4 ms·
Very interesting. Funnily enough, Wikipedia doesn't seem to know anything about quantum trajectory theory. It's always amusing to find something that isn't on W
by ainar-g 7y ago
Very interesting. Funnily enough, Wikipedia doesn't seem to know anything about quantum trajectory theory. It's always amusing to find something that isn't on Wikipedia.
- AstralStorm 7y agoAh, the theory of looking from results to constituent measurements, working backwards.
- inciampati 7y agoIt would appear to be very similar to the Bohmian interpretation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theo... There have been some nice papers on this. See "Experimental nonlocal and surreal Bohmian trajectories" https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1501466.abstract https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1501466.abstrac.... They use weak measurements to make inferences about particle trajectories (ala QTT). Maybe the authors feel that they are working from a different theoretical foundation. The foundational argument, that quantum systems have specific but unobservable states, is the same in QTT and DeBroglie/Bohm models.
- acqq 7y agoSearching the internet, it seems that it existed for decades (1993, H. J. Carmichael), it simply wasn't popular: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.2273 https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.70... and the 1999 paper: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/BFb0105336 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/BFb0105336