>>17036830
Hello again my friend. Nobody will ever care about Lorentz aether theory, no matter how hard you larp. It's funny how you think it's going to magically make Bohmian mechanics viable despite being "equivalent to SR".

Big Physics keeping the dyslexic bohms down. Sad.

>>17036840
Oh people do care. It's coming back and you won't stop it.
Yes the crucial thing is both need an absolute time. That's exactly why these fit together, even if measurements are the same.

and Hardy's apology was meant to illustrate that number theory is useless and then we got cryptography

>>17036848
you can't have absolute time, you can't have flat space either
what you can have is local geometry approximating them to Planck scale
de Broglie and Dirac already solved physics Einstein couldn't do the maths to extend Dirac's solution but did understand de Broglie and told Copenhagen-ists that they are wrong and stupid, Bohm and Bell rediscovered parts of the solution

inb4 extend to where - the elastic deformation of the aether that we call gravitation needs to be described as a spinor field
it is not enough to think about it as a vector field, although that works well enough for small enough scales
at bigger scales (galaxy size and beyond basically) the curl of the aether becomes important
one other place where you could probably see this effect at large enough scale to measure is around a spinning black hole (they all have spin, and quite large angular velocities, which should be a hint)

>>17036850
Thanks for the answer, yes nobody said its easy but its the right way to start.

>>17036850
So our universe can't turn itself into an infinity loop because time would be unevenly displaced if it's not absolute. It needs to be in a bag of premade.

I believe in principle Bohmian mechanics might be made compatible with relativity by, inspired by the Heisemberg picture, using a description of particles evolving backward-on-time

>>17036830
>Bohmian Mechanics is the completion of this problem
Bohmian mechanics is dog shit with all the problems of a wave function formalism and no practical advantage. The only way the formalism is even useful in any sense is to add a restriction that renders it a diet wave function formalism.
>inb4 COPEnhagen gibberish
literally irrelevant to the wave function formalism. Bohmian mechanics is used by pen and pencil(neck) physicists who stop at two particle problems and don't understand or care for the real world outside of the scope of sophist navel gazing.

pencil(neck) and paper*, of course.

>>17036830
>presented as a serious
By?

>>17037209
Science books, science communication
>>17037193
>Bohmian mechanics is dog shit
Source? You?
>no practical advantage
How about not having to use probability theory to describe the universe? How about finally getting rid of the Einstein "Photon" scam, light is a wave there.
>The only way the formalism is even useful in any sense is to add a restriction that renders it a diet wave function formalism.
Im pretty sure physicists use it to calculate things.
>literally irrelevant to the wave function formalism. Bohmian mechanics is used by pen and pencil(neck) physicists who stop at two particle problems and don't understand or care for the real world outside of the scope of sophist navel gazing.
But its a realistic formalism, it explicitely cares about the real world. Or explain to me how you model the real world better.

>>17037190
Hm maybe but im not sure if thats helpful.

>>17037236
>Science books
Such as?
>science communication
Lol what?

>>17037193
bohmian mechanica iantmean'ttp be practical, it was constructed with making a proof-in-principle about hidden-variable interpretations

The entanglement of two particles' spins would eclipse energy less than the Planck scale, making a single bond.

>>17037239
>>science communication
>Lol what?
google.com
Its absuletely everywhere
>>Science books
>Such as?
Ok you got me, got no example for that right now. Its more a "presented to the public in that way" thing. But the mainstream for sure doesnt see it the right way, which is an argumentum ad absurdum.

>>17037268
Entanglement works via pilot waves there.

>>17037236
>physicists use it to calculate "things"
Source? You? Lmfao
>Im pretty sure
In other words you are talking out of your ass. Show me BM being successfully used for a non-trivial molecule or atom. That would require it to solve a fermionic many-body problem for charged particles.. numerically.

>>17037356
>Show me BM being successfully used for a non-trivial molecule or atom.
You exactly used an example where BM is very bad at. You are an asshole not discussing honestly. It's better at proton transfer, chemical reaction dynamics, and tunneling in molecular systems.

>>17037422
>You exactly used an example where BM is very bad at.
Remember when I said BM has all the problems of a WF formalism with no practical advantage, and that the moment people try to use it it becomes a diet wave function formalism anyway? In all the examples you named, by your own admission, BM not only becomes a WF formalism but explicitly builds upon one.
>It's better at proton transfer
Requires a potential BM sucks at providing and hence is obtained from wave function based theories
>, chemical reaction dynamics
Requires a potential BM sucks at providing and hence is obtained from wave function based theories
>, and tunneling in molecular systems.
Requires a potential BM sucks at providing and hence is obtained from wave function based theories

Also, all of these (for large molecules) often use classical or quasi-classical simulations (which is not BM but an approximation that is independent of the QM formalism used), not because it is the best tool for the job, but because even with smart sampling schemes wave packet dynamics scale at least polynomially with resolution and degrees of freedom.

>>17037426
its just a strawman to complain about the practical significance of bohmian mechanics when the value of the theory has nothing to do with practicality.

>>17037426
It procides some real advantages in nieches like Lagrange-mesh methods. You are right that its not used that much elsewise. But >>17037459 said it correctly, BM was made to have a realistic view of the world, without hvaing Schrödingers cat as argumentum ad absurdum. Copenhagen interpretation cant be used to develop quantum gravity or to have a realistic model of the universe. Its for calculating.

>>17036830
>*
opinion disregarded.

File: 1687031959830743.jpg (107 KB, 1024x1024)

107 KB JPG

>>17037459
The fact that your theory cannot be applied without invoking the formalism it was explicitly constructed to replace (for aesthetics reasons and nothing else).
We can all pretend application doesn't matter but the fact is that the configuration picture is a fundamental cornerstone of modern chemistry, and it would take a lot of numerical, purely Bohmian ab initio calculations to translate all the concepts without basically just putting wave function pictures into a clunky pilot wave dress.
To conclude, Bohmian mechanics has all the problems of wave function formalisms and no practical advantage. I rest my case.
>>17037464
Copenhagen as no relevance to WF formalism as stated in my initial post.
Lest I am mistaken the Lagrange Mesh method is one of the many adaptive quadrature schemes out there. What does it do for it that you can't have from a (quasi-)classical approximation?
>BM was made to have a realistic view of the world
A bold claim for a theory that asserts the existence of quantum non-equilibrium.
It's also worth noting that the WF formalism that BM ultimately just replicates is simply unattractive for many reasons to begin with (for high energy physics), which is why people moved on to second quantization pictures. Do I wanna know what pilot fock space abominations BM people cooked up?

>>17037485
it wasnt invented to replace orthodox formalism but show that underlying hidden variables can reproduce quantum behavior

>>17037577
true, I shouldn't sneak in historical revisionism, while aesthetics (what I would label as such) played a role in its adoption, neither broglie nor bohm were cranks. I stand by the rest, however.

>>17037485
>>BM was made to have a realistic view of the world
>A bold claim for a theory that asserts the existence of quantum non-equilibrium.
There is a clear definition of "realistic" and Bohm hits it while COPEnhagen/many worlds do not.
>>17037485
>What does it do for it that you can't have from a (quasi-)classical approximation?
I cant remember now but its something, we would have to look it up.

>>17036830
>>17036830

>>17037710
>There is a clear definition of "realistic"
I have yet to see a "clear definition" of that sort that does not amount to BM setting the finish line behind itself. QNE and non-locality are both very sore spots of the theory.
I would call it a solution looking for a problem but this solution is clearly happy single.
To briefly return to Copenhagen, it is a fundamental mistake to consider the Born rule tied to the CI. Until the existence of QNE is verified, asserting QE is, at its core, just a reiteration of Born.
One thing that is commonly overlooked is that nothing about WF formalisms is intrinsically indeterministic. A wf known at t=0 is perfectly known for all future moments in time. That is, objectively, determinism. Measurement is, objectively, a fundamentally thermodynamic process. As such Born is not an axiom (or a postulate) but ought to be a corollary, but that is an entirely separate discussion. Born is a shorthand and people can't be bothered to clean it up, but BM does not solve that.
>we would have to look it up.
Unfortunate with how modern web search is, but I'll have you know that from what i've seen it's the most interesting remark on BM someone made on the subject in ages.

>>17036830
what was Schrödinger's cat's name. is dark matter the same as phlogiston. also, what is the inverse of null infinity

>>17037787
why is QNE sore spot?

>>17037787
>Measurement is, objectively, a fundamentally thermodynamic process. As such Born is not an axiom (or a postulate) but ought to be a corollary, but that is an entirely separate discussion.

dont even know what youre saying here or logic behind it

yeh wavefunctions are deterministic evolve

but measurements are indeterministic

this is crux of measurement problem and many worlds has not given convincing account how to reconcile them either

>>17037787
>I have yet to see a "clear definition" of that sort that does not amount to BM setting the finish line behind itself.
Well i cant help you here, but i think realism is a great plus, i really dont like these subjective theories where its all just probabilities
>>17037787
>QNE and non-locality are both very sore spots of the theory
I mean yes, unless you combine it with an lorentzian aether. Then its suddenly less sour.
>WF formalisms
Not too sure about all this
>the most interesting remark on BM someone made on the subject in ages.
Thanks

>>17037934
its not less sour tho because lorentzian aether requires revisionism of current relativity and non-locality also revisionism about how fast information can travel

both these fings are undesirable imo

File: 1727103452036066.jpg (152 KB, 700x557)

152 KB JPG

>>17037306
>google.com
>Its absuletely everywhere
Google.com is a predecessor of AI; it feeds you back a loop of feedback-nonsense. How does it have anything to do with "seriousness"?

Also I feel like you're just rehashing Gribbin's pop-sci kittens book, which I'm quite sure I read as a young lad back when the earth was still cooling. I don't have the book at hand, but wasn't Bohm his childhood role model, or was that someone else?

File: 1786767670014230.jpg (242 KB, 693x763)

242 KB JPG

>>17036830
>>17037945
Hmm.. You aren't just spinning up cotton candy from an old paperback, now, are you?

>>17036830
Most of the "spooky" shit goes away when you imagine every quantum field as a sea of virtual particles. Dirac was way ahead of his time and probably could've come up with QFT all on his own if he didn't have to waste his time proving himself to his peers who were either too dumb to understand him or actively tried (and failed) to shoot down his ideas because they introduced complexities that they didn't want to deal with.

basil hiley and bohm undivided universe is the definitive classic

you can get whole bpok free pdf from university bruxelles website booklist

>>17038012
qft doesnt take away any spooky shit ot people still wouldnt be arguing about it today

>>17038028
what book

>>17038031
undivided universe

File: maxresdefault-4149615076.jpg (68 KB, 1280x720)

68 KB JPG

>>17037923
Quantum equilibrium (QE) is asserted for the theory to agree with experiment, which is (as I said) basically just reiterating born rule. Yet this assertion is not considered as part of the theory. If QNE is real then it ought to be experimentally verifiable, and more importantly, there should be concrete approximations and conditions that determine when QNE effects can be discarded. As things stand we are in an awkward position of
>>Asserts QE every time BM is invoked
>Doesn't that make QE a postulate akin to Born?
>>No because QNE is real
>May we see it?
>>No.

File: 1657705175025.gif (376 KB, 500x500)

376 KB GIF

>>17037927
>dont even know what youre saying here or logic behind it
Measurement is not some pixie dust bs that needs a spurious axiom, which is why I consider the Born rule a teaching tool and not much more. A real, actual measurement in the physical world is coupling a quantum system to a well-designed bath (the measuring device, which is a macroscopic object with bulk properties). Wave function "collapse" is therefor in actuality a relaxation process. As such the correct treatment of measurement would require the study of thermodynamic relaxation of a subsystem within a larger quantum system (including the observer). You could argue this is similar to many worlds, of course.
Though there is actually a very important application to all this beyond interpretations. Moderate to large molecules (N>10) often are very thermodynamic in nature in the sense that functional behave like coupled baths (for example two methyl groups of a carbohydrate rotating and vibrating independently). Given how classical simulations tend to be qualitative (albeit far from quantitative) for molecules of that size suggests that a bulk observer within a quantum system experiences "measurements" classically from their own frame of reference. That is a bold claim to make though,
>>17037934
Does said aether imply that QNE does not exist, or provide a falsifiable prediction of a QNE effect that can be measured? If not, it does not help with it.
>Not too sure about all this
All of this is extremely technical, I don't blame anyone who hasn't spent years and years with this to find it hard to digest in an off the cuff format like this.

functional groups*

>>17038165
Ok but the whole point of BM was to show that a realisitic universe is possible, that its not ferutes by quantum mechanics. I think you got it the wrong way around, its not a postulate, its showing that the opposite is not necessary.
>If QNE is real then it ought to be experimentally verifiable
Well this is where physics gets on sided. Because i can just as well claim
>If QNE is NOT real then it ought to be experimentally verifiable
Its just an alternative postulate to the born rule as far as i understand it.
Because philosophically i think it makes more sense that its real.

>>17038194
>Does said aether imply that QNE does not exist, or provide a falsifiable prediction of a QNE effect that can be measured? If not, it does not help with it.
No, its just philosophically more fitting. But as i said before, and im pretty sure im right here, QNE is just as falsible or non falsible then borns rule.

*falsifiable

>>17038165
i dont relly understand your logic here
postulating quantum equilibrium isnt relly different from any other postulate you need to invoke for any interpretation of QM or even QM itself

as i understand it, bohmians dont NEED to demonstrate QNE, but it is just a potential avenue where the theories could differ.
but at same time im not sure why bohmians must allow for QNE rather than just have the theory be in QE all the time

>>17038194
>As such the correct treatment of measurement would require the study of thermodynamic relaxation of a subsystem within a larger quantum system (including the observer).

sure but just saying that you can describe measurment as a deterministic unitary evolution does nothing to explain the statistics of measurement. how can probabilistic statistics be a corollary of a deterministic evolution? that doesnt make sense, which is why additional interpretation is required, and the fact that many worlds doesn't convincingly produce the born rule as a natural corollary just further emphasizes how difficult it is to reduce QM entirely to deterministic unitary evolution. it simply cant account for what people empirically observe on its own

>>17038199
>a realisitic universe
realism has many definitions is the point, BM, to my knowledge, violates what is called local realism, for example. The fact these terms are tied to a colloquial term and its connotation does a lot of heavy lifting and has little to do with actual philosophy. It is more useful to talk about specific properties of a theory (locality, contextuality/"counterfactual definiteness",...).
Verifying a thing to exist and verifying a thing not to exist are categorically different problems for an empirical science, it is not that simple. Accepting QE as a postulate essentially outs QNE as an artifact of the theory.
I've seen flavors of BM that are experimentally falsifiable because of this, as they yield results that disagree with standard QM predictions. Relativistic extensions of BM come to mind, but this is uncomfortably far from my field of expertise.
>>17038288
>as i understand it, bohmians dont NEED to demonstrate QNE, but it is just a potential avenue where the theories could differ.
I have always encountered bohmian theories insisting on QNE, this is what these remarks in particular are getting at.
But I feel like I am barking up the wrong tree with this, I think both of us would be perfectly fine with BM+no QNE with everything else requiring serious experimental investigation for any useful insights.
I would say that experimental verification of QNE would instantly qualify as the greatest physics discovery of the decade though, if not the century, should it come to it. As critical as I am of BM for it simply being a clunky formalism for the aforementioned reasons, if QNE turned out to be actually a real thing I would definitely applaud it.

File: 17m7i2cvvjvovjpg.png (1.01 MB, 1280x720)

1.01 MB PNG

>>17038200
>QNE is just as falsible or non falsible then borns rule.
QE is, in essence, QNE would yield something that disagrees with wf-based QM and as such would yield something else, see above.
>>17038298
>how can probabilistic statistics be a corollary of a deterministic evolution?
The core issue is the rigorous definition of relaxation: it's been a decade since I last looked at this seriously. At its core the issue is that system and bath remain a complete wave function in this picture and as such the statistical nature of the observation translates into conditions the local amplitude of the total wf has to satisfy. In other words a relaxation within the system corresponds to a localization in phase space the wave function passes through. Such effects are observed for real world quantum phenomena; if a chemical reaction has to overcome a high-lying transition state that is very confined in phase space, a lot (if not all) information that the wave packet carried before passing the choke point is lost.
You can expand the WF at the choke point where it must be very localized: since the density of local eigenstates there is low (as a consequence of localization), a low-energy wave packet cannot populate many local states, and the fine details of the wave packet are lost in the overtones with nigh zero amplitude.
Born becomes a corollary in a statistical setting as long as you can show that the total wave function's components after a measurement happened inside it have an amplitude that is a reasonable function (e.g. proportional to) the transition amplitude of the subsystem into one of its eigenstates for the observable. In principle the theory for this is all there but I have never seen it written down cleanly, which is a shame.

>>17038333
>BM, to my knowledge, violates what is called local realism, for example.
Yes true its non local. But even copenhagen can be non local, depeding on how you define locality, because of quantum entanglement.
>Accepting QE as a postulate essentially outs QNE as an artifact of the theory.
>>17038355
Ok true but this too is basically philosophy or preference, i have not seen a proof for one of these.

File: 1666130480557923.jpg (331 KB, 1132x1698)

331 KB JPG

>>17038366
>because of quantum entanglement.
True, but it kinda makes me want to add a complete aside. It's not really something you said but something that pisses me off reading on this board. Einstein's original criticism of "spooky action at a distance" is, in short, retarded, because standard QM is non-relativistic. To be upset that a formalism that isn't (cannot) be Lorentz-invariant has instantaneous information transfer is disingenuous at best. Length scales of [math] c\cdot t [/math] are outside the scope of a non-relativistic theory, and I could trivially write down bogus classical mechanics setups where information travels faster than light. As far as I know measurement operators in theories that are Lorentz-invariant commute, which addresses the bogus complaint without changing anything that actually upset him about the theory.
It's so tiring to read, feel free to tell others when you catch them parroting it.

>>17036830
the universe doesn't care what schrodinger's intent was

test

>>17038414
If you want to defend COPEnhagen with that, thats a stupid remark. Because its a philosophical debate mostly currently and he had a good argument why the universe does not work this way.

>>17038395
fink you need to read some bell who shows once and for all that we cant have a causally local theory in the sense of hidden variables whether fings commute across space or "signalling" is not allowed is the true bogus fing coz they don't stop bell-violating probabilities that are incompatible with regilar conceptions of local causation

the only other avenues are also all bogus

not even gonna start on superdeterminism

wavefunction realism doesnt help either coz even if you reject non-local collapse you still have a non-local object that changes wiv measurement which imo is just as bad. which is why i fink many worlds is not actually a truly local theory even tho many proponents claim it is

you can reject wavefunction realism but without an underlying explanation, this doesnt solve anyfing

and then adding that underlying explanation basically just goes back to the beginning where local hidden variables are just not allowed

>>17038447
Oh I am well aware of bell but those are all different cans of worms, the above thing is just a bugbear of mine. I am not a fan of hidden variables, period. I find it clunky, personally.
On an unrelated note, KvN classical mechanics is really fucking neat. A classical wf formalism would do physics undergrads some good.

>>17038448
existence of KvN classical is good argument that one should not endorse wavefunction realism imo

and shows main difference between qm and classical is commutation relations

one can also have analogously basically a KvN-type formulation of classical electrodynamics which give more insight into differences between certain classicla and quantum theories.
see daniel piasecki papers wivin last 2 years, e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.01995v1

>>17038450
WF realism is intrinsically absurd because it is pretty damn hard to find a more ill-behaved pair of operators than x,p. That is to say, I would not prescribe [math]\Psi(x) := \langle x \vert \Psi \rangle [/math] physical meaning, just like I wouldn't consider a lagrangian to be more real in Cartesian coordinates than it is in spherical.
Worse, the wf representation is less than useless for Lorentz-invariant formulations for obvious reasons.
A very interesting paper by the way, thanks for sharing.

Did anyone actually bother to translate second quantization into a bohm setting? Because if not there is no way to express high energy physics in it, not meaningfully.

>>17038494
for stochastic generalizations of bohm has been done

>>17038659
How does it deal with the creation/annihilation of particles?

File: Ayahuasca Hagal.png (418 KB, 474x474)

418 KB PNG

>>17036850
>the aether that we call gravitation

Just say centripetality, jesus man

>>17036830
>it's another "no no no quantum probabilities are material ontology bro!" mind projection fallacy episode again
yawn

>>17038494
I thought the formalism was identical and you just interpret the wave function differently?

>>17039263
The formalism is, to my knowledge, only written for n particle Hilbert spaces. You need Fock spaces to describe high energy physics. That's a huge deal because all those trajectories suddenly need to be able to split and have initial conditions for multiple, now independent trajectories. The pilot wave must also be Fock then.

>>17038856
in these formulations he beabled are fields and you can apply creation anihilation operators

>>17038856
im thinking in mind these

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=14260860180761160032&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1


https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=3085969743988403503&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

>>17038414
Wrong.
The universe simultaneously cares and doesn't care until the moment that it is observed.

>>17039204
>mind projection fallacy
Smart word from a midwit like you. You are just one of these "muh mainstream is always right, who cares its philosophically bullshit and just probabilities" guys.

>>17039454
>COPEnhagen

>>17036848
>absolute time
Here's where you will probably never get anywhere (mathlets I mean)...
Time is a human construct. Space time is not a thing. There is just space and things moving around in space.
Humans created "time" and it's based off of...YOU GUESSED IT, where things moved through space.
"time" is derivative of space and movement.
This is irrefutable.

>>17039416
>>17039420
It's nice to actually learn something more tangible about these formalisms for once, very nice work overall. On the subject of trajectories, although this is quite an aside, what is your take on the path integral formulation?
My main gripe with it is that it is infinitely clunky in real time because it flat out does not converge. It's a very nice looking theory with way too many caveats in my opinion.

>>17038395
>standard QM is non-relativistic
then how do all the other phosphorus atoms know not to emit a photon at the exact right time?
are you retarded?

>>17038333
QNE states do exist, trivially so
every electron in every atom is in a "squeezed" state
the fuck do you think the Pauli exclusion principle even is

>>17039659
Funny you call be mathlet yet I have a math degree. With "absolute time" I just meant there is a preferred time frame in the universe, which is cosmic time.
>Humans created "time" and it's based off of...YOU GUESSED IT, where things moved through space.
"time" is derivative of space and movement.
This is exactly the wrong way, it's the way Einstein did it. But in reality you can't define movement before time, since movement is meters per time. So first you have to define time as some constant periods, as the constant moving on of things. Then you can define speed with it.

>>17039698
Are you? Phosphorous is not described by standard QM without relativistic corrections.
> how do all the other phosphorus atoms know not to emit a photon at the exact right time?
what is this even supposed to mean you undergrad LARPer?

>>17039706
>the fuck do you think the Pauli exclusion principle even is
Fermions are anti-symmetric. It's like you never touched a physics book in your life other than popsci garbage and schizophrenic fringe literature.
So no, it is completely unrelated to QNE.
Also, the formalism is utter dogshit for multi-electron systems to begin with, which is why nobody seriously interested in them actually uses it for that.

>>17039870
it means the wave described by the wavefunction expands in all directions and according to Copenhagen tards there is no way to tell where a particle is until it smacks into a detector (the arrangement is you have an an electron source at the center of a semispheric phosphorus screen)
now, if you emit only one electron at once, you will only get one scintillation at once
how do the other phosphorus atoms know that the wavefunction has collapsed elsewhere?
>>17039873
>Fermions are anti-symmetric.
you just restated what I told you, except you still fail to understand the significance of it
here, some more about electron "clouds", maybe you'll understand what I am on about
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.02500
>observation of entanglement and EPR-
steering in a many-body molecular system
so far from QE it's not even funny
>the formalism is utter dogshit
oh, there we agree, at least

>>17039899
>how do the other phosphorus atoms know that the wavefunction has collapsed elsewhere?
This does have nothing to do with it being phosphorous, and it has nothing to do with relativity. You are talking about measurement, this has nothing to do with Lorentz invariance, and both Bohmian mechanics (which you inexplicably love but don't understand) would predict a single detection without invoking relativity at any point, you abject moron.

>>17039899
You have no idea what you are talking about, not a single part of this paper implies that [math] |\Psi|^2 \neq \rho [/math]. All of this is ordinary quantum mechanics, and the paper employs simple model Hamiltonians instead of ab initio which for their purposes is perfectly fine.
>you just restated what I told you
I doubt you even know what a fucking Slater determinant is if you don't understand that Pauli exclusion principle and dynamics of spin 1/2 quantum systems does not require Bohmian schizophrenia. You might also notice that the paper you cited does not speak of pilot waves and employs bog standard wave function/state pictures. Do you even know what quantum non-equilibrium means?

>>17039747
It was obvious you mean "absolute time" in that manner.
My point is that their isn't absolute time.
It's ALL, 100% based on point of observation, which will ALWAYS be a human being subjective and the rest being relative to that point.
Time is an illusion created by humans. It's movement.

Now, you can base it off of what? A set baseline frequency? Guess what? All measurements still derived from the HUMAN MIND based on shit moving in space.

Now, you can call "time" "shit moving in space". But you will not find an "absolute" value.
>But in reality you can't define movement before time
Think again sir.
Time is literally derived from this movement.
Human have have created EVERY time unit based off celestial movement.
AKA "shit moving in space."

You are eternally backwards.

>>17039910
Bohmian mechanics (aka de Broglie) would indeed predict a single detection and give you the tools to backtrack the particle to its source
Copenhagen claims that the wavefunction magically collapses at a completely random point
forgets to explain how the other completely random points know that the probability peak isn't there
>>17039918
>Bohmian schizophrenia
lol
you keep cycling, do you realize that?
>muh Slater determinant
another name for the unexplained (and to Copenhagen-ists, unexplainable) Pauli exclusion "principle"
>Do you even know what quantum non-equilibrium means?
ρ(X,t) ≠ |ψ(X,t)|2.
>employs bog standard wave function/state pictures
for the end-state
the transitions? who knows... maybe some non-equilibria there? before the system, you know, settles down?
nah, couldn't be

>>17040281
BM and standard wf based formalisms make the same predictions about observable reality by different means, this has nothing to do with "explaining". Your original point was that this had anything to do with relativity, and you just conceded that a non-relativistic theory (BM) reproduces the phenomenon. In other words, standard QM (which reproduces BM) is non-relativistic. You can't weasel your way out of that one.

>>17040281
>the transitions? who knows... maybe some non-equilibria there?
You mean the transitions standard QM predicts?
>ρ(X,t) ≠ |ψ(X,t)|2.
Given that it is quite known that for spin 0 systems not asserting QE causes the simulations to significantly deviate from experiment and standard QM, the burden of proof that QNE simulations quantitatively reproduce observed behavior is on you. In standard approaches this reduces to a simple symmetry argument, effectively a boundary condition you can reduce to a projection onto a Hilbert subspace.
There's also very simple thought experiments that render you being able to prove this very unlikely. The electrons of two physically well separated hydrogen atoms are predicted by QM to move in an uncorrelated manner (in the limit of large distances). BM can only reproduce the hydrogen atom by asserting QE. That means that all those magical QNE effects must asymptotically vanish at infinite separation, at least in a molecular frame. That is a lot of math that requires showing for someone who has not written a single cohesive equation in this thread, and chances are, not solved a single diff eq in his life.

>>17039961
Im disagree. If we want to really get deep time is the passing of events.Simultaneity is harder to define, but it can be denfined absolute. Movement is not time, its something different
>you cant measure time without movement
You also cant measre lenght, energy, anything without movement. That doesnt mean these things are movement.

for me?

reciprocal stochastic mechanics

>>17036830
Schrödingers cat was nothing but a display of autism

>>17041599
amen

File: 2026-08-26 03_58_09.png (218 KB, 846x1497)

218 KB PNG

>>17041599
Stop asserting bullshit that enters your mind as fact.
>>17042425
Stop affirming bullshit that other anon's assert.

>>17042448
Nice, AI is useful to debunk modern physics narratives.

>>17040281
>>17040537
OP here, thank you for dismanteling the mainstreamers. Dont you think aswell that a Lorentz aether with an absolute simultaneity would be perfect for synergy?
>>17040537
>the burden of proof that QNE simulations quantitatively reproduce observed behavior is on you
The claim is =, so = has the burden of proof. Since when is it normal that you propose a formula and the shout "PROOF ME WRONG OR I AM RIGHT". Thats schizo tier.

>>17042562
OP, you are a complete fucking retard who can neither follow the conversations you are stepping into nor contrinite anything of value. Shut the fuck up.
Also, every known experiment is only in agreement with BM in quantum equilibrium.
The issue discussed is twofold.
If QNE existed, then it should be observable at small times scales, we have no evidence of it down to attosecond time scales, which is damning evidence against it unless a very specific initial state is required, which ought to be predicted as people have for thermodynamics (non-ergodic systems are observably real)
Two, you absolute moron, the claim made is that through some fairy magic or other a QNE simulation with a non-symmetrized guiding wave would yield the same results as a QE simulation with an antisymmetric guiding wave, but only for fermions. Not only would that yield no proof of QNE, since it would mean there is an invariant in the EqoM, this is mathematically a wild assertion to make in its own right. You would basically have to commute the antisymmetrization operator past the logarithm in the derivation of BM.

>>17042642
So in short you have no proof for the = which makes QNE possible. Also extremely funny you call BM fantasy world, when other formalisms have collapsing wavefunctions and randomness.

>>17042739
>in short you have no proof for the = which makes QNE possible
your reading comprehension is subterranean. The fact that you can't even express yourself like an adult and use "the =" instead of a cohesive expression makes me wonder how you passed middle school. I can, if need be, TeX the claims being made.
> you call BM fantasy world,
I did not. BM is strictly equivalent to standard wave function based QM if done correctly, that is by asserting QE axiomatically.

Why are you arguing over a book that was published over 30 years ago? Silly

>>17042743
>your reading comprehension is subterranean.
Well i gave you the burden of proof and you did not deliver. What you wrote i acknowleged, i did not even object it that much but you did not deliver the proof. And ok because BM seems the far better formalism whern it comes to describing reality.

>>17043062
>Well i gave you the burden of proof and you did not deliver.
what would you like proven, exactly?
>BM seems the far better formalism whern it comes to describing reality.
as in it makes you feel good, sure, but again BM is strictly equivalent to QM if done correctly. So what do you want proven? The other anon's retarded claim being wrong?

>aethertard still at it
What makes someone wake up in the morning and say "damn i sure feel like fanboying a model that was disproven a hundred years ago today"?

>>17043083
>disproven
>it just is o algo

>>17043080
ρ(X,t) = |ψ(X,t)|2
>>17043083
Is the disproof in the room with you?

>>17043102
this is not what the conversation chain was about.
what constitutes as proof, other than that BM does not agree with experiment if you omit this axiom?

>>17043114
Well the point is we dont know so your attacks on BM are baseless.

>>17043470
>l the point is we dont know so your attacks on BM are baseless.
Oh, but we do know as much as one can within the confines of empiricism. Let me ask you where the concept of an empirical science leaves you:
>BM without asserting QE is a real, existing set of differential equations that we can simulate
>the answers it gives are quantitatively wrong for all known experimental setups
>asserting QE makes BM agree with experiment
These are things we know. If all empirical evidence we have explicitly points against it it is not the empirical evidence that is wrong, especially not if we CAN reproduce all experiments even within the framework of BM. If we modify it to uphold QE that is, which people who actually use it and aren't crackpots do. Insofar it is not even an attack against BM, it is not the problem, your retardation is. If you assert QNE is real and measurable, then the burden of proof lies on you to theoretically predict a system with a sufficiently stable QNE.
Assuming QNE, as it stands, is in the realm of Russel's teapot and the invisible pink unicorn; unfalsifiable hogwash.

File: MV5BZDkzM2Q1NTYtNjA4MC00M(...).png (316 KB, 447x559)

316 KB PNG

>>17036830
look man every time I talk to some redditor he says he believes he understands the secrets of the universe

and every time i listen to the fine man or eye n stein they say
>"kek those faggots are retarded, these are just mathematical objects on our universe balance sheet. you cant turn them into physical intuition/explanation any more than you can turn Property Plant and Equipment into a sewing machine. we got no clue mayne thats philosophy."

that's just how its is.
normans need a religion y'know wut im sayin?

>>17043480
The relativity theory always get explained to the public as "new reality". Maybe stop doing that and admit you do not care about reality.

File: 1705833928605102.png (1.65 MB, 1440x1104)

1.65 MB PNG

>>17043923
>herp derp I am a millenial
>herp derp I got my impression of science from television, fantasy media ("sci"-fi) and youtube e-celebs
>bill nye made me angy >:(
>APOLPGIZE, SCIENCE!
Maybe you should have stuck to spongebob and picked up a real book. Pop slop is trash, all of it, no exception. While being a tv person and preaching to the goycattle is the highest rank a christofascist can aspire to, you must have seriously failed as a scientist to stoop as low as become a media person, trying to explain anything of value to troglodytes who think being forced to learn the pq formula in school was an esoteric exercise with no real world application.

>>17043983
Thats nice and all but you all have collective liabity until you all come out and declare in public that science communication is all bullshit and that the universe is a 3d space.

>>17043983
Also since you use it for your math you absolutely imply thats its reality, imho.

>>17044330
>>17043923
Who do you think "you" is?

File: 1671074152194778.png (101 KB, 322x691)

101 KB PNG

>>17044331
>Also since you use it for your math you absolutely imply thats its reality, imho.
Your opinion is duly noted and disregarded. Have you ever even worked differential equations? Do you actually follow the math or have you just stared at it and nodded sagely?
>>17044330
>you all have collective liabity for hurting my feelings
Where is that collective liability for christofascists when their rhetoric causes preventable diseases like measles to cripple some kid because they were told vaccines cause autism and that medicine is not to be trusted because it is The Science?™ You can play ignorant but we know what you are.

>>17044401
Physicists in that field
>>17044424
>Your opinion is duly noted and disregarded.
Not an argument
>muh vaccine
Vaccines are unnatural and therefore bad, thats all we need to know.

File: 1659033967334534.gif (2.19 MB, 1046x698)

2.19 MB GIF

>>17044613
>Vaccines are unnatural and therefore bad
naturalistic fallacy. And you have the cheek to speak of "arguments". Please be consistent then and refuse antibiotics/medical aid and eating goyslop, while you are at it. Kill yourself.

File: dktz.jpg (798 KB, 1668x3256)

798 KB JPG

>>17044629
>naturalistic fallacy.
There is so such thing. Holy shit why are you jews so triggered by anti vaccine stances?
>>17044629
>eating goyslop
Not natural, wild game, fruits, etc is natural.
>refuse antibiotics
Never took them ever, why would i?

>>17044649
>muh jews
bro's not even caught up with 1700s philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Doubly ironic because antivaxxies are supporting turbozionists, too
>more LARP
I am sure you never went to the doctor, are ripped, and everyone clapped when you told the kids in school about your paleo diet (before you dropped out)
Now, using a phone/computer is very unnatural as well, I suggest you get >>>/out/

>>17044655
It doesnt matter if its 1700 philosophy, its a bad concept.
>antivaxxies are supporting turbozionists
No. If anything they are spilt like others i guess.
>are ripped
Hard exercise is bad for you.

a big problem wiv bohm? its trajectories are dumb

i believe it predicts

that electron in a hydrogen atom just stands still

which imo is dumb

i honestly find the bohmian deterministic trajectories extremely unintuitive

the stochastic generalization looks much more natural. the electron in the hydrogeb atom jumps and bounces around

the stochastic generalization of bohmian mechanics views particles like a bit of dust moving through a glass of water, getting bumped around by its surrounding particles. that is causing the random motion

yes, trying to inject this analogy into quantum theory can't be verified or tested and it isnt even got a model at all. its a speculative hypothesis that the random behavior of quantum systems is due to some unspecified background field or something like that, which isnt in quantum theory at all. very vagye that "background field" doesnt even mean anything

but fink this better than standstill hydrogen atom
it is better than deterministic trajectory imo which wooshes around for no reason

the osmotic velocity in stochastic mechanics is the imaginary position variable in quantum theory. identical. why does it have a dumb name osmotic velocity? because osmotic velocity is the appropriate name when in the context which this quantity was first put forward.

this quantity appears in einsteins 1905 paper on brownian motion where it describes a force pushing on a dust particle in equilibrium in a background field

i believe this is where the background field hypothesis in the stochastic generalization already comes from. because this quantity that exists in conventional quantum theory also exists in brownian motion where it has an interpretation in terms of the pushback of a background field on a diffusion or osmosis in equilibrium. and you can easily find einstein 1905 paper and see the specifics

think what helps the background hypothesis even though its an unspecified speculative hypothesis
is that quantum field theory suggests spacetime is filled with stuff and that interesting stuff happens in the vacuum. particle the ontology is less fundamental than structure that is realized by whole fields across spacetime. particle states or wavefunctions no longer are meaningful on their own

and even though none of that stuff has any relation to a stochastic generalization of bohmian mechanics background field

the very idea what a particle does seems to be embedded in some deeper ontology across all spacetime, that there isnt really any true empty space, is something that the background field hypothesis finds amenable or agreeable for the stochastic generaization of bohmian mechanics

>>17043923
>>17043983
The relativity theory explicitely demands spacetime to exist (at least in some way), since spacetime is directly responsible for gravity in GR. It gives us a real force, therefore it cant be just a mathematical tool.
Thats why i support the lorentzian aether side btw, spacetime is an absurd concept and philosophically bullshit.

>>17036830
What is SR?

>>17044751
>>17044752
Very good posts unironically, it's clear you actually wanna engage with theories and not just shit on other people.

>>17045091
Special relativity

>>17044751
>i believe it predicts
>
>that electron in a hydrogen atom just stands still
Only if you ignore spin
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0308105

>>17045420
He's right though, even that makes awful little sense. Consider a d-orbital, the "electron" will just sit in precisely one lobe of that. And even before thinking about multiple particle fuckery, all orbital effects that relate to chemical bonds would be shafted into distortions of the pilot waves with the electrons themselves doing fuck all than spin in circles at opposite ends of the molecule.

>>17045420
thank you, this reminded me of something had to do

>>17039747
>Funny you call be mathlet yet I have a math degree.
>>17039747
>Funny you call be mathlet yet I have a math degree.
And my dad works at Nintendo. When will fags like you learn that credentials don't matter on an ANONYMOUS imageboard?

mad how tim maudlin finks we should give up relativity just like that ... i.e. preferted foliation. i'm skeptical that bell nonlocality is enuff to indicate that.
the idea of instant influence is mad to me and the fact that there is this non-signalling is also evidence against imo ... like if bohmian-style non-locality was true, why does the universe try so hars to cover it up such that qft is resoundingly local and you can't send disturbing signals across spacetime

im starting to lean onto retrocausality weirdly. i dont think the idea of future events changing the past makes sense but i kind of think it might make sense if you give up realism and retrocausality simultaneously

problem is i really dont wna do that

maybe you could make an argument analogous to what they do for bohmian-style non-locality in the sense that whatever influence on the past is not going to be properly signalling, and that is more preferable than the non-locality analogue because retrocausality doesn't require you to violate relativity in any explicit sense.

but i also suspect that its difficult to have a hidden variable model describe entanglemed state evolving forward-in-time without the non-locality already built in. for a retrocuasal model you will want the system to evolve forward in a local way then the measurements to retroactively change those trajectories.

some other arguments for retrocausality? the retrocausal nature i have in mind is literlaly just the time-reversal invariance of quantum theory so its in the theory.any people argue that our folk- notions of causality only arise in irreversible statistical theories and so do not exist in quantum theory or classical mechanics on their own. from this perspective, if causality as we know it doesnt actually apply to quantum theory then there is nothing to complain about

but this retrocausality would have to be more of like a constraint thing, not like actually changing the past physically
which means getting rid of realism

>>17036830
>put radioactive atom near detector
>tie detector to gun trigger
>keep gun next to head
>be dead and alive at same time
>profit?

>>17045965
Well he accoused me of something without any reason. So i need to defend myself. He was just imagining something.

ultimately

bohmian mechanics is wrong

>>17047931
no

>>17048151
>>17047931
either equivalent or disproven*

>>17048860
its not equivalent if had extra ontology

>>17049007
as far as empiricism is concerned, ontology that arises from a gauge freedom is irrelevant make believe. Giving particles definite positions and velocities but ensuring that their measurement remains physically impossible is a cop-out. It's as inane as ascribing physicality to coordinates (which wave function representations are polluted by, which is why second quantization is more powerful in some respects)

File: nothing-ever-happens.png (129 KB, 478x480)

129 KB PNG

>>17039659
Could you not define time as the process of entropy? I'm not a physics or a mathematician but that seems like a decent way to observe the passing of time via the cosmic background radiation cooling

>>17049010
i mean what if particles have definite positions but measurement of them, as we know it so far, is physically impossible. thats a distinct possibility.

it then completely makes sense that if one constructed a theory of such a system it would carry no information about those positions and velocities, and perhaps carry explicit redundancies about them. if there are really multiple ways of constructing bohmian trajectorues compatible with the same measurement, but we cant know about them, why would a theory be able to specify?

>>17049041
Thats cosmic time and yes I argue this is real time while relativity is bullshit.

>>17049010
This is pure philosophy/metaphysics you write here. Especially the inane part is very subjective.

>>17049531
why did relativity win out then

>>17049531
If you had a very long geiger-counter and accelerated a uranium rock to a large fraction of c you would observe lower decay activity from the relative velocity difference. The speed of the process of entropy is directly correlated to the difference between your linear velocity and c.

>>17049486
>i mean what if particles have definite positions but measurement of them, as we know it so far, is physically impossible. thats a distinct possibility.

I'd like to know why we can't narrow the options until we have absolute certainty. Give a particle only one place to be and there we have it.

>>17036830
God favours the Copenhagen interpretation

>>17049655
You have a direct line to it?

File: 1768736333930972.jpg (47 KB, 562x675)

47 KB JPG

>Use probabilities for everything
>No, it's not because we don't have all the information
>Stop asking questions

>>17049611
Was pushed by the media and relativists attacked all others, and the media helped them. Some group did have an interest in it, to kill commons sense in humans?

>>17049611
And because of GR.
>>17049612
I dont get this entropie obsession but yes, ALL processes slow when moving through the aether.

>>17049533
>BM is numerically dog shit, mathematically it adds degrees of freedom that cannot be measured by design for no benefit
>>[seething]: who cares about any of that, my precious metaphysics!
>ontologically speaking anything it can add is orthogonal to empirical observation; from that point of view any claims of these trajectories being "real" is indistinguishable from concepts being "real" in the Platonism sense
>>No, that is subjective!
Lol. There is no empirically measurable difference unless you fuck up your theory, one is vastly inferior in practice. The 5 people on this board that are infatuated with it suck are math, physics, or both, and ultimately just goon to their tastes being "unchallenged".

File: Invisible_Pink_Unicorn.svg.png (81 KB, 960x640)

81 KB PNG

>>17050489
>claim a thing to be definitely real
>it just so happens to be impossible to measure, perfectly invisible, and just so happens to reproduce another, much simpler theory
>stop asking questions
picrel

i think it would be good to have realism in qm though. but i think maybe only for parricle positions, like bohm

File: wat.jpg (79 KB, 1634x1269)

79 KB JPG

tfw you realize the past is as uncertain as the future
>anon you are..
so tell me, since you didn't yet check, was the cat dead or alive yesterday?
>wait
yeap

very true
we have no intimate access to the past

>>17052355
Interestingly you will know the past too once you open the box.