>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm C0ygr08tE What do yo

De Broglie-Bohm theory sounds like if you went to Jamaica and Jamaicans fucking hated the "Bohm theory" and "broglie" is a Jamaican word for "bad"

>>7958170
I literally couldn't give less of a fuck about the interpretations of quantum mechanics, I don't care of that pisses some people off. The fact is as it stands there's no way to choose between them, they either reproduce all the predictions of QM or they don't. As far as I'm concerned this is a question for philosophers (and so should be on >>>/his/) but even then arguing over the interpretations of quantum mechanics has to be one of the most boring debates in the philosophy of science.

>>7958170
it is a contextual theory, so, since most physicists are not meant reflect on their work and be critical, but just praise whatever model is popular during their studies, it bugs people off more than anything.

>>7958180
Surely though you can't deny that the conceptual framework is important to developing novel predictions and thus discoveries. Also I disagree that this is a question relegated to philosophers, many great physicists have puzzled over it, even the ones who had a hand in developing QM to begin with.

>>7958199
>Surely though you can't deny that the conceptual framework is important to developing novel predictions and thus discoveries

Actually I can. The "conceptual framework" is, effectively, just a "dictionary" that tells us how to interpret the results of our computations and other investigations into some particular phenomenon. From here we'll use general relativity as an example, there are a lot of other theories of gravity that have different conceptual frameworks but produce the same predictions with different interpretations. So why do we use general relativity? Well some would argue simplicity, others would argue elegance and beauty, but really it's because GR was first.

The take away point is this: conceptual frameworks aren't unique, they either all produce the same results or they don't. If they do then there's no way of picking between them and it's an arbitrary personal preference, if they don't then the results are quickly checked. The interpretations of quantum mechanics falls firmly into the former category.

>>7958210
>The interpretations of quantum mechanics falls firmly into the former category.

Only at equilibrium. dBB theory allows you to have states which are not in equilibrium, which would produce different results that standard QM.

Although I dont think we have the technology to measure the difference yet.

>>7958253
>Only at equilibrium

Non equilibrium is a hypothesis of dBB, such states have never been observed. Although it would provide a test for the formalism.