3 ms·

It would help if these weren't all from the same single source: Zeilinger's Vienna group and friends. On the other hand formalism works seamlessly mathematical

It would help if these weren't all from the same single source: Zeilinger's Vienna group and friends. On the other hand formalism works seamlessly mathematically, which cannot be said of standard quantum mechanics. Even this year's Fields medalist Figalli has a paper on how good things are in Bohmian land.

jmcmichael 8y ago
Fine, here's another from Ronald Hensen at Delft: Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km 2015 https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949v1 https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949v1 "...This result rules out large classes of local realist theories, and paves the way for implementing device-independent quantum-secure communication and randomness certification. "
- akvadrako 8y ago
  This isn't relevant because Bohm's theory isn't local. There are much stronger results like PBR ruling out a large class of non-local realist theories, but that also doesn't include pilot wave theory. No known experiment can rule it out because it's predictions equal those of Copenhagen.
- thraway180306 8y ago
  This is something different. Zeilinger paints himself disproving realism alone and has a well known philosophical stance/bias here. Local realism testing here however is about being both local and realist, and pilot waves aren't local to begin with.
  - jmcmichael 8y ago
    Yeah, that makes sense. Do you have an example of Zeilinger's writing where he discusses his philosophical stance? Is a philosophical stance something you believe that a physicist shouldn't have?
millstone 8y ago
Isn't special relativity a serious mathematical problem for Bohmian mechanics?
- thraway180306 8y ago
  Relativistic extensions aren't pleasant in standard QM either. Bohmian formalism would require something perhaps no less aesthetically repulsive, but surely more alien: a preferred foliation of spacetime to avoid a preferred reference frame. Turns out it wouldn't have to be an artificial choice, as it can be derived from the wave function itself https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1714 https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1714 (that would also mean this preference existing within QM irrespective of any interpretation).

jmcmichael 8y ago

Fine, here's another from Ronald Hensen at Delft: Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km 2015 https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949v1 https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949v1 "...This result rules out large classes of local realist theories, and paves the way for implementing device-independent quantum-secure communication and randomness certification. "

akvadrako 8y ago
This isn't relevant because Bohm's theory isn't local. There are much stronger results like PBR ruling out a large class of non-local realist theories, but that also doesn't include pilot wave theory. No known experiment can rule it out because it's predictions equal those of Copenhagen.
thraway180306 8y ago
This is something different. Zeilinger paints himself disproving realism alone and has a well known philosophical stance/bias here. Local realism testing here however is about being both local and realist, and pilot waves aren't local to begin with.
- jmcmichael 8y ago
  Yeah, that makes sense. Do you have an example of Zeilinger's writing where he discusses his philosophical stance? Is a philosophical stance something you believe that a physicist shouldn't have?

millstone 8y ago

Isn't special relativity a serious mathematical problem for Bohmian mechanics?

thraway180306 8y ago
Relativistic extensions aren't pleasant in standard QM either. Bohmian formalism would require something perhaps no less aesthetically repulsive, but surely more alien: a preferred foliation of spacetime to avoid a preferred reference frame. Turns out it wouldn't have to be an artificial choice, as it can be derived from the wave function itself https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1714 https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1714 (that would also mean this preference existing within QM irrespective of any interpretation).