3 ms·

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 e

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.