Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

Write4U said:
Question; In a dynamic spacetime environment are there not always "local hidden variables" such as wave interferences?
Seems to me such variables are inevitably present all the way down to Planck scale, no?

de Broglie–Bohm theory



View attachment 6003
This is the Pilot wave interpretation.


de Broglie–Bohm theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Why is this not preferable over the Copenhagen interpretation? A particle travelling on (in) a wave exhibits the same behavior as when the particle is travelling as a wave. But in Bohm's interpretation a particle is always a particle, instead of being smeared out and entering both slits as a wave.
Is that not the more realistic interpretation? Regardless of any justification of the Copenhagen interpretation, should the a priori assumption not be according to standard physics? AFAIK, the Pilot wave model works. It just appears a little more complicated to us, but that is debatable, no?
Click to expand...

Bohmian mechanics makes no predictions that distinguish it from regular QM. So, as it is more complicated, with no added predictive value, it is ignored on the basis of Ockam's Razor. It has been said it is just window dressing for the Copenhagen interpretation:

QUOTE
Heisenberg wrote,

Bohm’s interpretation cannot be refuted by experiment, and this is true of all the counter-proposals in the first group. From the fundamentally “positivistic” (it would perhaps be better to say “purely physical”) standpoint, we are thus concerned not with counter-proposals to the Copenhagen interpretation, but with its exact repetition in a different language. (Heisenberg 1955: 18)
Click to expand...
More recently, Sir Anthony Leggett has echoed this charge. Referring to the measurement problem, he says that Bohmian mechanics provides “little more than verbal window dressing of the basic paradox” (Leggett 2005: 871). And in connection with the double-slit experiment, he writes,

No experimental consequences are drawn from [the assumption of definite particle trajectories] other than the standard predictions of the QM formalism, so whether one regards it as a substantive resolution of the apparent paradox or as little more than a reformulation of it is no doubt a matter of personal taste (the present author inclines towards the latter point of view). (Leggett 2002: R419)
Click to expand...
UNQUOTE

From: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

So it seems to be regarded as not much more than a curiosity.
 
exchemist said:
Bohmian mechanics makes no predictions that distinguish it from regular QM. So, as it is more complicated, with no added predictive value, it is ignored on the basis of Ockam's Razor. It has been said it is just window dressing for the Copenhagen interpretation:
Click to expand...
It solves the particle/wave duality. I call that a major change. A particle is a particle , a wave is a wave, and never the twain shall meet.

That it does not add any predictive value is not a strike against, because it makes the theory acceptable by current standards.
I believe that Ockam's Razor would prefer the simplification from the absence of the duality "problem", even as it may take some additional "human calculations". In reality that problem may not exist at all.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
It solves the particle/wave duality. I call that a major change. A particle is a particle , a wave is a wave and never the twain shall meet.

That it does not add any predictive value is not a strike against, because it makes it acceptable by current standards.
I believe that Ockam's Razor would prefer the simplification from the absence of the duality "problem", even as it may take some additional "human calculations". I reality that problem may not exist at all.
Click to expand...
Nope. Science is a matter of predictive models, not metaphysics. If the alternative model is more complex and has identical scope of prediction to the one it seeks to replace, it won't be taken up.
 
exchemist said:
Nope. Science is a matter of predictive models, not metaphysics. If the alternative model is more complex and has identical scope of prediction to the one it seeks to replace, it won't be taken up.
Click to expand...
But could that not be called a false argument. It may be a less complex argument but it it introduces a more complex and as yet unsolved concept and is therefore incomplete. Seems to me that the Copenhagen interpretation introduces a metaphysical aspect, whereas Bohm's interpretation solves it.
Does Ockam's razor allow that kind of incomplete solution? Is "shut up and calculate" a scientific argument at all?
 
Write4U said:
But could that not be called a false argument. It may be a less complex argument but it it introduces a more complex and as yet unsolved concept and is therefore incomplete. Seems to me that the Copenhagen interpretation introduces a metaphysical aspect, whereas Bohm's interpretation solves it.
Does Ockam's razor allow that kind of incomplete solution? Is "shut up and calculate" a scientific argument at all?
Click to expand...
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
 
RE: Copenhagen interpretation
SUBTITLE: Niels Bohr, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, once remarked that anybody who is not shocked by the theory hasn’t understood it.
※→ exchemist. Write4U, et al,
Write4U said:
Seems to me that the Copenhagen interpretation introduces a metaphysical aspect, whereas Bohm's interpretation solves it.
Click to expand...
exchemist said:
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Click to expand...
Write4U said:
Ditto, ditto
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

The Bohm Interpretation (de Broglie-Bohm theory) does not have an output that solves the Quantum Mechanics (QM) quandary. It is the case that the Deterministic (set the observation post on an experimental basis - such that it can be duplicated and tested over and over again) Interpretation (an explanation that is tried and tested) can not make an accurate prediction. THUS, (example: Wave vs Particle explanations) can only be solved in terms of probabilities (what might happen) and not true solutions (not what will happen).

Just My Thought...
..
...
1721152069555.png

1721152052077.png

Most Respectfully,
R

'
 
According to Bohm the reason why the deterministic position is probabilistic is because not all the variables can be known in a dynamic environment.
If all the variables were known the particles position at any given time could be calculated and predicted.

I believe that is why the Bohm interpretation offers a greater predictive potential. It deals with a physical particle as well as a wave function.


Light is It a Wave or a Particle?
Around 1700, Newton concluded that light was a group of particles (corpuscular theory). Around the same time, there were other scholars who thought that light might instead be a wave (wave theory). Light travels in a straight line, and therefore it was only natural for Newton to think of it as extremely small particles that are emitted by a light source and reflected by objects. The corpuscular theory, however, cannot explain wave-like light phenomena such as diffraction and interference.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, the wave theory cannot clarify why photons fly out of metal that is exposed to light (the phenomenon is called the photoelectric effect, which was discovered at the end of the 19th century). In this manner, the great physicists have continued to debate and demonstrate the true nature of light over the centuries.
Click to expand...
more .....

Do Other Particles Besides Photons Become Waves?​

French theoretical physicist Louis de Broglie (1892 to 1987) furthered such research on the wave nature of particles by proving that there are particles (electrons, protons and neutrons) besides photons that have the properties of a wave. According to de Broglie, all particles traveling at speeds near that of light adopt the properties and wavelength of a wave in addition to the properties and momentum of a particle. He also derived the relationship "wavelength x momentum = Planck's constant."
Click to expand...
From another perspective, one could say that the essence of the dual nature of light as both a particle and a wave could already be found in Planck's constant. The evolution of this idea is contributing to diverse scientific and technological advances, including the development of electron microscopes.
Click to expand...

global.canon

Canon : Canon Technology | Canon Science Lab | Light is It a Wave or a Particle?

An introduction to Canon technology. Provides the "Mysteries of light, Light is It a Wave or a Particle? ".
global.canon global.canon
 

Attachments

  • 1722477065693.png
    1722477065693.png
    86.8 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
Write4U said:
If all the variables were known the particles position at any given time could be calculated and predicted.
Click to expand...

If you mean we cannot measure different variables together that is correct so say with position and momentum. It is not possible to measure these operators as they do not have common Eigen vectors.
 
AFAIK, Bohm proposed that theoretically all the variables could be known because the (pilot) wave and the particle are separate entities and therefore could be measured separately and then combined to form a prediction.

It does away with the particle/wave duality and becomes standard physics.

The wave guides the motion of a real point-like particle that has a definite location at all times.
1722568627386.png

 
Write4U said:
AFAIK, Bohm proposed that theoretically all the variables could be known because the (pilot) wave and the particle are separate entities and therefore could be measured separately and then combined to form a prediction.
Click to expand...
Er... what?

How does one go about measuring Bohm's pilot waves? What apparatus can we use to detect them?

Do you get any sense of a problem, here?
 
Pinball1970 said:
Do you understand what Schrödinger did?
Click to expand...
He developed the Schrodinger wave equation.

The Schrodinger equation gives us a detailed account of the form of the wave functions or probability waves that control the motion of some smaller particles. The equation also describes how these waves are influenced by external factors.
Click to expand...

In Bohmian mechanics a system of particles is described in part by its wave function, evolving, as usual, according to Schrödinger's equation. However, the wave function provides only a partial description of the system. This description is completed by the specification of the actual positions of the particles. Oct 26, 2001
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top