4 ms·

> [Bohm/de Broglie Pilot Wave interpretation of QM] is interesting despite being debunked by Bell's, etc No, the pilot wave interpretation is not debunked by B

by mietek 6y ago

> [Bohm/de Broglie Pilot Wave interpretation of QM] is interesting despite being debunked by Bell's, etc No, the pilot wave interpretation is not debunked by Bell’s theorem. That is a persistent misrepresentation of Bell’s theorem. In Bell’s own words: “My own first paper on this subject ... starts with a summary of the EPR argument from locality to deterministic hidden variables. But the commentators have almost universally reported that it begins with deterministic hidden variables.” (via http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bell's_theorem) http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bell's_theorem)

hilbert42 6y ago
Ha, perhaps I should not have used the word 'debunked'. Let me briefly explain. Long before Yves Couder did those experiments about a decade ago, I was intrigued with why the Bohr/Copenhagen model became the main QM orthodoxy and why the 'shut up-and-calculate' attitude became so entrenched. (One of my other subjects was phil., so I was never fobbed off by being told to just 'shut up-and-calculate'). It seems to me the main reason for why this view prevailed and still does is that it works so successfully well in its practical applcation. Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen were right not to be satisfied with the then mainstream view of QM and question its underlying mechanics—even if they were wrong (science doesn't advance if theories/ideas aren't questioned). Same goes for de Broglie when he initially proposed the pilot wave theory at Solvay '27 (although it seems to me that he caved in a bit too quickly under pressure from Pauli). When I was doing physics, de Broglie–Bohm, not seeming to have any practical application, hardly entered the picture. It was only later I discovered David Bohm's pilot wave work in more detail when I was learning about the Aharonov–Bohm effect (which itself is an intriguing matter). Not only did I find de Broglie–Bohm fascinating but by accident I also learned about Bohmian trajectories which may possibly explain some effects I'd seen years earlier with electrons being focused and scattered in a vacuum (that's still unresolved). Of all QM theories, de Broglie–Bohm is the one I found the most interesting and provocative, and it would be a neat solution if the multitude of seeming objections to it were resolved (that said, I'd bet they'll all be resolved well before, say, many-worlds will). The reason why I used the word 'debunked' is that some while after Yves Couder's work came out a flock of papers started appearing (perhaps in response to his work) that claimed the death knell for de Broglie–Bohm; Bell, if I recall, was often cited as the principal reason. As I'm not in QM research, (my work's more in its application), I'm not up to date on its latest developments but from various science news reports I've glimpsed recently, it seems to be resurfacing again (obviously you're much more au fait about this than me). BTW, David Bohm seems to have been a most fascinating character, from what I've read of him, he's the sort of guy I've have liked to have met (reckon I could have talked with him for hours).
- mietek 6y ago
  I share many of your views, and so I think you will enjoy Jean Bricmont’s “Making Sense of Quantum Mechanics”. The book clarifies there is no reason to doubt the pilot wave interpretation, or Bohmian mechanics. For a more popular account that delves into the personalities of the physicists involved, I also recommend Adam Becker’s “What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics”. Both books came to me via the reading list at https://bohmian-mechanics.net https://bohmian-mechanics.net.
  - hilbert42 6y ago
    Well, thank you for that info, I'll definitely check both books out. Incidentally, I've nothing against popular accounts so long as they're not trivial or trite, I look forward to reading Becker. Moreover, I've often found that well written popular accounts not only tackle the subject matter from a different perspective to textbooks but also they can provide useful information that's not commonly available elsewhere. On several occasions I've had eureka moments reading such books long after I'd finished with the textbooks. Here, Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind comes to mind. Also, I've ever so briefly checked the web link, I see there's hours of material there.

by mietek 6y ago

hilbert42 6y ago

Ha, perhaps I should not have used the word 'debunked'. Let me briefly explain. Long before Yves Couder did those experiments about a decade ago, I was intrigued with why the Bohr/Copenhagen model became the main QM orthodoxy and why the 'shut up-and-calculate' attitude became so entrenched. (One of my other subjects was phil., so I was never fobbed off by being told to just 'shut up-and-calculate'). It seems to me the main reason for why this view prevailed and still does is that it works so successfully well in its practical applcation. Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen were right not to be satisfied with the then mainstream view of QM and question its underlying mechanics—even if they were wrong (science doesn't advance if theories/ideas aren't questioned). Same goes for de Broglie when he initially proposed the pilot wave theory at Solvay '27 (although it seems to me that he caved in a bit too quickly under pressure from Pauli). When I was doing physics, de Broglie–Bohm, not seeming to have any practical application, hardly entered the picture. It was only later I discovered David Bohm's pilot wave work in more detail when I was learning about the Aharonov–Bohm effect (which itself is an intriguing matter). Not only did I find de Broglie–Bohm fascinating but by accident I also learned about Bohmian trajectories which may possibly explain some effects I'd seen years earlier with electrons being focused and scattered in a vacuum (that's still unresolved). Of all QM theories, de Broglie–Bohm is the one I found the most interesting and provocative, and it would be a neat solution if the multitude of seeming objections to it were resolved (that said, I'd bet they'll all be resolved well before, say, many-worlds will). The reason why I used the word 'debunked' is that some while after Yves Couder's work came out a flock of papers started appearing (perhaps in response to his work) that claimed the death knell for de Broglie–Bohm; Bell, if I recall, was often cited as the principal reason. As I'm not in QM research, (my work's more in its application), I'm not up to date on its latest developments but from various science news reports I've glimpsed recently, it seems to be resurfacing again (obviously you're much more au fait about this than me). BTW, David Bohm seems to have been a most fascinating character, from what I've read of him, he's the sort of guy I've have liked to have met (reckon I could have talked with him for hours).

mietek 6y ago
I share many of your views, and so I think you will enjoy Jean Bricmont’s “Making Sense of Quantum Mechanics”. The book clarifies there is no reason to doubt the pilot wave interpretation, or Bohmian mechanics. For a more popular account that delves into the personalities of the physicists involved, I also recommend Adam Becker’s “What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics”. Both books came to me via the reading list at https://bohmian-mechanics.net https://bohmian-mechanics.net.
- hilbert42 6y ago
  Well, thank you for that info, I'll definitely check both books out. Incidentally, I've nothing against popular accounts so long as they're not trivial or trite, I look forward to reading Becker. Moreover, I've often found that well written popular accounts not only tackle the subject matter from a different perspective to textbooks but also they can provide useful information that's not commonly available elsewhere. On several occasions I've had eureka moments reading such books long after I'd finished with the textbooks. Here, Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind comes to mind. Also, I've ever so briefly checked the web link, I see there's hours of material there.