Author Topic: De Broglie–Bohm theory  (Read 2552 times)

Online Sal1981

De Broglie–Bohm theory
« on: December 11, 2014, 03:30:10 PM »
Saw this on Facebook the other day; a link to a Wired article that basically shows that recent experiments in fluid dynamics, with an oil droplet bouncing on a resonating fluid, moves in an irregular manner - a pilot wave - which is completely analogous to QM.

Quote
The experiments involve an oil droplet that bounces along the surface of a liquid. The droplet gently sloshes the liquid with every bounce. At the same time, ripples from past bounces affect its course. The droplet’s interaction with its own ripples, which form what’s known as a pilot wave, causes it to exhibit behaviors previously thought to be peculiar to elementary particles — including behaviors seen as evidence that these particles are spread through space like waves, without any specific location, until they are measured.

Source: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This experiment has given new life to De Brogile-Bohm theory, because it display the exact same properties which used to be thought unique to elementary particle interactions (i.e. QM).

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


This could, IMO, be the start of revision in physics on the same scale when the geocentric model of the world with Earth as its center with its epicircles and whatnot was dismissed in favour of the heliocentric model.

I think this is an appropriate analogy, because in the geocentric model, although convoluted, the math described the motion of the planets and the Sun to a high precision. It wasn't until much later that the heliocentric model won over the geocentric model.

Also, looks like Albert Einstein was right again, "God doesn't play with dice".
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Offline stromboli

Re: De Broglie–Bohm theory
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2014, 07:52:37 PM »
Good post. Unfortunately I am totally unqualified to give a coherent response..... :think:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: De Broglie–Bohm theory
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2014, 09:58:09 PM »
I don't find this impressive. After all, QM has much the same formulation of wave mechanics, hence the wave-particle duality. That fluids display many of the same properties is not at all surprising.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re: De Broglie–Bohm theory
« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2015, 10:46:34 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Also, looks like Albert Einstein was right again, "God doesn't play with dice".

It's a nice theory, even though I don't know much about it. Howver I do know about QM. I don't know how the De Brogile-Bohm theory deals with these concepts but Lorentz invariance, the renormalization group, gauge symmetry and spontaneous symmetry breaking are all concepts needed in QFT to explain the Standard Model, and we know it does that exteremely well. How does the De Brogile-Bohm theory do in explaining  the Standard Model is anyone's guess.

Offline Baruch

Re: De Broglie–Bohm theory
« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2015, 01:58:37 PM »
See the post in Physics-Cosmology nearby regarding the most recent variety of theoretical research.  One approach takes QM as just a fancy system of post-classical statistics.  I tend to gravitate toward that one today: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Do basically there one can completely discount "hidden variables" and accept that QM is completely statistical.  Therefore per Complementarity ... classical physics is an "averaged over" version of statistics ... and that even in ordinary physics, G-d plays dice all the time.

𐎍𐎜𐎜𐎟𐎌𐎀𐎍𐎎𐎀𐎀𐎚𐎀𐎟𐎍𐎜𐎜𐎟𐎁𐎀𐎍𐎉𐎀𐎀𐎚𐎀
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Re: De Broglie–Bohm theory
« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2015, 02:15:12 PM »
The problem with these theories is that they are concerned with the interpretation of QM, read the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI), particularly with its wave collapse notion. Strike down the CI, and QM is fine. I understand lots of people are spending their time on what is now called foundational quantum mechanics, but personally, I think it's a waste of time. In my own blog, I have dispelled many of these false notions, but I reckon that there is a lot of work to do in that department, especially the greatest offender was Einstein and his EPR paper, and there are legions carrying his torch.

Offline Baruch

Re: De Broglie–Bohm theory
« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2015, 03:24:51 PM »
Well is philosophy of science; operationalism or realism?  I think operationalism ... I don't care if electrons exist, as long as I can treat the equations pragmatically as if they exist.  So is the "shut up and just compute" the correct approach?  I think that operationalism is nearly the same, but with some reason behind it.  Certainly lots of folks are some kind of realist ... not necessarily the same as Einstein.  So I am not a realist either.  Anti-realism is where I am at.  You may like ...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
𐎍𐎜𐎜𐎟𐎌𐎀𐎍𐎎𐎀𐎀𐎚𐎀𐎟𐎍𐎜𐎜𐎟𐎁𐎀𐎍𐎉𐎀𐎀𐎚𐎀
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Re: De Broglie–Bohm theory
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2015, 05:19:17 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well is philosophy of science; operationalism or realism?  I think operationalism ... I don't care if electrons exist, as long as I can treat the equations pragmatically as if they exist.  So is the "shut up and just compute" the correct approach?  I think that operationalism is nearly the same, but with some reason behind it.  Certainly lots of folks are some kind of realist ... not necessarily the same as Einstein.  So I am not a realist either.  Anti-realism is where I am at.  You may like ...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

That's exactly the kind of article I find nauseating. There are so many errors, I don't know where to start. But here's a shot at some of these errors.

Take the following quote: "In quantum mechanics, objects can be in multiple states simultaneously: for example, an atom can be in two places, or spin in opposite directions, at once. Measuring an object forces it to snap into a well-defined state." There is nothing in QM that one can use to make that claim, yet I see this kind of stuff over and over. What the wave function contains are the possible states, not that objects can exist in multiple states simultaneously. (See my recent blog:  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login). Then it predictably states that Einstein disagreed. Yes, he did, but not for the right reasons: Einstein's solution was hidden parameters, and QM went subsequently to be developed without the fabulous "hidden variables". And then the article goes on with Bell who showed that Einstein was wrong, and from there wrongly concludes that there is a spooky action at a distance after all. :-(

The whole mess is further compounded that there is a "communication loophole", one I surmise was fabricated in a few confused minds. There isn't a loophole as entanglement is based on a conservation law, and therefore has nothing to do with how far atoms are separated: they will keep their entanglement as long as none of them undergoes any kind of interaction. Of course, the further they are apart, the greater the risk of an interaction, and therefore if you keep them close, they will stay entangled, which these people verified but think they've made a major discovery!!! Yikes.


Offline aitm

Re: De Broglie–Bohm theory
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2015, 08:45:16 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's exactly the kind of article I find nauseating. There are so many errors, I don't know where to start. But here's a shot at some of these errors.

Take the following quote: "In quantum mechanics, objects can be in multiple states simultaneously: for example, an atom can be in two places, or spin in opposite directions, at once. Measuring an object forces it to snap into a well-defined state." There is nothing in QM that one can use to make that claim, yet I see this kind of stuff over and over. What the wave function contains are the possible states, not that objects can exist in multiple states simultaneously. (See my recent blog:  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login). Then it predictably states that Einstein disagreed. Yes, he did, but not for the right reasons: Einstein's solution was hidden parameters, and QM went subsequently to be developed without the fabulous "hidden variables". And then the article goes on with Bell who showed that Einstein was wrong, and from there wrongly concludes that there is a spooky action at a distance after all. :-(

The whole mess is further compounded that there is a "communication loophole", one I surmise was fabricated in a few confused minds. There isn't a loophole as entanglement is based on a conservation law, and therefore has nothing to do with how far atoms are separated: they will keep their entanglement as long as none of them undergoes any kind of interaction. Of course, the further they are apart, the greater the risk of an interaction, and therefore if you keep them close, they will stay entangled, which these people verified but think they've made a major discovery!!! Yikes.



 I forgot how much I enjoy reading your posts…..
Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Re: De Broglie–Bohm theory
« Reply #9 on: September 05, 2015, 06:34:03 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I forgot how much I enjoy reading your posts…..

Thanks


Quote
Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

Ask any question, that's what I'm here for. For the record: I've taught this stuff for many years. I'm retired now, but still enjoy the subject and will gladly help anyone who's interested in such matter.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk