Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

[Write4U]

Your pilot waves are undetectable, I'm afraid.

But they are detectable. In the double slit experiment they behave exactly as the waves as in the Copenhagen Interpretation.

It is a matter of "interpretation" what the waves represent, the particles in transit as in the Copenhagen Interpretation, or a deeper underlying universal wave function. The results are identical and observable.

Bohmian trajectories for an electron going through the two-slit experiment.
A similar pattern was also extrapolated from weak measurements of single photons.[3]

de Broglie–Bohm theory

Measurements are a particular case of quantum processes described by the theory—for which it yields the same quantum predictions as other interpretations of quantum mechanics. The theory does not have a "measurement problem", due to the fact that the particles have a definite configuration at all times.

The Born rule in de Broglie–Bohm theory is not a postulate. Rather, in this theory, the link between the probability density and the wave function has the status of a theorem, a result of a separate postulate, the "quantum equilibrium hypothesis", which is additional to the basic principles governing the wave function. There are several equivalent mathematical formulations of the theory.

de Broglie–Bohm theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[James R]

But they are detectable.

No. Pay attention. I already told you once.

If it is your claim that Bohm's pilot waves can be somehow detected, you should be able to tell me what apparatus I would need to use to detect them.

But I asked you before and you either didn't understand the question or you tried to dodge it and post irrelevancies, as you have done here.

Either try to support your claim, or else admit you cannot do so.

In the double slit experiment they behave exactly as the waves as in the Copenhagen Interpretation.

No. The pilot waves do NOT behave like Schrodinger probability waves (which, by the way, are also undetectable).

If you're going to make claims about stuff like this, you will need to understand what it is that you're talking about.

Sadly, that seems to be utterly beyond your grasp when it comes to most science, these days. You seem to think that cutting and pasting the first search result from google is a substitute for understanding things.

 

[Write4U]

No. The pilot waves do NOT behave like Schrodinger probability waves (which, by the way, are also undetectable).

Then how do you know they exist? My claim (by all accounts) is that the Bohm's Pilot wave function behaves the same way as the wave function in the Copenhagen Interpretation. The only, but remarkable difference is that in Bohmian Mechanics, a particle is a particle and a wave is a wave, which is standard mainstream quantum theory. That's what makes it a viable competitor theory.

Has anybody addressed the question, that if quanta are quantized, is it's wave function quantized in the Copenhagen Interpretation?
Or should we not ask that question?

How can I explain the Quantum/Wave theory

In the analog sense, energy flows in continuous streams or waves, having no specific inherent quantity - in other words, an energy wave could be any size. The quantum idea says energy is a "digital" flow, that what appears to be continuous waves is actually broken down into discrete, individual "bits".

The name "photon" is used for these individual energy particles. Photons contain a specific amount of energy. For example, if you have a pure red light (like a laser), it can be thought of as a stream of photons all having a specific energy (the units for measuring this energy are usually electron-volts). The more photons, the brighter the light - but all the photons individually have the same amount of energy. In fact, these individual particles of energy can be detected discretely, or counted.

Now, at the same time, the light has the properties of a wave. The wave can be described by its wavelength and frequency. Experiments can be devised that show light (or other electromagnetic energy) to act as a wave or a particle. If the quantum theory is correct, we must accept this "weirdness of science" even if we can't explain it very well.

Unfortunately, it gets worse when we look at properties of matter. In the subatomic world, it was discovered that particles such as electrons, which are usually thought of as actual physical chunks of something, can be observed behaving as if they too are waves. It turns out that by using the equations that describe photons as waves, one could describe an electron as having a certain wavelength and frequency - matter waves.

Questions and Answers - How can I explain the Quantum/Wave theory to my class?

An answer to the question: How can I explain quantum theory?

education.jlab.org

That problem does not exist in Bohm's model, does it? They are 2 separate things. A quantum is quantized, a wave function is continuous.

 

[Write4U]

No. The pilot waves do NOT behave like Schrodinger probability waves (which, by the way, are also undetectable).

I think this satisfies your question.

A collection of particles has an associated matter wave which evolves according to the Schrödinger equation. Each particle follows a deterministic trajectory, which is guided by the wave function; collectively, the density of the particles conforms to the magnitude of the wave function. The wave function is not influenced by the particle and can exist also as an empty wave function.[16]

Pilot wave theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Write4U]

Sadly, that seems to be utterly beyond your grasp when it comes to most science, these days. You seem to think that cutting and pasting the first search result from google is a substitute for understanding things.

Interesting conclusion. I take it you get your information and understanding via divine inspiration instead of books?
How do you know my quoted passages are a reference from a first google search instead of selected for clarity from several searches?
Do you know my research habits?

Ared you claiming that you understand how it all works, without answers to the questions you are not supposed to ask?

Here is another excerpt from a scientific book, selected for clarity.

Physics and Philosophy​

Bohm rediscovered the pilot- or guiding wave, already proposed by Louis de Broglie 1927. Bohm’s theory/interpretation, which follows naturally from the Schrödinger equation, has several advantages over other interpretations:

- It is realistic. Particles exist and remain particles; their paths can be calculated at any time.

- It is deterministic. The position and speed of the existing quantum objects can be precisely calculated from initial conditions.

- It needs a minimum of unusual ideas. You only have to accept that some effects travel much faster than light. But this also seems to be the case with gravity and other forces, a question that is never addressed by orthodox physics; with entanglement, cosmic inflation and shock waves in a plasma.

- There is no need for vagueness/indeterminacy/uncertainty.

- It can explain paradoxical phenomena quite naturally, e.g. “interferences with itself” in double-slit experiments with single particles, or the strange processes with “delayed choice”.

more.... https://peterripota.medium.com/how-bohm-rediscovered-reinvented-pilot-waves-ae6ae7fdc2f7#

All these people are wrong? There is no room for doubt? Wow, you must have quite a reputation among your peers.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Then how do you know they exist?

As far as I'm concerned, Schrodinger probability waves and wavefunctions and such are mathematical descriptions of a system. There is no need to the waves to "exist" as real, detectable things. The wave description is useful because it allows us to make quantitative, accurate predictions about the results of particular experiments and observations. But it's not the only description of quantum physics; there are alternatives that work just as well.

My claim (by all accounts) is that the Bohm's Pilot wave function behaves the same way as the wave function in the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Then all the accounts you have read are wrong. I've now told you this three times. Pilot waves behave very differently to Schrodinger probability waves. Their function in Bohmian mechanics is completely different from the function that Schrodinger waves play in regular quantum mechanics.

You have supposedly spent years studying up on Bohmian theory. Why aren't you even aware of this basic fact about that theory? It's because you don't actually understand the first thing about it, isn't it?

The only, but remarkable difference is that in Bohmian Mechanics, a particle is a particle and a wave is a wave, which is standard mainstream quantum theory. That's what makes it a viable competitor theory.

No. You're way off base with that nonsense.

I think this satisfies your question.

The only question I asked you was what apparatus I would need to use to detect a Bohmian pilot wave. It is your repeated assertion that those waves are detectable. Remember?

So, tell me how to detect them. That's the only question you need to answer.

Stop stalling and trying to dodge the question. Answer it, or admit you don't have a clue.

Interesting conclusion.

It's based on simple observation of your activity on this forum over a period of years.

I take it you get your information and understanding via divine inspiration instead of books?

Whatever gave you that idea?

Here's what you need to know, Write4U. I have an education. Not just that, but an education that has covered the sorts of things you and I have been discussing.

Listing my specific formal qualifications here would be a pointless exercise. But please be assured that I'm very confident that I outgun you when it comes to qualifications in science, in particular.

So, in answer to your insulting assumption: you are incorrect. I did not acquire my knowledge of science from "divine inspiration". I also did not acquire it from random google searches and basic wikipedia articles.

Yes, I've read lots of science books. But, of course, I've "got my information" from lots of other sources, too. I have been repeatedly formally assessed on my scientific knowledge. You can safely assume that I am highly accredited.

In contrast, I know that you have some qualifications in bookkeeping, which is not exactly science.

Given all this, then, do you really want to question my scientific credentials further? How productive do you imagine that will be?

How do you know my quoted passages are a reference from a first google search instead of selected for clarity from several searches?

Because the sort of stuff you cut and paste can usually be found on the first page of google search results for the most obvious kinds of searches of key words.

Do you know my research habits?

Yes. I'm very familiar with them, because you insist on posting all your "findings" here.

Ared you claiming that you understand how it all works, without answers to the questions you are not supposed to ask?

What are you referring to? What is "it all", in this context?

Do I know enough about Bohm's pilot waves to be able to correct a basic misunderstanding you have about them? Yes, I do. That's all that really matters here, isn't it? I don't have to "understand how it all works". I only have to be able to identify your errors.

Why, over a period of years of studying your idol Bohm and his theory, haven't you learnt the basics? What's your excuse? You're a fan, aren't you? But a fan of something you don't understand at all? That's a strange sort of self-deluding obsession, if you ask me.

Here is another excerpt from a scientific book, selected for clarity.

So what?

It's entirely irrelevant to the claim you made about pilot waves being detectable. That's the claim I asked you to support.

Can you support it, or not?

 

[Write4U]

Then all the accounts you have read are wrong. I've now told you this three times. Pilot waves behave very differently to Schrodinger probability waves. Their function in Bohmian mechanics is completely different from the function that Schrodinger waves play in regular quantum mechanics.

I'm sorry , but it is you who is in error.
The Bohmian wave function behaves the same as Schrodingers probability waves. That is why the results closely match.

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.

The latter evolve according to the “guiding equation”, which expresses the velocities of the particles in terms of the wave function. Thus, in Bohmian mechanics the configuration of a system of particles evolves via a deterministic motion choreographed by the wave function. In particular, when a particle is sent into a two-slit apparatus, the slit through which it passes and its location upon arrival on the photographic plate are completely determined by its initial position and wave function.

Bohmian Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

and

The de Broglie–Bohm theory[a] is an interpretation of quantum mechanics which postulates that, in addition to the wavefunction, an actual configuration of particles exists, even when unobserved. The evolution over time of the configuration of all particles is defined by a guiding equation. The evolution of the wave function over time is given by the Schrödinger equation. The theory is named after Louis de Broglie (1892–1987) and David Bohm (1917–1992).

de Broglie–Bohm theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The difference between the two theories is that in the Copenhagen Interpretation it is the particles that create the apparent wave function, hence are superposition, whereas in Bohmiamn Mechanics the particles have defined positions riding the Universal Pilotwave.

The results are basically the same as I have demonstrated visually, except that the Bohmian version is more complicated due to the separation of the particles and the wavefunctions.

The Pilot Wave Interpretation

It is well known that both versions arrive at the same result in the double slit experiment.

The Bohmian trajectories for an electron going through the two-slit experiment. A similar pattern was also extrapolated from weak measurements of single photons.

de Broglie–Bohm theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Copenhagen Interpretation

https://lifeboat.com/blog.images/can-the-double-slit-experiment-distinguish-between-quantum-interpretations.jpg

But the Copenhagen Interpretation is by no means complete and unchallenged.

Bohr offered an interpretation that is independent of a subjective observer, or measurement, or collapse; instead, an "irreversible" or effectively irreversible process causes the decay of quantum coherence which imparts the classical behavior of "observation" or "measurement".[28][29][30][31]

According to Bohr's complementarity principle, light is neither a wave nor a stream of particles. A particular experiment can demonstrate particle behavior (passing through a definite slit) or wave behavior (interference), but not both at the same time.[71]

The same experiment has been performed for light, electrons, atoms, and molecules.[72][73] The extremely small de Broglie wavelength of objects with larger mass makes experiments increasingly difficult,[74] but in general quantum mechanics considers all matter as possessing both particle and wave behaviors.

Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and

The meaning of the wave function of the Universe was actively discussed in 1980s. In most works on quantum cosmology, it is accepted that the wave function is a probability amplitude for the Universe to have some space geometry, or to be found in some point of the Wheeler superspace. It seems that the wave function gives maximally objective description compatible with quantum theory.

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218271819410098#

^Which suggests that even in the Copenhagen Interpretation a Universal wave function should be considered.

 

[Write4U]

To follow up on the above.

A retrospective review of von Neumann’s analysis of hidden variables in quantum mechanics​

Robert Golub* [1], Steven K. Lamoreaux [2]

4. Conclusions​

..............

In the case of Bohm’s theory, each particle follows its own trajectory, and the wavefunction is in 3N dimensional space and is even or odd under particle exchange. The hidden variable is the initial position of each particle, which is not an additional degree of freedom because in ordinary quantum mechanics the particle positions are already considered the degrees of freedom. For identical particles, when the initial wavefunction is specified, the even or odd superposition results from the creation of a multiparticle state at each initial position. Overall, there is no surprise that the system evolution is indistinguishable from the usual formulation of quantum mechanics.

A retrospective review of von Neumann’s analysis of hidden variables in quantum mechanics - Academia.edu

Academia.edu is a place to share and follow research.

www.academia.edu

 

[exchemist]

To follow up on the above.

A retrospective review of von Neumann’s analysis of hidden variables in quantum mechanics​

Robert Golub* [1], Steven K. Lamoreaux [2]

4. Conclusions​

..............

A retrospective review of von Neumann’s analysis of hidden variables in quantum mechanics - Academia.edu

Academia.edu is a place to share and follow research.

www.academia.edu

Nice clear paper, but by selectively quoting only part of the concluding paragraphs, you contrive to dodge (surprise, surprise) its actual findings.

The conclusion says:-

We have shown that examination of the logic of von Neumann’s argument leads to the conclusion that the existence of hidden variables capable of allowing the exact prediction of all physical quantities would mean that quantum mechanics in its present form would have to be false, that is, the existence of hidden variables would contradict quantum mechanics, and their inclusion requires a vastly modified theory. Of course, this follows already from the fact that physical quantities represented by non-commuting operators must satisfy an uncertainty relation.

Another powerful argument against hidden variables has been presented by Pauli. In a letter to Fierz he wrote ([18, 19] Pauli to Fierz, Jan. 6, 1952, p. 499, no 1337):

" I want to call special attention to the thermodynamics of ensembles, consisting of the same type of subensembles (Einstein-Bose or Fermi-Dirac statistics). What is important to me is not the energy values but the statistical weights, further the indifference of the thermodynamic-statistical reasoning to the “wave-particle” alternative and Gibbs’ point that identical or only similar states behave qualitatively differently. If hidden parameters exist, not only on paper, but determine a really different behavior of different single systems (e.g.particles)— according to their “real” values—so must—completely independent of the question of the technical measurability of the parameters—the Einstein-Bose or Fermi-Dirac statistics be completely disrupted. Since there is no basis to assume that the thermodynamic weights should be determined by only half (or a part of) “reality”. Either two states are identical or not (there is no “similar”) and if the ψ function is not a complete description of single systems, states with the same ψ function will not be identical. Every argument with the goal of saving the Einstein-Bose and Fermi-Dirac statistics from the causal parameter mythology must fail because it - taking into account the usual theory in which the ψ function is a complete description of a state—declares the other half of reality to be unreal."

So basically, this paper is saying Bohm's theory is unhelpful to physics, because:

1) if it were correct, that would entail throwing out most of existing QM, i.e. the fundamental concept of observable properties being extracted from the wave function by Hermitian operators, some of which do not commute, which as it stands accords perfectly with observation. So that would take us backwards, not forwards.

2) As Pauli points out, Bohm's theory would render QM incapable of correctly predicting the differences in thermodynamic behaviour between ensembles of bosons and fermions (see section I have highlighted in red). This is a fundamental idea in particle physics, predicted by QM and observed in practice.

3) Also, as the abstract notes, Pauli described Bohm's theory as "an uncashable cheque", in that it has no observable consequences, i.e. it is useless as a scientific theory.

 

[Write4U]

Nice clear paper, but by selectively quoting only part of the concluding paragraphs, you contrive to dodge (surprise, surprise) its actual findings.

The conclusion says:-

Yes, and I quoted :

4. Conclusions: In the case of Bohm's Theory.

" Overall, there is no surprise that the system evolution is indistinguishable from the usual formulation of quantum mechanics."

Verbatim...

 

[exchemist]

Yes, and I quoted :

4. Conclusions: In the case of Bohm's Theory.

" Overall, there is no surprise that the system evolution is indistinguishable from the usual formulation of quantum mechanics."

Verbatim...View attachment 6130

Idiot.