6 ms·

As a proponent of de Broglie-Bohm theory, or pilot wave theory, (particles have definite positions and are being guided by the wave function of QM), I am please

As a proponent of de Broglie-Bohm theory, or pilot wave theory, (particles have definite positions and are being guided by the wave function of QM), I am pleased to hear of the book and enjoyed the review. The reviewer was actually on my thesis committee and he always had an air of excitement with regards to this material as well as clarity with regards to both the philosophy and mathematics. As someone familiar with the material, I can hear within the book the very common themes that proponents of dBB often have to say. Without having read it, I can't comment on the book's clarity of presentation, but it certainly sounds like all the elements are there and more perspectives are always welcome. The issue has always been in getting people to try to accept that both standard QM and several of its alternatives really do not have an adequate description of reality in them and that this is a problem. I imagine the chapter that gives an in-depth discussion about what one wants from science is the most important novel contribution from the book to the field. If you are curious about the strangeness of QM, then you should read the review and probably the book. Just a note, as I have written elsewhere, that dBB is a theory that has been proven to have existence and uniqueness of solutions, handles identical particles in a very natural way, handles spin simply, generalizes to the Dirac equation, generalizes to QFT settings, has numerous proposals on integrating with relativity, and, quite recently, has led to some promising directions in resolving the issue of divergences associated with renormalization. Oh, and cats are always alive until they are not. There is no both alive and dead situation.

Synaesthesia 9y ago
>Oh, and cats are always alive until they are not. There is no both alive and dead situation. Of course not, this is why it’s called a paradox.
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  I think what he meant is that the theory can explain what we observe without having to make that very strange assumption.
  - Synaesthesia 9y ago
    Yeah I realized that in retrospect. I still subscribe to the view that the status of the cat is undecidable at that point.
mathgenius 9y ago
I suspect that, for many physicists, the de Broglie-Bohm medicine is worse than the disease itself. It reminds me of Scott Aaronson's work "The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine" [1] where he sets up the boundary conditions of the universe to somehow encode free-will. But then, even the author doesn't seem to want to take this medicine. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0159 https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0159
akvadrako 9y ago
Bohm's interpretation is definitely one of the more reasonable ones and I think it's a fine picture to have in your head. But it suffers from two major flaws. 1. There is no need for the particle It's superfluous structure, which has no effect on the dynamical evolution or predictions. Only the pilot wave is needed, so that's a straightforward violation of Occam's razor. 2. It has FTL influences They may not be exploitable to us, but the primitive ontology of the theory requires it. This is seriously against the spirit of special relativity. In my view, Bohm's theory is only suitable as a visual aid or for those who are in denial about the consequences of pure unitary dynamics.
- szemet 9y ago
  suitable as a visual aid Especially the somewhat related silicon droplet videos on youtube, e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ
- alien_at_work 9y ago
  >so that's a straightforward violation of Occam's razor. I'm probably missing something but I don't get this objection entirely. I've long considered Occam's razor just a thing you can say. It doesn't have any predictive power as far as I can tell. The complex answer is just as likely to be correct as the simple one [1]. [1] http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/chap3.html http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/chap3.html Search for "Occam's razor"
  - akvadrako 9y ago
    It's not about complex vs simple, but about adding unnecessary assumptions. At least, that's the strict form of Occam's razor which I'm using here. If I have two theories: 1. which says that the Earth orbits the Sun and predicts when seasons and sunrises occur 2. the same as 1, plus undetectable pink elephants are floating through space Then Occam's razor says we should discard the second, because it just adds an assumption without adding predictive power. Or more plainly, if my axioms are a = 2b and a = b^2 then adding the axiom sqrt(a) = b creates a strictly inferior theory.

Synaesthesia 9y ago

>Oh, and cats are always alive until they are not. There is no both alive and dead situation. Of course not, this is why it’s called a paradox.

woodandsteel 9y ago
I think what he meant is that the theory can explain what we observe without having to make that very strange assumption.
- Synaesthesia 9y ago
  Yeah I realized that in retrospect. I still subscribe to the view that the status of the cat is undecidable at that point.

mathgenius 9y ago

I suspect that, for many physicists, the de Broglie-Bohm medicine is worse than the disease itself. It reminds me of Scott Aaronson's work "The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine" [1] where he sets up the boundary conditions of the universe to somehow encode free-will. But then, even the author doesn't seem to want to take this medicine. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0159 https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0159

akvadrako 9y ago

Bohm's interpretation is definitely one of the more reasonable ones and I think it's a fine picture to have in your head. But it suffers from two major flaws. 1. There is no need for the particle It's superfluous structure, which has no effect on the dynamical evolution or predictions. Only the pilot wave is needed, so that's a straightforward violation of Occam's razor. 2. It has FTL influences They may not be exploitable to us, but the primitive ontology of the theory requires it. This is seriously against the spirit of special relativity. In my view, Bohm's theory is only suitable as a visual aid or for those who are in denial about the consequences of pure unitary dynamics.

szemet 9y ago
suitable as a visual aid Especially the somewhat related silicon droplet videos on youtube, e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ
alien_at_work 9y ago
>so that's a straightforward violation of Occam's razor. I'm probably missing something but I don't get this objection entirely. I've long considered Occam's razor just a thing you can say. It doesn't have any predictive power as far as I can tell. The complex answer is just as likely to be correct as the simple one [1]. [1] http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/chap3.html http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/chap3.html Search for "Occam's razor"
- akvadrako 9y ago
  It's not about complex vs simple, but about adding unnecessary assumptions. At least, that's the strict form of Occam's razor which I'm using here. If I have two theories: 1. which says that the Earth orbits the Sun and predicts when seasons and sunrises occur 2. the same as 1, plus undetectable pink elephants are floating through space Then Occam's razor says we should discard the second, because it just adds an assumption without adding predictive power. Or more plainly, if my axioms are a = 2b and a = b^2 then adding the axiom sqrt(a) = b creates a strictly inferior theory.