3 ms·
I think the most problematic issues is that physicists reject the wave function. I have never understood this since if you reject the wave function in standard
by jostylr 10y ago
I think the most problematic issues is that physicists reject the wave function. I have never understood this since if you reject the wave function in standard quantum mechanics, you have nothing left.
But the pilot wave is just the wave function of quantum mechanics, albeit on a universal scale. It is in all the theories. And just because one has a "collapse", which is always approximate anyway (no delta functions for a position measurement, for example), one still has a wave function as the only object in standard QM and that is an expanding object defined on 3*number of particles in universe. But we do not experience that. We experience 3 dimensional space with rather point-like objects moving about.
Pilot wave theory starts with "We have particles moving about. How do they move?" That's the question it starts with and it answers it in the simplest way possible given the wave function: the wave function tells the particles how to move using Bohm's equation which is a very easy thing to derive. Indeed, you can derive it even more quickly than Schrodinger's equation from the same basic facts of Einstein's light quanta hypothesis and de Broglie's hypothesis.
It was a choice to inject mysticism into quantum mechanics. If you stick with trying to describe the evolution of particles, Bohm is natural. If you want to describe something else whose evolving configuration would give us our experience, then that is fine, but you have to say what that is. The standard interpretation does not as it is solely concerned with experiments and measurements with no definition of them in a fundamental way. It is more like they were trying to do regression fitting on experimental data without any understanding of what the underlying stuff was nor any interest in such a question.
The other difficulty is spin. Spin is trivial if you put the spin degrees of freedom in the value space of the wave function. But many think of spin as real as position. It is not. It matters what the experiment is; the spin value for a particle is not defined independent of the experiment.
Bohmian mechanics gives a theory while standard quantum mechanics gives a computational formalism. Depending on your goals, the latter can be sufficient. The former tells us why stuff happens and also allows us to derive that computational formalism.