5 ms·
Not a physicist, but isn't "Bohmian Mechanics" (1) what's also known as "Pilot Wave Theory", which is now gaining experimental support (2) ? Clarke's First Law
by hliyan 9y ago
Not a physicist, but isn't "Bohmian Mechanics" (1) what's also known as "Pilot Wave Theory", which is now gaining experimental support (2) ?
Clarke's First Law: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory
2. https://www.quantamagazine.org/pilot-wave-theory-gains-experimental-support-20160516/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/pilot-wave-theory-gains-exper...
- whatshisface 9y agoPilot waves, multiverse and Copenhagen are fundamentally ineligible for experimental support, at least with respect to each other. They lead to the same numbers, meaning than an experiment that agrees with one will also agree with the others. It's something like trying to tell the difference between 2x=2y and x+2=y+2. The "support" in the article is really just a physical system that obeys (as a macroscopic approximation) something like pilot waves: "just like the universe" if pilot waves are right, and "just like those silly nonlocalists" if pilot waves aren't.
- OscarCunningham 9y agoRight. It doesn't provide evidence for pilot wave theory any more than rolling some balls around on a rubber sheet provides support for Glgeneral relativity.
- John_KZ 9y agoWhile the current formulation details of the pilot wave theory doesn't allow for new predictions, a better formulated one will. I strongly believe we'll see the breakthrough in the coming 10-15 years. Quantum mechanics are statistic predictions and it's about time we treat them as such.
- naasking 9y ago> While the current formulation details of the pilot wave theory doesn't allow for new predictions Actually pilot wave theories do have new predictions, namely quantum non-equilibrium. We just have no idea if we can actually design an experiment for it.
- ajkjk 9y agoWhy do you strongly believe that?
- John_KZ 9y agoYes it is. The author presents his dogma as the one and only truth, which you're not allowed to deny if you want to be a "scientist". It's similar to labelling people as climate change "deniers" and "anti-vaxxers" etc etc.
- andrepd 9y agoThat's ridiculous. It's on you to provide evidence for your position. Absent that, it's free for other scientists to criticise you on that ground.
- John_KZ 9y agoI'm sorry you're blind.
- JohnStrangeII 9y agoWhat a strange comment, given that he's obviously right. You're not a scientist, are you?