4 ms·

That's a fair observation. Though, I think the thought experiment to about the distance between the two slits as irrelevant to QM more concretely disproves the

That's a fair observation. Though, I think the thought experiment to about the distance between the two slits as irrelevant to QM more concretely disproves the pilot wave theory. Most physicists when asked about QM will just say that this is a useful model to predict the outcomes of experiments. In fact the most successful model, ever. The magic that happens in the middle is currently untestable and thus uninteresting beyond philosophy. The problem with determinism is that it introduces more complexity to the model without improving any accuracy. Moreover, it doesn't help us predict the outcome of any experiments. Even if this experiment was successful, who cares? Does it change the math or predictions? Science works in a very simple way. We have evidence about how the universe works. We make models to explain that evidence. The models also make predictions about new evidence that we would expect to see. New evidence appears and either confirms or limits the domain of the model. Basically nothing but gravity has limited the domain of QM.

naasking 8y ago
> Though, I think the thought experiment to about the distance between the two slits as irrelevant to QM more concretely disproves the pilot wave theory. This sort of experiment does not disprove pilot waves. > Science works in a very simple way. We have evidence about how the universe works. We make models to explain that evidence. The models also make predictions about new evidence that we would expect to see. New evidence appears and either confirms or limits the domain of the model This is a very anemic view of the scientific process. Scientific theories have predictive and explanatory power. You described the process covering only the former, but the latter is critical for advancing theory. For instance, without Bohmian mechanics John Bell probably would never have developed Bell's Theorem and all the subsequent no-go theorems which have dramatically improved our understanding of quantum foundations. Theories that provide a mental framework for thinking about problems guide you in devising new experiments. Theories with no explanatory power provide no meaningful framework within which to devise new experiments.

naasking 8y ago

> Though, I think the thought experiment to about the distance between the two slits as irrelevant to QM more concretely disproves the pilot wave theory. This sort of experiment does not disprove pilot waves. > Science works in a very simple way. We have evidence about how the universe works. We make models to explain that evidence. The models also make predictions about new evidence that we would expect to see. New evidence appears and either confirms or limits the domain of the model This is a very anemic view of the scientific process. Scientific theories have predictive and explanatory power. You described the process covering only the former, but the latter is critical for advancing theory. For instance, without Bohmian mechanics John Bell probably would never have developed Bell's Theorem and all the subsequent no-go theorems which have dramatically improved our understanding of quantum foundations. Theories that provide a mental framework for thinking about problems guide you in devising new experiments. Theories with no explanatory power provide no meaningful framework within which to devise new experiments.