Recent content by Demystifier

I think quantum theory is not so difficult to understand once you accept this: Quantum theory, in its usual textbook form, is not about the microscopic world itself. It is about the response of our macroscopic probes of the microscopic world. But it turns out that this response does not depend...

The interactions are described by local field theory. The change at one place creates a local change in the field, after which this change propagates to other places through the field. The speed of propagation does not exceed the speed of light.

I would call it non-probabilistic. By the way, a joint probability of position and momentum can be defined with the Husimi distribution. It satisfies all the Kolmogorov axioms. But the resulting marginal probability of position or momentum is not equal to the usual quantum mechanical...

By the way, @Lord Jestocost I like your signature. The same idea is defended also in the paper in my signature.

Calling something "energy" is not a matter of knowledge, it's a matter of convenience. When the Hamiltonian ##H## is conserved, classical or quantum, it is convenient to call it energy. Except in theories (such as general relativity) with a Hamiltonian constraint ##H=0##, where we usually do not...

No. The Wigner function in phase space is not interpreted as probability, so it does not contradict Kolmogorov. The change of probability by the change of context (experimental conditions) also does not contradict Kolmogorov, because different contexts correspond to different Kolmogorov's sample...

@Lord Jestocost the paper you linked does not really claim that BM is not deterministic at all. What it really claims is that it is not deterministic if the quantum equilibrium hypothesis is interpreted as a fundamental exact law. By contrast, if it is interpreted as an emergent approximate...

Not really. They push the ontological perspective, including the GRW theory which is not deterministic. As I said billion times, the point of theories such as Bohmian mechanics and GRW is an explicit ontology (realism), not determinism. I never understood why so many physicists think that...

Perhaps @DrChinese intuitively understands "+" in ##|a\rangle+|b\rangle## as something similar to a logical "or". When others write $$|a\rangle+|b\rangle$$ he sees $$|a\rangle \;{\rm or}\; |b\rangle$$ In some measurement contexts such an interpretation may lead to correct results, so maybe he...

What irritates them is not so much that someone likes a different interpretation than they do, but the fact that the vagueness of the Copenhagenish interpretations is a norm in the community of physicists, who are supposed to be careful and precise thinkers. It was beautifully expressed by...

Yes, we all agree on that. Not really, because (1) and (2) are the same state, at the same time. One cannot understand BM before one understands the standard textbook QM. It's a matter of textbook QM that (1) and (2) are the same. Even BM says that (1) and (2) are the same. And just to remind...

I know. Well, in a sense, (3) can be derived from (2). Not rigorously derived, but there are plausible arguments explaining why (3) should be valid if (2) is valid. Strictly speaking, Bohmian particles don't have momentum. They have velocity ##v##, but to have the momentum ##p=mv##, they would...

Yes, that's correct. The entanglement is spread, and so is the influence of other particles on the motion of one partticle.

Well, all physicists call them the same state, including Ma and Megidish. I understand your intuition behind your language, but you should be aware that you use a language that differs from the language of physicists, which makes the discussions between you and others rather challenging.

Here is an excerpt from the book by Bohm and Hiley, The Undivided Universe, page 59: It says that when the wave function of two systems is a product (which means that they are not entangled), then the two systems behave independently. Is that explicit enough? The book Durr and Teufel, Bohmian...