Why isn't the pilot wave theory more popular.The wave properties of light pilot the particle (Pikachu) to act as the particle end effector that acts as the energy Quanta in e.g. the photoelectric effect.It just werks.
Looks too restrictive
>>17041633>Why isn't the pilot wave theory more popular.it got debunked a couple years ago via quantum entanglement measurements (which won the nobel prize btw). but also, communism and mccarthyism
>>17041639The pilot wave for an entangled system connects both particles simultaneously across space, moving or measuring particle A instantly alters the slope of the pilot wave at particle B.It's a "non-local" theory.
>>17041643Thanks grok. That had nothing to do with the post you responded to
>>17041633>it just werksNo, it doesn't. Not meaningfully. I will try to keep this short.>1.Quantum non-equilibrium (which pilot wave theory allows) is bunk and needs to be removed from the theory for it to work at all, this is equivalent to asserting the Born rule which is ultimately the philosophical point of contention to begin with. So it only "works" if you assert boundary conditions that render it a wave function theory with extra steps. >2.A lot of people think a wave function theory implies Copenhagen interpretation, it does not. The fact that you can write down pilot wave theory at all is proof of that and as such actually working with it when it is an overall very clunky and inelegant formalism is an exercise in futility. Point 1 means you won't get different results so why bother. For many applications where you can afford it doing some simple linear algebra in a good basis converges better and has better performance. If you can't afford to be exact people usually immediately jump into classical mechanics with minor corrections. >3.Perturbation theory, population pictures and the like which other disciplines often rely on when dealing with quantum mechanics are tedious to do with trajectories.
>>17041633because its correct
>>17041633>COPEnhagen followers: NOOOO you can't imagine spin it's literally impossible just stop trying!!!>Meanwhile Bohmian bros:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FafKPSrGNeA
>>17041717Based
>>17041717Bohmian mechanics proves that wave function formalisms are independent of the Copenhagen interpretation. Because it is the exact same theory in a different representation.
I think it's violently incompatible with quantum field theory, for one.
>>17041683>So it only "works" if you assert boundary conditions So does the second law of thermodynamics >nonequilibirum is bunkNot really. The guiding wave equations would guide any nonequilibrium state into one of equilibrium over time. People don’t like this because it implies QM isn’t fundamental, but anybody with ten brain cells to rub together will have figured this out
>>17041948BM *is* QM in a dress, you babbling clown, and anyone who isn't a philosophy obsessed schizo has figured that out ages ago.>thermodynamicsYou know plenty of non-ergodic systems, because thermodyanics arises as a limit from other theories. >The guiding wave equations would guide any nonequilibrium state into one of equilibrium >over time. what this non-argument of yours boils down to is that the time scale of this equilibration is just infinitesimal.We have no evidence of QNE at the femtosecond scale.We have no evidence of QNE at the attosecond scale.If we had zeptosecond scale QM observations and still not a sign of QNE you people would just move the goal post even further.This isn't science, this is "missing link" creationist rhetoric. If this magical QNE existed then the burden of proof would be on you to find quantum non-ergodicity. Because that is what a theorist does, predict experiments that disagree with existing theories.>>17041943There are QFT extensions that ought to work but if you tried to work with them you are probably better off running simulations with a hand crank. As such BM remains largely a thought exercise.
>>17042043>There are QFT extensions that ought to work but if you tried to work with them you are probably better off running simulations with a hand crank. As such BM remains largely a thought exercise.The problem with BM in QFT is that QFT has particles as implicit structures in the wavefunction, rather than anything fundamental; a single field configuration doesn't have particles in it. So there can't be such a thing as the "real state of the particles" for BM to refer to outside the wavefunction.
>>17041639>it got debunked a couple years ago via quantum entanglement measurementsfake newsThey claimed it but its corrected.>>17041712This. Just like the lorentzian aether.
>>17043630you aren't being sneaky about your aether garbage and you suck at QM, no matter how many threads you bump failing to understand both BM and QM (they are the exact same). BM is what happens when you decompose the density into infinitesimal volume elements; that is why each "point particle" follows exactly the probability flow of the density.
>>17043636>they are the exact sameOnly because the experiments are the same doesnt mean they are the same. The interpretation is extremely different. So are conclusions. Start beeing a real physicists which includes metaphysics or start admitting you are a pure mathematician.
>>17043636Also i replied correctly to the posts.
>>17043636>BM is what happens when you decompose the density into infinitesimal volume elements; that is why each "point particle" follows exactly the probability flow of the density.Interesting explanation i must say tho.
>>17043924The are formalisms, models, they aren't INTERPRETATIONS. You cannot coerce them into following one and only one interpretation. They are mathematically equivalent, which renders them identical as a means of describing things. Any particular interpretation of one immediately translates to the other, meaning that no matter what interpretation you wish to attach to BM, you can trivially translate it to QM. You can say "formalism A obfuscates this particular aspect too much compared to formalism B, at least to my liking" but you cannot say "A is less complete than B" in any sense that is meaningfully communicable to people dedicated to serious empirical research. You cannot be a physicist without understanding and being able to work with the math. There are much more interesting, fundamental things in even the most basic equations, such as the implications that it has that the Hamiltonian being the infinitesimal generator of the propagator.
>>17043935No.plato.stanford.edu.entries/spacetime-holearg
>>17041633you need like 50 different equations, one for the particle, one for the wave, etc etcI can make a theory about aliens teleporting the electrons to mess with us with less unproven assumptions than the pilot wave interpretation
>>17043940thanks claude, you did not follow what i said at all. What a sad fraud you are.>but look at my words!
>>17043941but muh arts degree! But muh subjective tastes in philosophy! but muh "math doesn't matter, empirical evidence doesn't matter, read my wordswordswords"Bro you're in the wrong thread, Occam's razor can't cut the navel gazing of babbling sophists.
>>17043944I don't understand what you're saying. do you disagree with my post or do you agree with it?
>>17043946I'm aping the dumb faggot that will reply to you. Pilot wave theory is a rube goldberg machine, inelegant and largely inferiorto work with. I agree with you but nobody here will agree with you. They will only spew word vomit at you until you leave
>>17043941>>17043944Wildly low iq posts
>>17041633people don't like it spitting in the face of SR and QFT
>>17043970>can't do STEM level calculus>0 credentials, 0 papers, >40MB /sci/ schizobabble>calls others low IQu-huh.
>>17042043what made you so upset about my post? you just made up a bunch of arguments that had nothing to do with anything I said and then cringily posted a picture saying “debate lost”. >BM is QM in a dressBM is QM… are you retarded?>what this non-argument of yours boils down to is that the time scale of this equilibration is just infinitesimalno, it doesn’t. there’s nothing to even respond to this as you’re just asserting nonsense with no visible underlying to attack >the burden of proof The burden of proof is on absolutely anybody making any kind of claim, positive or negative. You clearly have a much stronger aversion to BM than you can justify
>>17043974All I said was you had a low iq and you made up a whole scenario in your mind about schizobabble lol
>>17043982>BM is QM… are you retarded?A lot of people here think BM contradicts wave function based quantum mechanics, these people are also known as morons. Morons like you. I had to type these things so often over the years I am just getting sloppy.>no, it doesn’t. alright then, let us review your babble together:>The guiding wave equations would guide any nonequilibrium state into one of equilibrium over time.Let me focus your pea brain on the important bit:> over time.Do you understand that that means a system can be in QNE, and would stay there for a finite (measureable) amount of time? This is a yes or no question.
>>17043985yeah you are definitely not seething over pilot wave theory getting shat on left and right
>>17043993I don't like that I often come into threads where I don't have a side or stake in any of the arguments yet, and the reply chains are often indecipherable from pissed autists with copious amounts of free time or from engagement-generating bot postings meant to simply generate more traffic and replies.But it is also funny to watch, and I'm glad I am not in the enraged camp of traffic. It's just yu-huh, nu-uh no matter what discussion I find. Sorry if this offends, I don't have a specific reply I'm picking out, this is just the most recent one to link to.
>>17043998Never make a habit of arguing with sea lions on this board, it is worse than smoking. If you want a biased TL;DR, most people arguing against pilot waves argue from a standpoint grounded in the mathematical formalism, numerical efficiency, things like that. People arguing in favor cite, for the most part, philosophical reasons, and tend to fall silent the moment "hard" theory comes into the picture. I am very willing to give technical answers, personally.
>>17044004I don't have questions - this is like watching people argue over what they see, but who are unaware, or won"t acknowledge, they are looking through a shared kaleidoescope. All discussions at this degree of physics kind of miss the point that these are lens to examine and describe that which are quite literally fictional models, one and all.
>>17044030philosophically sound point to make but utterly removed from the practical realities of research, is it not?
>>17044031This is what I was talking about earlier - there's no fruitful discussion to be had here, it's really just entertainment. An argument over philosophy and "practical reality" produces nothing that would advance discussion, it only produces an engagement trap. It's a salt lick.I'm not vested in BM, nor against it. There are no "practical" theoretical physics - there are practical applications, and that's called engineering, which deals almost exclusively with that which is real, that which is materially falsifiable. Mathematical models operate at a different level of provability in that they can be entire consistent, and only a smaller subset may have physical analogs that can be test-driven, so to speak.At the end of the day, I'm just some crazy loon, and I don't care what quantum shenanigans some graduates are concocting inside of ther head meat and hopping to have committed to some ink in some very important and special bundle of paper. I think they are fun mind games and models to think about, but I'm going to go outside and ride a jet ski and not wonder about how how that fits in a model.
>>17044038>There are no "practical" theoretical physicsSome people crunch numbers and try to advance their respective field, study materially real systems and phenomena. Not to a "practical" (aka monetizable) end. That is still theoretical physics.>there's no fruitful discussion to be had here, it's really just entertainmentyeah, a lot of people come here just to talk shit and pass the time, and frankly, it is a major reason why this board is a boring, intellectually void cess pit full of ideologues.
>>17041633Because it makes exactly the same predictions as the Copahagen theory, but the calculations are much more difficult.
>>17044040That description of theoretical physics sounds eerily close to philosophical activity, too, anon. I liken it to conversations I've had in the past with friends about their hatred for "grifters", which when you peeled their pessimism and jadedness out of the way, they seemed to simply hate the idea of anyone who sold anything at all. So even a grocer or a utility company became a "grifter", too. Or maybe they hated the fact that peoppe HAD to sell things or themselves, the end result was them just labeling the act as grifting. But then the term is so nebulous and broad, it's like using bird shot at a rifle competition.I do wish there were more opportunities to converse that didn't devolve into pecker-measuring contest. It'd be fun to group read some papers and talk about it if it didn't devolve into "which camp are you in? Ok, well, you don't belong in this one anymore, GTFO"
>>17044044>That description of theoretical physics sounds eerily close to philosophical activity, too, anonI don't try to provide a comprehensive definition but the point is that things like "is this approach numerically viable", "what algorithms are any good for this", "is this behavior a numerical artifact or real" are just day to day things a theorist has to deal with in their day to day, there is a craftsmanship angle to it, if you will. There is a lot of little technical things that are in essence unpublishable but super interesting. It's easy to doxx oneself though, depending on the subject, and a lot of people don't actually want to engage deeply with anything.
>>17043943See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/#MathRespNot spoon feeding you.
>>17044488Standard Quantum mechanics does not concern itself with Lorentz invariance or spacetime arguments because it is a non-relativistic theory. Neither does bohmian mechanics (aka pilot wave theory). You can conceive extensions of either, but they are not the subject of this thread. Stay on topic.Bohmian mechanics is strictly equivalent to standard wave function formalisms in any formulation that agrees with experiment. This is by construction. You don't understand this, or anything about QM.
>>17041633>It just werks.Except it doesn't. Wanting it to work and actually working aren't the same.
>>17044488https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/gauge.html>The warning that we have reached this point of physical superfluity is that we can make changes to these mathematical structures that make no difference to what we observe and also outstrip the determining power of the laws of the theory. When those structures become invisible both to our powers of observation and to the theory’s laws, we are being warned that we have gone too far.pilot wave theory adds gauge freedoms to wf theory by their very definition
