Recent content by zenith8

Well done, Ken - you beat me. Would you prefer nuts or a cigar?

Ken. No, no, no.. :rolleyes: It's a postulate in orthodox QM. In deBB theory, the orthodox formalism (operators as observables, Born rule etc) emerges only as an equilibrium phenomenology and is not required at the fundamental level, where there is only a partial differential equation for a...

No we're not (you'll recall the OP had two questions, the second of which was "what is the BM take on this?" which I'm clearly attempting to answer). In fact, we're getting to the tedious final stage of any conversation involving BM on this forum - the bit where the clever supporter of orthodox...

DeBB is not a theory of the world. It's a theory of non-relativistic quantum mechanics (with extensions to quantum-field theory where appropriate). When we have a complete theory of the world which includes everything, including gravity and everything that exists, then we look and see if that...

Not so. The underlying assumptions of deBB allow one to contemplate the existence of non-Born-rule distributions (which are not even possible to contemplate in ordinary QM, where the Born rule is a postulate). And by their nature, non-Born-rule distributions are experimentally detectable. One...

And I'm sure you'll enlighten us with your demonstration that the underlying assumption is 'wrong'. What's that? You won't? Hmmmm.. As far as I know it's consistent with all known experimental facts. I also love your use of 'accidentally'.. Makes it sound like a monkey finally finishing his...

Hi atyy, Off the top of my head, I'm not sure. I'll have a look this evening if I can find some time. This, though, is something I've read about. In BM i.e. de Broglie-Bohm quantum mechanics, then Born's rule arises naturally because it's the highest entropy state. If you take a bunch of...

Not the answer I was looking for, Kenny..

Slightly off topic.. can anyone point me to a thread on Physics Forums where any contributor with more than - say - 10 posts changes their mind about anything, ever? Just curious.

And there's your problem, right there. This thread is about deBB, and because deBB does make different predictions - since it in principle allows particles to be not distributed according to the Born rule - it is a different theory. Such predictions are difficult, but not impossible to test...

That's very funny, well done. Especially the vomiting smiley. Cute. Look, the OP asks a question about deBB. I answer it. Seems like he agrees with my answer. That ain't propaganda. Why don't you try the same trick on Copenhagenists or many-worlders occasionally, just for a bit of variety?

Exactly! Couldn't have put it better myself. (except the "particle went through a particle went through a" bit, which by the time anyone reads this, you might have edited.).

Great - I'd love to hear if it answers your question. As I said, under the assumption that the deBB assumptions about the nature of reality are true, then you certainly 'know' immediately which slit the particle passed through, once you observe where it hits the screen. However, of course, you...

You're deluding yourself mate. Remember that unless you deliberately graft on measurement apparatus then de Broglie-Bohm is a theory of what actually happens in a single system, irrespective of who happens to observe it. Thus, as the trajectories (the streamlines of the probability current, if...

Try Basil Hiley's "http://www.bbk.ac.uk/tpru/BasilHiley/QuantEraserLight.pdf" ". That should do the trick.