tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post2578933802296126311..comments2021-04-17T17:21:32.139-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: David Bohm’s Pilot Wave Interpretation of Quantum MechanicsSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-24769629039640885962021-01-04T17:33:32.295-05:002021-01-04T17:33:32.295-05:00I know I might make i fool of myself commenting on...I know I might make i fool of myself commenting on this forum (I'm just an engineer) but better to ask professionals.<br /><br /><br />First, I like to hear if someone knows about the latest on the droplets experiments that seem to conform to Pilot Wave Theory (PTW). I read an article that the experiment could not be reproduced and no interference was found? Is this the latest?<br /><br />Charles Keledjianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02589319134001235464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-18590423710657461422020-11-13T19:33:57.705-05:002020-11-13T19:33:57.705-05:00For each of these Eigenvalues we get two solutions...For each of these Eigenvalues we get two solutions for v/c<br />v*t/c*t = v/c = v*t/(|sec(vt)| +- 1)<br /><br />For the first one (4.493409) we get <br />v/c = 1.2470... and 0.8019... , one being the inverse of the other.<br /><br />The next ones are each closer to 1, resp.<br />Gerd Termathehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01718262823488014650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-15479361972441357722020-11-13T05:22:15.111-05:002020-11-13T05:22:15.111-05:00> "an epistemic perspective [...] is no mo...> "an epistemic perspective [...] is no more verifiable than an ontological perspective"<br /><br />All physical theories must of course be verifiable, i.e. agree with observations. But the ontological perspective is in fact a mistaken, misleading misconception of quantum theory that obscures its statistical character and has caused endless confusion, as these discussions amply Wernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502954437062856468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-35946998881679953332020-11-13T01:30:05.903-05:002020-11-13T01:30:05.903-05:00Sabine wrote: "...depending on the exact init...Sabine wrote: "...depending on the exact initial position of the particle, the guiding field tells the particle to go either one way or another. But the guiding field has a lot of valleys where particles could be going. So what happens with the empty valleys if you make a measurement? In principle, these empty valleys continue to exist. David Deutsch has claimed this means “pilot-wave Lishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05296249414173662356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-45512638981265381312020-11-13T01:16:41.385-05:002020-11-13T01:16:41.385-05:00Lish,
"As for Superdeterminism itself, would...Lish,<br /><br /><i>"As for Superdeterminism itself, would it not require a virtually unlimited degree of numerical precision specify the exact location of that initial dot in Configuration Space"</i><br /><br />No, it does not, as <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.01327" rel="nofollow">we have demonstrated here</a>.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-5025600917358057522020-11-13T00:14:26.625-05:002020-11-13T00:14:26.625-05:00The presumption that physical particles should exe...The presumption that physical particles should exert an effect on the BM guiding wave is a prevalent misconception that underlies the mistaken claim that BM requires faster-than-light communication between entangled particles. If that were so, it would imply that the BM guiding wave is itself a relativistic field that propagates through physical space (e.g. like electromagnetic waves). The reasonLishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05296249414173662356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-59122830357833422112020-11-12T23:38:33.108-05:002020-11-12T23:38:33.108-05:00The claim that BM = MWI + the location of an initi...The claim that BM = MWI + the location of an initial dot in Configuration Space is a Superdeterministic misinterpretation of Bohmian Mechanics. The reason it's a strawman argument is because BM's Quantum Equilibrium Hypothesis does not require spacetime to strictly adhere to the Born Rule from the moment of its inception. BM instead derives the Born Rule as a consequence of the Quantum Lishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05296249414173662356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-62483112621204763552020-11-12T15:40:50.685-05:002020-11-12T15:40:50.685-05:00You are offering an epistemic perspective, which i...You are offering an epistemic perspective, which is no more verifiable than an ontological perspective. That there is decoherence and the loss of quantum phase, say that quantum phase is taken up by a needle state or environment, is not that controversial. This leads to a set of diagonal elements in the density matrix that are probabilities. The off diagonal terms corresponding to superpositions Lawrence Crowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12090839464038445335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-43896648358748102552020-11-12T05:49:39.545-05:002020-11-12T05:49:39.545-05:00Lawrence Crowell wrote: "an experiment can re...Lawrence Crowell wrote: "an experiment can really change how you think about things"<br /><br />That's how it should be. After all, physics is an empirical science. But wave function collapse is different. There aren't even theoretical arguments that it must happen. The "collapse postulate" is put forward by people who confuse state preparation and measurement. (Wernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502954437062856468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-54215914749038184442020-11-11T20:00:32.910-05:002020-11-11T20:00:32.910-05:00@Dr. A.M. Castaldo (6:13 AM, October 28, 2020)
&qu...@Dr. A.M. Castaldo (6:13 AM, October 28, 2020)<br />"I get the impression you have missed the whole point of the "Lost In Math" title."<br /><br />The title here is David Bohm’s Pilot Wave Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.<br /><br />"... scientifically all that matters is whether the equations capture the observed behavior, in the wild or in controlled experiments.&Gerd Termathehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01718262823488014650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77518558707852390592020-11-11T10:31:32.427-05:002020-11-11T10:31:32.427-05:00Quantum interpretations are the imposition of axio...Quantum interpretations are the imposition of axioms onto QM. They are in a sense analogous to how alternative axioms to Euclid's 5th axiom of geometry give rise to various geometric models. Some interpretations appear to be falsifiable. The results at San Grasso indicated gravitation plays no role in wave function collapse. [ https://phys.org/news/2020-09-function-collapse-gravity.html ] TheLawrence Crowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12090839464038445335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-37180904838399448372020-11-11T07:38:00.172-05:002020-11-11T07:38:00.172-05:00Werner: It was not naive, it was simplistic, for s...Werner: It was not naive, it was simplistic, for somebody asking simplistic questions. <br /><br />My apologies for failing to detect your sarcasm, you sounded like a petulant high school student.<br /><br />It was never self-evident that there was an aether; as you indicate, that was a <b>conclusion</b>; akin to belief in God because "what else could it be?" All your other examples areDr. A.M. Castaldohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17988116835722393503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-35580153108856141182020-11-11T05:09:13.813-05:002020-11-11T05:09:13.813-05:00Dr. A.M. Castaldo wrote: "Axiomatic just mean...Dr. A.M. Castaldo wrote: "Axiomatic just means it is self-evidently true."<br /><br />Thanks. I've heard about Euclid's and Peano's achievements. Axiomatization can be useful in mature fields with clear-cut concepts. But in quantum theory it was fuelled by the hope of making a vague term like "measurement" precise by embedding it in a set of axioms. I can see Wernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502954437062856468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-90467830095963126502020-11-10T12:08:42.302-05:002020-11-10T12:08:42.302-05:00Werner: Axiomatic just means it is self-evidently ...Werner: Axiomatic just means it is self-evidently true. Most axioms are implicit. Is mass quantifiable? We think that is self-evidently true, but we don't list it as an axiom of physics.<br /><br />I haven't read your textbooks, but I'd speculate they probably don't mention axioms because they rely on repeatable experiments to build up the quantum model, grounded in undisputed Dr. A.M. Castaldohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17988116835722393503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-39560922185784305382020-11-10T11:54:18.498-05:002020-11-10T11:54:18.498-05:00Needless to say, there are infinitely many logical...Needless to say, there are infinitely many logically equivalent sets of axioms for quantum mechanics. Any one of those will do. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-10509112345717628612020-11-10T10:16:16.768-05:002020-11-10T10:16:16.768-05:00Trapped in axioms ...
Obviously you have deeply ab...Trapped in axioms ...<br />Obviously you have deeply absorbed the quantum formalism, or should I say quantum dogmatics? I've always been more interested in the physics, rather than formalism. None of my quantum theory textbooks mentions axioms. Can you direct me to the official, "canonical" set?Wernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502954437062856468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-12081951249625824242020-11-10T05:24:39.509-05:002020-11-10T05:24:39.509-05:00Without the measurement update (= wavefunction col...Without the measurement update (= wavefunction collapse), quantum mechanics does not describe observations correctly. There is a reason this axiom is in the theory. It is beyond me that we even need to discuss this. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-19558682655321652302020-11-10T04:01:51.383-05:002020-11-10T04:01:51.383-05:00Of course there's no point in making the exact...Of course there's no point in making the exact same blog posts again. But there's still progress to be made. The discussion must go on, and it should get around the stagnation point. The measurement problem isn't solved yet!<br /><br />In the case of photons there is no wave function after the polarization has been measured. The photon is gone. What is relevant, also for Wernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502954437062856468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-66048911227629597442020-11-09T12:23:24.924-05:002020-11-09T12:23:24.924-05:00I have written several blogposts and papers about ...I have written several blogposts and papers about it and if that didn't make it clear I don't think repeating it will. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77813046917221393002020-11-09T11:41:32.622-05:002020-11-09T11:41:32.622-05:00Since you disagree so strongly with each other, an...Since you disagree so strongly with each other, and I am still not clear (others too?), is this question worthy of its own blog post?Nonlin.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15149807667681107150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48416137448422799952020-11-09T07:00:05.792-05:002020-11-09T07:00:05.792-05:00David Bohm was monist and didn`t see wave and part...David Bohm was monist and didn`t see wave and particle as separate things.Both the Copenhagen Interpretation and Many World theory have free will as axiom and are not scientific.bergenhovmatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904765618976336878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-42550868090846487742020-11-09T04:44:25.671-05:002020-11-09T04:44:25.671-05:00Sabine wrote: "I am merely looking at the mat...Sabine wrote: "I am merely looking at the math."<br /><br />Of course there's a clash between unitary evolution and the collapse postulate. We disagree about the significance of the collapse postulate. Wernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502954437062856468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-85826254665339955382020-11-09T01:00:05.207-05:002020-11-09T01:00:05.207-05:00Werner,
I am not "interpreting" anythin...Werner,<br /><br />I am not "interpreting" anything. You do. I am merely looking at the math. The only way quantum mechanics can be internally consistent is if it is not fundamental. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-44618829373079719402020-11-08T15:38:02.442-05:002020-11-08T15:38:02.442-05:00I'm still puzzled by your statement "If t...I'm still puzzled by your statement "If the wave function cannot represent individual quantum systems, then quantum mechanics is not a fundamental theory." It may well take me another year to understand your (technical) definition of the term "fundamental". But if your verdict is based on the "measurement problem", I'd like to caution that such an Wernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502954437062856468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-43963190384969753652020-11-08T11:01:55.546-05:002020-11-08T11:01:55.546-05:00I have no idea what makes you think I consider sta...I have no idea what makes you think I consider statistical theories "second-rate". I say they are not fundamental. That's a technical term that says nothing about how relevant I consider such theories to be, which in any case I think complete besides the point.<br /><br />No, I do not think that a fundamental theory needs to be deterministic. Again, I do not know what makes you Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.com