7 ms·

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 re

by 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."
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  The "Doesn't matter" argument is nonsense. Of course it matters. Your ontological beliefs define the questions you feel you're allowed to ask and the kinds of experiments you will design. Copenhagen is just as much "at the boundary between physics and philosophy" as any other interpretation is. The foundation of QT has been stuck for almost a century now. There's been a lot of detail filled in, but no truly fundamental movement towards answering the hard questions - what does quantum collapse really mean in physical terms, and how do you get from QT to relativity and back again? What's so terrible about supporting alternative views that may shed some light on those questions? Physics is ontology. There is nothing else involved. If you're going to pretend the true nature of reality is either irrelevant to physics or is somehow mystically unknowable, you may as well stop doing science altogether.
  - acqq 10y ago
    I'm very sure that as soon as you make any useful prediction from your favorite interpretation you'll get a Nobel prize (and then it would be a real discovery in physics and not a philosophic talk) but nobody produced anything from these interpretations up to now, except maybe getting paid for doing a non-physics work. To me it sounds only like a philosophy question when you write "what does quantum collapse really mean in physical terms" and that "really" exposes it. To compare, there's no "real meaning" in the existence of atoms, electrons and them making molecules, but we still know it makes calculations of chemical reactions obvious. What does it "really" mean? It doesn't matter, they exist, and behave as they behave. What does it "really mean" that the electrons exist can be pushed through the conductors? It doesn't matter if you formulate the question like that, but without them existing, I wouldn't be typing this on the computer, I wouldn't even be sitting on my chair etc. Even more profound, without the electromagnetic force existing there would be no stars and no galaxies. We know that because physics. You can talk about the "meaning of it" but you won't make any discovery unless you actually do some physics.
    - lisivka 10y ago
      It's looks like we are talking about differences of use of physics in practice versus advancing of physics as science. No doubt, if I will need to calculate something, being paid for that, I will use proven formulas. Totally agree with you at that point. However, current major theories are in stuck, they cannot explain what we see, because now we have more data. So it is better to look for something else, which will explain everything we know already and more.

by lisivka 10y ago

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."

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
The "Doesn't matter" argument is nonsense. Of course it matters. Your ontological beliefs define the questions you feel you're allowed to ask and the kinds of experiments you will design. Copenhagen is just as much "at the boundary between physics and philosophy" as any other interpretation is. The foundation of QT has been stuck for almost a century now. There's been a lot of detail filled in, but no truly fundamental movement towards answering the hard questions - what does quantum collapse really mean in physical terms, and how do you get from QT to relativity and back again? What's so terrible about supporting alternative views that may shed some light on those questions? Physics is ontology. There is nothing else involved. If you're going to pretend the true nature of reality is either irrelevant to physics or is somehow mystically unknowable, you may as well stop doing science altogether.
- acqq 10y ago
  I'm very sure that as soon as you make any useful prediction from your favorite interpretation you'll get a Nobel prize (and then it would be a real discovery in physics and not a philosophic talk) but nobody produced anything from these interpretations up to now, except maybe getting paid for doing a non-physics work. To me it sounds only like a philosophy question when you write "what does quantum collapse really mean in physical terms" and that "really" exposes it. To compare, there's no "real meaning" in the existence of atoms, electrons and them making molecules, but we still know it makes calculations of chemical reactions obvious. What does it "really" mean? It doesn't matter, they exist, and behave as they behave. What does it "really mean" that the electrons exist can be pushed through the conductors? It doesn't matter if you formulate the question like that, but without them existing, I wouldn't be typing this on the computer, I wouldn't even be sitting on my chair etc. Even more profound, without the electromagnetic force existing there would be no stars and no galaxies. We know that because physics. You can talk about the "meaning of it" but you won't make any discovery unless you actually do some physics.
  - lisivka 10y ago
    It's looks like we are talking about differences of use of physics in practice versus advancing of physics as science. No doubt, if I will need to calculate something, being paid for that, I will use proven formulas. Totally agree with you at that point. However, current major theories are in stuck, they cannot explain what we see, because now we have more data. So it is better to look for something else, which will explain everything we know already and more.