Fair enough. And is there an analog of thermal interpretation for the rabbit-from-the-hat phenomenon?A. Neumaier said:I am not a poor spactator. I have the thermal interpretation.
Demystifier said:The question for everybody: What do you do when you see a magician trick?
Yes:Demystifier said:Fair enough. And is there an analog of thermal interpretation for the rabbit-from-the-hat phenomenon?
Does your attempted explanation involve some hidden variables, like those in 5) above?Spinnor said:Accept and enjoy that the magician did a great trick and then try and figure out how he did it.
I still don't understand how that helps to explain the rabbit-from-the-hat phenomenon.A. Neumaier said:Yes:
6) Study physics and extrapolate from what the physicists really do when they compare experiments with theory.
This is how I discovered the thermal interpretation.
Does the rabbit have a definite position before it is pulled out of the hat ? Or is that interpretation dependent ?Spinnor said:Accept and enjoy that the magician did a great trick and then try and figure out how he did it.
Without physics, how can you explain the appearance of the rabbit? Physics tells you that mass is conserved (and much more). So you know that the rabbit must have been there before.Demystifier said:I still don't understand how that helps to explain the rabbit-from-the-hat phenomenon.
That still doesn't explain the trick.A. Neumaier said:Without physics, how can you explain the appearance of the rabbit? Physics tells you that mass is conserved. So you know that the rabbit must have been there before.
It also tells you that brains are not very reliable detectors and may fail when their attention is somewhere else.Demystifier said:That still doesn't explain the trick.
The rabbit-from-the-hat can be explained even without mathematics. To a great extent, Bohmian interpretation also can be understood without mathematics, just by visualizing localized wave packets and particle trajectories within them.vanhees71 said:Where is a abbit-from-the-hat phenomenon in QM that is not already there in classical physics? In a way it's indeed a miracle that we can describe nature quite well with mathematical tools. Someone (Einstein?) said the most incomprehensible about nature is its comprehensibility.
Which still doesn't explain the trick.A. Neumaier said:It also tells you that brains are not very reliable detectors and may fail when their attention is somewhere else.
Sure, there is no trick in quantum theory. But it looks as if there is a trick in quantum phenomena. I want to know how Nature (the magician) does it, not how a poor spectator describes what he sees.vanhees71 said:I still don't know, what you consider as a "trick" in QT. It's a mathematical description of objective empirical facts of nature, no more no less, and it's I am principle not different from classical mechanics, it's just more comprehensible (while still not complete as long as there is not a consistent quantum theory of the gravitational interaction).
Except that the appearance of a rabbit is what the whole trick is about.vanhees71 said:No rabbit in sight
So how would you qualify my attempted explanation of rabbit-from-the-hat in the entry 5)? Is it philosophy? Don't you do something similar when you see a performance by a magician?vanhees71 said:Where is a trick in phenomena (no matter whether quantum or not)? It's what we observe nature does, and there's nothing else we can do. What do you want when you asking for knowledge how Nature does it? You'll never get an answer from the natural sciences, and philosophy leaves you most probably unsatisfied since it's not explaining anything either.
How do you do that without mathematics?Demystifier said:without mathematics, just by visualizing localized wave packets and particle trajectories within them.
Arnold already criticised some points in his post #16 and you didn't respond to it.Demystifier said:Which does not mean that one does not need to criticize the specific gaps in order to criticize the final conclusion of the argument.
That's what physicists try to do, but I don't think that anything about Bohmian mechanics can be considered rational. It's so irrational that most physicists even consider something as stupid as "shut up and calculate" to be more rational than BM. Arnold's list in post #84 can be continued almost indefinitely. In additional to what is absurd about BM, I also consider it highly irrational to expect naive 17th century ideas about physics to be the final word.Demystifier said:5) Try to devise a rational mechanism which could explain it.
I meant without equations. I can visualize a wave packet and a trajectory without having an equation in my mind.A. Neumaier said:How do you do that without mathematics?
What is the most rational interpretation of QM in your opinion?rubi said:That's what physicists try to do, but I don't think that anything about Bohmian mechanics can be considered rational. It's so irrational that most physicists even consider something as stupid as "shut up and calculate" to be more rational than BM.
Demystifier said:Does your attempted explanation involve some hidden variables, like those in 5) above?
Mentz114 said:Does the rabbit have a definite position before it is pulled out of the hat ? Or is that interpretation dependent ?
Why not? I think you can.Spinnor said:I can not, right?
I'd say that's the most rational "explanation" of the phenomenon, and I'd consider it the most convincing one too. I, however, don't see in which this sense is an analogue to Bohmian mechanics. In your rabbit example you can check your assumptions and figure it out (provided the magician allows you to investigate his setup), while Bohmian mechanics claims unobservable trajectories and doesn't offer anything more than standard QT. I don't see, why I should evaluate the trajectories, if I can't check the result against experiment (except for the fun in the sense of a mathematical puzzle I solve for my pleasure).Demystifier said:So how would you qualify my attempted explanation of rabbit-from-the-hat in the entry 5)? Is it philosophy? Don't you do something similar when you see a performance by a magician?
You have a point, but what if, for some reason, magician never allows you to investigate his setup? Would that change anything?vanhees71 said:I'd say that's the most rational "explanation" of the phenomenon, and I'd consider it the most convincing one too. I, however, don't see in which this sense is an analogue to Bohmian mechanics. In your rabbit example you can check your assumptions and figure it out (provided the magician allows you to investigate his setup), while Bohmian mechanics claims unobservable trajectories and doesn't offer anything more than standard QT. I don't see, why I should evaluate the trajectories, if I can't check the result against experiment (except for the fun in the sense of a mathematical puzzle I solve for my pleasure).
Demystifier said:Why not? I think you can.
No. It ruled out local hidden variables. Non-local hidden variables, such as those in Bohmian interpretation, are not ruled out.Spinnor said:I though Bell's theorem ruled out Hidden Variables?