Pilot-wave is No More, Pilot-wave cracked by Bohr

  • B
  • Thread starter jedishrfu
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Bohr
In summary, recent experiments have shown that the pilot wave alternative to quantum mechanics, which involves tiny oil droplets bouncing on a vibrating oil bath, is not a viable replacement for the current understanding of quantum mechanics. The discovery of this phenomenon was made by a student in Yves Couder's laboratory in Paris in 2005. However, the person who put a definitive crack in this idea is Tomas Bohr, Niels Bohr's grandson and a fluid physicist at the Technical University of Denmark. Despite some initial interest and obligation due to his family history, Bohr concluded that the oil-drop analogy does not have the non-local structure needed for Bohmian mechanics, which is equivalent to minimally interpreted quantum mechanics. While the Quanta Magazine
  • #1
14,789
9,125
Pilot wave Quantum Mechanics is doomed from recent experiments but wait there's more:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/famo...ve-alternative-to-quantum-weirdness-20181011/

In 2005, a student working in the fluid physicist Yves Couder’s laboratory in Paris discovered by chance that tiny oil droplets bounced when plopped onto the surface of a vibrating oil bath. Moreover, as the droplets bounced, they started to bunny-hop around the liquid’s surface. Couder soon figured out that the droplets were “surfing on their own wave,” as he put it — kicking up the wave as they bounced and then getting propelled around by the slanted contours of the wave.
...
Improbably, the person who put the irreparable crack in de Broglie’s idea is Niels Bohr’s grandson, the fluid physicist Tomas Bohr. A professor at the Technical University of Denmark who, as a child, enjoyed puzzling over riddles posed by his grandfather, Tomas Bohr heard about Couder’s bouncing-droplet experiments seven years ago and was immediately intrigued. “I felt a genuine interest in trying to see whether you could really get a deterministic quantum mechanics,” he said about his decision to enter the fray. Given his family history, he added, “maybe I also felt some obligation. I felt I should really try to see if it was true or not.”
 
  • Like
Likes StevieTNZ and Drakkith
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Interesting! I'll await responses from the professionals who know the technical details more thoroughly
 
  • Like
Likes jedishrfu
  • #3
I wouldn't pay any attention to Natalie Wolchover's nonsense physics journalism. Her first article on this was already bad. This merely compounds the error.
 
  • Like
Likes MichPod and jedishrfu
  • #4
Journalists always like these stories of the grandson reprizing the grandfather's glory.

There a similar story with the grandson of HG Wells who directed a movie version of the Time Machine story in 2002 with Guy Pearce. I liked it but not as much as the Rock Hudson version of 1963. However, they did have a cool librarian avatar:



and I heard there's a TV version in the works:

https://www.slashfilm.com/the-time-machine-tv-series-hg-wells-sky/

But I digress, back to the Pilot-wave...
 
  • #5
jedishrfu said:
not as much as the Rock Hudson version of 1963

Do you mean the Rod Taylor version of 1960, direceted by George Pal? Or did Rock Hudson make a third version?
 
  • #6
Well, the oil-drop analogy goes not as far as to realize de Broglie Bohm theory (which would be a kind of "analogue computer" for Bohmian mechanics ;-)). That's no surprise to me. It's an interesting phenomenon of classical fluid mechanics, but that's it. It doesn't have the non-local structure of Bohmian mechanics, which is for non-relativistic QT equivalent to minimally interpreted QT (by construction). The Quanta Magazine is in general of some entertaining quality, but it seems not to be a reliable source on science. It's not too bad science journalism but not more!
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #7
Vanadium 50 said:
Do you mean the Rod Taylor version of 1960, direceted by George Pal? Or did Rock Hudson make a third version?

Oops, I guess I’m living in an alternate timeline where Rock Hudson and Doris Day starred in the movie and not Rod Taylor and Yvette Mimieux. Yes the George Pal pre cgi era movie with all the cool stop action film work.
 
  • Like
Likes Nik_2213 and Vanadium 50
  • #8
vanhees71 said:
It doesn't have the non-local structure of Bohmian mechanics, which is for non-relativistic QT equivalent to minimally interpreted QT (by construction). The Quanta Magazine is in general of some entertaining quality, but it seems not to be a reliable source on science. It's not too bad science journalism but not more!
In fairness the latter part of the article says exactly this. As far as the headline or jist of the article being misleading (or otherwise wrong), however, I can't say.

Edit: I mean no one sanely doubted a theory that can't reproduce entanglement would fail as a description of the world, so in that sense the article sort of blows up a non-starter to exaggerated proportions just in order to tear it down again.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Demystifier

What is pilot-wave theory?

Pilot-wave theory is a theoretical interpretation of quantum mechanics that posits the existence of a "pilot wave" that guides the behavior of particles at the quantum level. This theory was first proposed by Louis de Broglie in the 1920s and has been further developed by physicists such as David Bohm.

What does it mean to say that pilot-wave theory is "no more"?

Recently, a new study has suggested that the pilot-wave theory, which has long been considered a possible alternative to the widely accepted Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, may not be a viable explanation for quantum phenomena after all. This means that this particular interpretation of quantum mechanics may no longer be considered a valid scientific theory.

What does it mean for pilot-wave theory to be "cracked by Bohr"?

Niels Bohr was a prominent physicist who played a key role in developing the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The phrase "cracked by Bohr" refers to the fact that Bohr's ideas and experiments have been instrumental in demonstrating the limitations of pilot-wave theory and calling into question its validity as a scientific explanation for quantum phenomena.

Why is there controversy surrounding pilot-wave theory?

There has been ongoing debate and controversy surrounding pilot-wave theory and its validity as a scientific explanation for quantum phenomena. Some physicists believe that this theory offers a more complete and intuitive understanding of the behavior of particles at the quantum level, while others argue that it is not supported by experimental evidence and is ultimately incompatible with the principles of quantum mechanics.

What are the potential implications of pilot-wave theory being "no more"?

If pilot-wave theory is ultimately discredited as a scientific explanation for quantum phenomena, it could have significant implications for our understanding of the fundamental nature of reality. It may also lead to new insights and developments in the field of quantum mechanics, as scientists continue to explore and refine our understanding of this complex and mysterious branch of physics.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
4
Views
987
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
26
Views
8K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
25
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
56
Views
20K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
671
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
7
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top