- #36
peter0302
- 876
- 3
Perhaps it's meaningful to you in your head, but that's it.Actually we can say what the electron is or acts like before measurement, in a scientifically meaningful way.
Perhaps it's meaningful to you in your head, but that's it.Actually we can say what the electron is or acts like before measurement, in a scientifically meaningful way.
peter0302 said:Perhaps it's meaningful to you in your head, but that's it.
peter0302 said:The reason mathematics, not English, is the language of physics is because mathematics is the only language in which you can say unambiguous things in a scientifically accurate way.
"Acts like a wave" is subject to so much interrpetation that it does no good in predicting or understanding a particle's behavior. When we must speak in English, we try to do so using the most unambiguous exact terminology possible. Again, "acts like a wave" doesn't cut it.
The wave function describes the likely locations one will observe a particle. The wave function is governed by the Schrodinger Equation. That's the best you can do before you get into ambiguities and philosophies.
peter0302 said:Bohmian Mechanics is an interpretation of QM, not an accepted or even testable theory.
You seem to have your own ideas about things and no interest in doing anything but espousing them, so there's not much point in continuing this discussion.
peter0302 said:The reason mathematics, not English, is the language of physics is because mathematics is the only language in which you can say unambiguous things in a scientifically accurate way.
peter0302 said:"Acts like a wave" is subject to so much interrpetation that it does no good in predicting or understanding a particle's behavior. When we must speak in English, we try to do so using the most unambiguous exact terminology possible. Again, "acts like a wave" doesn't cut it.
peter0302 said:The wave function describes the likely locations one will observe a particle. The wave function is governed by the Schrodinger Equation. That's the best you can do before you get into ambiguities and philosophies.
Maaneli said:First off, the equation I wrote down is a sharp counterexample to your mistaken belief that the Schroedinger evolution is all that one can meaningfully talk about regarding the electron, because you think it is the only mathematically well-defined statement about its physics. Also you seem to not realize that the wave function is itself not an observable field, even in standard QM.
In the first place, BM (should actually be referred to as de Broglie-Bohm theory) is not just an "interpretation" of QM, but a different formulation of QM. It involves different equations than standard QM. And it is completely false to say that it is "not an accepted or even testable theory". No single formulation or interpretation of QM (including the textbook plus decoherence approach) is accepted as "the most correct" by most physicists; but physicists who have studied the pilot wave theory admit it is self-consistent and empirically equivalent to standard QM, even if they don't like it for whatever reason. As for it being testable, indeed it is for the possibility of quantum nonequilibrium dynamics:
Dynamical Origin of Quantum Probabilities
Antony Valentini and Hans Westman
http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/va/Valentini/12
De Broglie-Bohm Prediction of Quantum Violations for Cosmological Super-Hubble Modes
Antony Valentini
http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/va/Valentini/2
Inflationary Cosmology as a Probe of Primordial Quantum Mechanics
Antony Valentini
http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/va/Valentini/1
Furthermore, these are not my "own ideas", and the fact that you would characterize them like that as a way to dismiss them or refuse to acknowledge them tells me that you don't and are not really interested in understanding anything different from a naive textbook approach to QM.
The ball is in your court now. I gave you a sharp counterexample to your claims that pilot wave theory is not testable or "accepted", and it is up to you to show a dignified response.
reilly said:Can this alternate theory allow us to
1. compute the electron's magnetic moment to 13 decimal places as is done with standard QED, 2. compute the pion-nucleon scattering S-matrices; 3. derive the Fermi-Thomas approximation, or equivalent thereof, used in atomic physics(heavy elements)4. can this approach bring anything new to the issue of quark containment?
peter0302 said:Regarding the DeBroglie-Bohm pilot wave hypothesis (aka Bohmian Mechanics), it is not a scientific theory any more than Intelligent Design is a scientific theory. Both purport to explain the observable phenomina. Neither can be tested (at this time) using the methods of science.
peter0302 said:The inherent weakness of any quantum interpretation is that it, by definition, must account for all known results. Therefore, that Bohmian Mechanics, for example, can make the same predictions as QFT is not an argument in its favor.
peter0302 said:Show me an interpretation that explains everything else, and makes new predictions about things we haven't seen yet, that turn out to be right, and I'll be the first in line to support their Nobel nomination.
peter0302 said:One slight exception that I will give you would be an Occam's razor-type argument, that is, if two competing interpretations are offered and one makes significantly fewer assumptions, than it is the more favorable view. However, no current quantum interpretation is clearly the winner in this respect (though some, like the Cramer TI idea, probably are clear losers).
peter0302 said:Further, I hold out hope that some, if not many of the competing interpretations out there will eventually be mature enough to become genuine theories that make testable predictions.
peter0302 said:Maaneli, the reason I criticized your psots is because you do not seem to be attempting to make any kind of distinction between predictive science and philosophy/interpretation.
peter0302 said:Moreover, putting the DeBroglie-Bohm quantum potential formula out there as an example of what we can say the electron is doing before detection (which is how I interpreted your point) is misleading.
peter0302 said:So, I stand by what I originally said and hope that I've persuaded you that your views on this matter contain more interpretive than scientific opinions.
peter0302 said:Well, as far as the papers you've posted, I don't know if they've been peer reviewed or published, but it looks to me like they haven't. There is so much misinformation out there that, frankly, yes, I don't bother to read things unless they're published, peer reviewed, and (often) explained by people here who understand the math much better than I. If they are indeed as groundbreaking as you say they are, surely they will change the course of physics.
Out of curiosity, are you Antony Valentini?
peter0302 said:Well, as far as the papers you've posted, I don't know if they've been peer reviewed or published, but it looks to me like they haven't. There is so much misinformation out there that, frankly, yes, I don't bother to read things unless they're published, peer reviewed, and (often) explained by people here who understand the math much better than I. If they are indeed as groundbreaking as you say they are, surely they will change the course of physics.
Out of curiosity, are you Antony Valentini?
peter0302 said:You're right, my intellectual capacity is clearly dwarfed by yours, so there's really no point in continuing.
Maaneli said:To be honest, I get the sense that you're trying to BS your way out of looking at those papers and admitting you made mistakes. You didn't even bother to admit your mistakes about your comments on the other thread.
Reilly,reilly said:Let me denote Bohm's alternate Quantum Theory as BQT. Those of us of a certain age have been waiting 50 years for a big BQT breakthrough -- I first learned about BQT as a student in the late 1950s. No breakthrough; I stopped holding my breath quite a long time ago.The perception of little value created by BQT is strong, the physics community, in general, is skeptical, at best, of BQT's contributions to physics; few, if any, have seen any -- remember, I'm talking about perceptions. On the other hand,from superconductivity to the Standard Model, regular physics has made extraordinary progress in the lat 50 years.A suggestion: BQT is out of the mainstream oif physics, and is often dismissed within the physics community. BQT supporters have a massive sales job, and the market is indifferent. That is, you would do well, to convince peter0302, or me, or others looking at this thread, that there are clear and important benefits to reading the papers you suggest -- we all have plenty of other things to do. By the way, if you want to make a sale -- to get some of us actually reading -- do not insult nor demean your potential customers, as you do in the excerpt of yours quoted above.
By the way, you have yet to supply us with examples of textbook inadequacies
Do you have references for the computations you claim can be done in BQT ?
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
reilly said:Let me denote Bohm's alternate Quantum Theory as BQT. Those of us of a certain age have been waiting 50 years for a big BQT breakthrough -- I first learned about BQT as a student in the late 1950s. No breakthrough; I stopped holding my breath quite a long time ago.The perception of little value created by BQT is strong, the physics community, in general, is skeptical, at best, of BQT's contributions to physics; few, if any, have seen any -- remember, I'm talking about perceptions. On the other hand,from superconductivity to the Standard Model, regular physics has made extraordinary progress in the lat 50 years.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
reilly said:I really remember next to nothing, so I'm a beginner. I don't particularly want to do the computations, I'd just like to see them done.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
reilly said:I really remember next to nothing, so I'm a beginner. I don't particularly want to do the computations, I'd just like to see them done.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
reilly said:I really remember next to nothing, so I'm a beginner. I don't particularly want to do the computations, I'd just like to see them done.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
Maaneli said:For example, the hydrodynamical equations of motion for superfluids and Bose-Einstein condensates, are in fact the equation of BQM, as you'll see. In fact, Feynman even derives teh equations in his Lectures when he talks about superfluids. You can also see them in all the condensed matter theory textbooks. So in fact, much of condensed matter physics owes its practical and methodological success to the work of Madelung, Takabayasi, de Broglie, and Bohm, which was initially focused on interpretational questions about QM.
ZapperZ said:Er... back up a bit. Where exactly is this in, say, Mahan's text?
And since when is the "hydrodynamical equations of motion for superfluids and BE condensate" is equivalent to an actual derivation of these phenomena via First Principles? I thought I am aware, being a condensed matter physicist AND someone who specialized in superconductivity, of all the derivation of conventional superconductivity (both using field theoretic and variational methods - refer to Tinkham's text). Are you claiming that these are "BQM" equations? Can you please show me papers that claim and derived these explicitly?
BTW, please limit your citations to ONLY peer-reviewed papers. If those arXiv papers have been published already, please also include the exact reference along with the arXiv links if such information isn't included with the arXiv links.
Zz.
Maaneli said:All the arxiv links I cite already have the journal references in them. But, I added them separately above anyway.
ZapperZ said:Er... back up a bit. Where exactly is this in, say, Mahan's text?
And since when is the "hydrodynamical equations of motion for superfluids and BE condensate" is equivalent to an actual derivation of these phenomena via First Principles? I thought I am aware, being a condensed matter physicist AND someone who specialized in superconductivity, of all the derivation of conventional superconductivity (both using field theoretic and variational methods - refer to Tinkham's text). Are you claiming that these are "BQM" equations? Can you please show me papers that claim and derived these explicitly?
ZapperZ said:Thanks, that would make it more convenient. If it is part of a "conference" or "speech" by a well-known figure, the references would not be necessary since those are often not published.
Zz.
Maaneli said:Unlike Feynman, they correctly refer to them as the "Madelung equations" since E. Madelung was the first to publish them in 1924 and show that they are mathematically equivalent to the Schroedinger equation.
akhmeteli said:I am afraid I am nit-picking again, but Madelung could not do it in 1924 for the simple reason that the Schroedinger equation was published in 1926. The Madelung's article was actually published in 1927 (Z. Phys. 40, 322)
Maaneli said:OK, Reilly, that's a very important admission. I should like to emphasize that most of the "mainstream" physicists who dismiss deBB theory are, like you, people who either have never studied the theory, or studied it so long ago that they forgot anything they knew. Then they assume that if there was anything too it, their colleagues (meaning the people they know, which is always a minutely small fraction, and not even a statistically representative sample, of the physicists in every subfield) would be all over it. Well, this is part of the problem. Ignorance begets false assumptions about what others know, and consequently indifference on their own part. Don't you think that it makes no sense to dismiss a theory without having any understanding about it? That is why I am happy that you seem to be willing to look into this. Also, try to distinguish two things: interpretational questions about a theory on the one hand, and the computational usefulness of a theory on the other. Just because a theory is computationally useful doesn't mean it is interpretationally transparent. The converse is also true. Nevertheless, with respect to deBB theory, it has indeed had distinct practical advantages, unbenknownst to many of the specialists who use those equations!
Maaneli said:Actually, the Madelung article was published in 1926. de Broglie's article was published in 1927. My mistake.
akhmeteli said:I know for some reason the Madelung's article is often quoted as published in 1926. However, it was actually published in 1927.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1927ZPhy...40..322M
http://www.springerlink.com/content/100378/?sortorder=asc&p_o=1540
reilly said:You really did not read my post, or you failed to understand my suggestions how to overcome your problem is that BQM registers 0 on the Richter scale.
Quite the contrary to what you claim about word-of -mouth communication of new ideas is demonstrably false(big literature). It can be highly successful. The work of Einstein, Bohr, and Feynman got spread that way.
That's the point: 50 years ago there was some sympathy to Bohm's ideas, but it's pretty much dead; nothing ever happened with BQM. There was no word-of-mouth info to transmit.Why, then, should I read all those papers? If there are solid, demonstrable reasons to do so, maybe. But first,
Please tell how to find the computations I want to see. I'll take the chance that I can probably work my way through whatever is there. If not I'll ask questions.
Regards,.
Reilly Atkinson