Is there any reason to believe that pilot wave theory is incorrect?

>>9079001
If everything is just interpretations of the same math, how on eartg dp physicists even discuss which one is right?

>>9079001
The only 'evidence' for it is that physics hasn't use probability to determine outcomes before. All experiments have suggested that there is a measureable probability for outcomes, with no evidence for the hidden properties.

>>9079001
I suspect that the randomness in QM is a kind of forced randomness.

>>9079047
>All experiments have suggested that there is a measureable probability for outcomes, with no evidence for the hidden properties.
No they don't.
Both interpretations perfectly explain experimental observations.
There's no experimental basis that point towards one or the other, it's just that the Copenhagen interpretation is much simpler.

How do you have pilot waves and the uncertainty principle at the same time?

>>9079048
yes. what people don't understand is that qm equations are entirely deterministic. knowing the present state of a wave function you know all future states. the problem is simply and inherently in knowing the present state, aka we inherently can't

>>9079065
The wave functions are what you assume not what is actually there. There is no such thing as "uncertainty" in real life. The fact that an electron can tunnel anywhere is just like the legal fine print of "we reserve the right to blah blah blah".

>>9079001
What is up with all the pilot-wave shills on this board anyway?