same predictions as other, more popular interpretations of QM, so it's not clear why these papers would be evidence against it.
  - lisivka 10y ago
    Quote from https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-more-physicists-subscribe-to-pilot-wave-theory https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-more-physicists-subscribe-to-... John Bell himself, the original author of one of the impossibility theorems, recognized its irrelevance, but he was systematically misquoted, misunderstood, or ignored as he tried to call attention to it. Ironically, he was then portrayed as being against Bohmian mechanics, despite the fact that he was its prime supporter during his lifetime.He said: “But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the ‘observer,’ could be eliminated… But why then had Bohm not told me of this ‘pilot wave’?... Why did von Neumann not consider it? More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing “impossibility” proofs, after 1952, and as recently as 1978?... Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in textbooks? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice?” John S. Bell, "On the impossible pilot wave". Foundations of Physics 12 (1982)
- acqq 10y ago
  AFAIK it simply doesn't matter: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/3py2da/whats_wrong_with_pilotwave_theorybohmian/cwag09z/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/3py2d... "Bohmian mechanics is an interpretation of quantum mechanics (other popular examples are the Copenhagen and the Many-World interpretation). They try to explain the origin of the weird behaviour of measurements in QM. The problem is that these interpetations don't actually make predictions, so you can't do an experiment that tells "Bohmian is right and Copenhagen is wrong". That's why physicists don't research a lot in this area, it is more at the boundary between physics and philosophy. Copenhagen is easy to understand, so in most cases that's being taught (despite its issues)."
  - lisivka 10y ago
    Quote from https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-more-physicists-subscribe-to-pilot-wave-theory https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-more-physicists-subscribe-to-... The rest of the story as to why Bohmian mechanics is not currently favored as the mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics can be traced back to orthodox philosophical intransigence. Those that fail to comprehend, or factor in, the ontological advantages that come from the determinism and mathematical clarity of Bohmian mechanics often attempt to downplay the formalism by pointing out that it “doesn’t make any predictions that differ from those of ordinary quantum mechanics.” Technically, that’s not much of an objection because we could equally argue that empirically “the standard theory doesn’t go beyond Bohm’s theory.”
    - acqq 10y ago
      As soon as I read "those that fail to comprehend, or factor in, the ontological advantages" I roll my eyes and stop reading. It matches my quote: "it is more at the boundary between physics and philosophy." So, again, for physicists, it still doesn't matter. http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/p/shut-up-and-calculate-3/ http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/p/shut-up-and-calculate-3/ Whenever I read the texts of philosophers and see the "ontology" mentioned as argument, I just conclude "one more guy who wants to find the proof that his god exists." Or remain being paid for something close to the religious thinking which is not called so. I enjoyed watching the videos with the drops jumping above the waves, it is nice and visual, but the things the physicists have to work with in QM still aren't drops but the measurements and the formulas. If you like to imagine the waves visually, you're free to do it, but it's still not physics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is Feynman: "I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here. I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell."
highd 10y ago
Please don't suggest fringe views to people with no experience in the field.
- lisivka 10y ago
  IMHO, it's better explanation than God or half-dead cat. If you have better explanation, then film it, please — it will be very helpful.
  - highd 10y ago
    http://home.basu.ac.ir/~psu/Books/%5BRamamurti_Shankar%5D_Principles_of_Quantum_Mechanic(BookFi.org).pdf http://home.basu.ac.ir/~psu/Books/%5BRamamurti_Shankar%5D_Pr...
    - lisivka 10y ago
      Book describes double-slit experiment but does not explain it. I read that when I was student 20 years ago. So, WHY single particles are developing interference pattern when sent one by one? Shut up and calculate is not an answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Copenhagen_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Copenha... Just by looking at video, it's clear that interference pattern appears because of interference of particle wave with itself. It's also clear that speed of sound in water is constant regardless of speed of particle, particle cannot reach speed above speed of sound in water, speed of particle affects particle itself, and so on.

by lisivka 10y ago

tedsanders 10y ago

The pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics is not a consensus, or even mainstream view. It is not helpful to blankly suggest that these videos illustrate the answer.

phest 10y ago
It's an interesting theory though. What makes it less mainstream than other interpretations? (And is any interpretation of quantum mechanics a consensus?)
- jfoutz 10y ago
  Can't say i can explain it, but the words you're looking for are "local realism". I really like the pretty pictures from walking droplets, and it makes the thing seem very intuitive. But they're a little disingenuous. It's easy to imagine, or just see a drop of water bouncing in the air on a wave of water. But all this stuff happens in 3d. There's (as far as i know) no separation like air and water. It's more like a sound wave expanding out in all directions. How do you surf on a sound wave? Not saying it can't be done, it's just that the pretty picture has to be a lot more complicated for the particle to have something to bounce off of. Maybe there are some weird hard thin shells that hover around particles. Who knows? For sure i can say 'not me'.
  - lisivka 10y ago
    Yep, you are right — 3D version will be very different. Why not to conduct such experiment in space, where 3D version can be constructed with ease? Moreover, electromagnetic waves are very different from sound waves, so physic process involving them will be very different. Can you imagine an experiment, which will be closer to reality?, e.g. spinning eccentric charged particles in space.
- Osmium 10y ago
  > (And is any interpretation of quantum mechanics a consensus?) There is, broadly speaking, a consensus view. Whether this is because the consensus best matches reality or whether it's dogmatic is probably up for debate, but I don't personally know any professional scientists who believe pilot wave theory (Bell's theorem largely disproved it).
  - lisivka 10y ago
    As you may already known, paradigm shifts in science happens when old generation dies.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  We have, at this point, strong evidence [1,2] against the straight-forward version of pilot wave theory. Thus pilot wave theory is forced to add more and more epicycles. This, IMO, is part of the reason why it's not becoming more mainstream today. [1] http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250401 http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115... [2] http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250402 http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115...
  - lisivka 10y ago
    Can you explain it in plain English, please?
    - fdgdasfadsf 10y ago
      When any theory has to add more and more complexity to explain the data it tends to be an indication that there is something wrong with the theory and that another theory may be more supported. Occam's razor.
      - lisivka 10y ago
        Of course. Can you provide an explanation of double-slit experiment using Standard Model of QM?
        fdgdasfadsf 10y ago
        No idea not a physicist I was merely providing a translation of the GP into plain English.
        lisivka 10y ago
        Thanks for your service then.
  - om2 10y ago
    Can you explain how these are evidence against pilot wave theory? It's entirely compatible with Bell's inequality and indeed makes all the same predictions as other, more popular interpretations of QM, so it's not clear why these papers would be evidence against it.
- lisivka 10y ago
  Quote from https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-more-physicists-subscribe-to-pilot-wave-theory https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-more-physicists-subscribe-to-... John Bell himself, the original author of one of the impossibility theorems, recognized its irrelevance, but he was systematically misquoted, misunderstood, or ignored as he tried to call attention to it. Ironically, he was then portrayed as being against Bohmian mechanics, despite the fact that he was its prime supporter during his lifetime.He said: “But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the ‘observer,’ could be eliminated… But why then had Bohm not told me of this ‘pilot wave’?... Why did von Neumann not consider it? More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing “impossibility” proofs, after 1952, and as recently as 1978?... Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in textbooks? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice?” John S. Bell, "On the impossible pilot wave". Foundations of Physics 12 (1982)
acqq 10y ago
AFAIK it simply doesn't matter: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/3py2da/whats_wrong_with_pilotwave_theorybohmian/cwag09z/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/3py2d... "Bohmian mechanics is an interpretation of quantum mechanics (other popular examples are the Copenhagen and the Many-World interpretation). They try to explain the origin of the weird behaviour of measurements in QM. The problem is that these interpetations don't actually make predictions, so you can't do an experiment that tells "Bohmian is right and Copenhagen is wrong". That's why physicists don't research a lot in this area, it is more at the boundary between physics and philosophy. Copenhagen is easy to understand, so in most cases that's being taught (despite its issues)."
- lisivka 10y ago
  Quote from https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-more-physicists-subscribe-to-pilot-wave-theory https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-more-physicists-subscribe-to-... The rest of the story as to why Bohmian mechanics is not currently favored as the mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics can be traced back to orthodox philosophical intransigence. Those that fail to comprehend, or factor in, the ontological advantages that come from the determinism and mathematical clarity of Bohmian mechanics often attempt to downplay the formalism by pointing out that it “doesn’t make any predictions that differ from those of ordinary quantum mechanics.” Technically, that’s not much of an objection because we could equally argue that empirically “the standard theory doesn’t go beyond Bohm’s theory.”
  - acqq 10y ago
    As soon as I read "those that fail to comprehend, or factor in, the ontological advantages" I roll my eyes and stop reading. It matches my quote: "it is more at the boundary between physics and philosophy." So, again, for physicists, it still doesn't matter. http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/p/shut-up-and-calculate-3/ http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/p/shut-up-and-calculate-3/ Whenever I read the texts of philosophers and see the "ontology" mentioned as argument, I just conclude "one more guy who wants to find the proof that his god exists." Or remain being paid for something close to the religious thinking which is not called so. I enjoyed watching the videos with the drops jumping above the waves, it is nice and visual, but the things the physicists have to work with in QM still aren't drops but the measurements and the formulas. If you like to imagine the waves visually, you're free to do it, but it's still not physics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is Feynman: "I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here. I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell."

highd 10y ago

Please don't suggest fringe views to people with no experience in the field.

lisivka 10y ago
IMHO, it's better explanation than God or half-dead cat. If you have better explanation, then film it, please — it will be very helpful.
- highd 10y ago
  http://home.basu.ac.ir/~psu/Books/%5BRamamurti_Shankar%5D_Principles_of_Quantum_Mechanic(BookFi.org).pdf http://home.basu.ac.ir/~psu/Books/%5BRamamurti_Shankar%5D_Pr...
  - lisivka 10y ago
    Book describes double-slit experiment but does not explain it. I read that when I was student 20 years ago. So, WHY single particles are developing interference pattern when sent one by one? Shut up and calculate is not an answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Copenhagen_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Copenha... Just by looking at video, it's clear that interference pattern appears because of interference of particle wave with itself. It's also clear that speed of sound in water is constant regardless of speed of particle, particle cannot reach speed above speed of sound in water, speed of particle affects particle itself, and so on.