Bohmian Mechanics

Explain how pilot-wave theory is more intuitive than Copenhagenism without using "muh determinism"

let H be the separable complex hilbert space with inner product whose basis is given by the set of interpretations of quantum mechanics..

>>8677910
Determinism is extremely appealing.

>>8677910
Pilot wave explains it all. With Copenhagen you lose.

>>8677958
Elaborate. How do you "lose" with Copenhagenism?

>>8677939
True, but you lose locality.

every now and then these threads about interpretations of quantum mechanics appear

but i get the impression that very few of the people who reply to these threads actually know anything about quantum mechanics

>>8677978
What causes probability in Copenhagenian theory? How can a point particle interfere with itself? Spooky action at a distance?

>>8677978
>locality

and why is that bad?

>>8677900
Copenhagen interpretation = shut up and calculate.

Bohm was a communist.

That's really the answer. Look it up.

>>8677900
Two things:
>If you think any interpretation is intuitive you've not understood it
>Bohmian mechanics is a separate theory, you can tell because of the additional hypotheses.

>>8677939
It's determinism in name only, the results are still probabilistic.

>>8677958
What?

>>8677900
Nature does not care about what you consider intuitive. The two theories give the same results per definition, so from a practitioner's standpoint there's no reason not to use the one that works, is easier to calculate and more developed. All we're left with then is a philosophical debate, and I don't think that will advance physics in any way.

>>8678047
I blame Michio Kaku

>>8679383
Yeah lets say that a magic ghost fairy puts particles in their places, becouse in the end it doesn't matter

>>8679450
>becouse in the end it doesn't matter

Largely, it doesn't. How it happens has no impact on the outcome.

>>8679256
>If you think any interpretation is intuitive you've not understood it
You're right, I've made it clear that I'm not a student of physics. The sentiment that it is more intuitive is largely based on how the theory is vulgarized for laymen. Perhaps this is simply the result of better marketing on the part of the exponents of Bohmian mechanics.

>>8677900
Bohmian mechanics is a ludicrous caricature of Nature. It is only a strategy to pretend that classical physics hasn't died and hasn't been superseded by quantum mechanics.

>>8679518
pure dogma

>>8679383
I think you overlook the fact that aesthetic preferences play a large part in constructing theories. For instance, for the theory of relativity to stipulate a non-euclidean geometry for the universe is a consequence of this assumption making the theory more elegant. To the layman at least, and perhaps physicist will disagree here, the idea of a wave-particle duality for electrons seems contradictory. For Bohmian mechanics to explain this duality makes the theory in this respect more appealing. My question is whether there are assumptions made in the Broglie-Bohm theory which would make the Copenhagen interpretation more elegant.

>>8679540
>for the theory of relativity to stipulate a non-euclidean geometry for the universe is a consequence of this assumption making the theory more elegant

But that's wrong. It comes from the ideas contained within the theory.

>>8677926

nailed it

>>8679545
If that's so then I guess my example is bad. But the point is remains that if we use Occam's razor to arbitrate between theories, it is because of our aesthetic preferences.

>>8679557
>Occam's razor to arbitrate between theories

No, we don't do that. We use experiment to differentiate between competing ideas. Should they all produce the same results then you effectively pick the one that works best for you. Take GR, there's a few different competitors to GR, but physicists stick with it. Why? Because it's been around the longest. I think Dirac once mentioned something about picking theories based on aesthetic preference. But that was based more on the assumptions you put into your idea.

Ultimately you notions of aesthetics are completely pointless, the only thing that matters is if the theory produces a good fit to the data. We see this in action with things like QCD.

But back to your main point:
> the idea of a wave-particle duality for electrons seems contradictory. For Bohmian mechanics to explain this duality makes the theory in this respect more appealing.

It doesn't explain it though, duality would still be a think as in particles would still behave like waves differently under different experimental conditions. I've already said it once in this thread but I'll say it again, Bohmian mechanics is deterministic in name only, any results that are derived from it will still follow Born's rule. You still won't get a system like classical mechanics, it will still give probabilistic out comes (it has to, since it needs to reproduce all of QM). BM is deterministic in the sense that a particle has a definite measurement, you just can't know it before hand.

>>8679583
Interesting point since in the field where I work, simplicity is crucial in building theories, but I trust you that this isn't the modus operandi of physics. So essentially, you're argument is 'why fix what's not broken', which is as valid as any.

Remember that there is a gauge-invariance property in Bohmian mechanics.

The underlying fluid particle trajectories are meaningless. You replace them with any div 0 vector bundle and obtain the same end physics. So the typical "picture" of underlying fluid particles undergoing classical-like dynamics is still no correct. Bohmian mechanics is underdetermined.

>>8677900
Bohmian mechanics is incompatible with Feynman diagrams
http://motls.blogspot.com.es/2016/04/bohmian-mechanics-is-incompatible-with.html

>>8679622
>Because de Broglie was an aristocrat while Bohm and almost all the fans of this theory were Bolsheviks

Why must he bring politics into everything?

>>8679626
Haha, I thought the same thing.

>>8679456
Okay, magic ghost theory is now valid

>>8679633
Nope, CI says nothing about the actual process of collapse, only that it happens.

>>8679622
>this non-relativistic theory isn't compatible with relativity

Really tickles my pickle

>>8679383
you're acting as if physics is complete.
The theory you choose does matter because you might always find circumstances where they are different.

>>8679626
Lubos Motl is, well, Lubos Motl.

To paraphrase John Baez, "It isn't always easy to ignore Lubos Motl, but it's always worth the effort."

Its only natural to think that we already know all. But we don't. All those models are incomplete. We don't even know what photons REALLY are.

It is clear. A wave guides the particle. Becouse the wave is distorted by the double slit, hence the path is aswell. But becouse particles are point-like it appears in only one position.

Think about this: we have two electrons. One is standstill and one is moving. But what property does the moving particle have than the particle at rest? The answer is that different wave affecting it.

>>8679900
>find circumstances where they are different

Bohmian mechanics is designed to replicate the results of standard QM. There are no circumstances where the predictions are different.

>>8679944
What determines how the particle follows the wave? Why is it still random?

>>8679626
Because Lubos is autistic as fuck, he also almost surely posts on /r9k/: http://desuarchive.org/r9k/thread/18929562/#18929722

>>8680059
Think a river and a lake. Put a leaf on the river. It will follow the river until the lake appears. Then the stream diverges and the leaf will follow some of the diverged paths, but we cannot say surely where it goes.