Colapse of the Wave Funcion and the Schroedinger Equation

[Hurkyl]

These kinds of attempts are as old as quantum mechanics itself, and in 80+ years they haven't produced a single verifiable prediction that is different from QM.

So what? The possibility of discovering new physics is only a minor point of the question of interpretation. Among the more important aspects is how to go about learning and understanding quantum mechanics.

And besides, weren't things like decoherence, or the more complex ramifications of entanglement, discovered precisely because people were thinking about interpretations?

For myself I decided to ignore this "philosophical" noise and focus on something productive instead.

Fine, go do something more "productive". Just be aware that you are reaping the benefits of the fact that other people decided to pay attention to "philosophical" "noise".

 

[zenith8]

and in 80+ years they haven't produced a single verifiable prediction that is different from QM. So, I doubt that they ever will.

Look, I've stated about 5 times in this thread already that pilot-wave (and others) make testable predictions.

Now the way it goes is you're supposed to say indignantly "Please provide cited references for your dubious claims!". Go on, over to you..

 

[meopemuk]

Look, I've stated about 5 times in this thread already that pilot-wave (and others) make testable predictions.

Now the way it goes is you're supposed to say indignantly "Please provide cited references for your dubious claims!". Go on, over to you..

I re-read your posts again and found something about experimental predictions:

"And yes the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation does make testable predictions - just not the kind you can do in freshman lab experiments! You tend to need black holes or the early universe or similar."

Black holes? Early universe? OK. I rest my case.

 

[zenith8]

These kinds of attempts are as old as quantum mechanics itself, and in 80+ years they haven't produced a single verifiable prediction that is different from QM.

So what? The possibility of discovering new physics is only a minor point of the question of interpretation. Among the more important aspects is how to go about learning and understanding quantum mechanics.

And besides, weren't things like decoherence, or the more complex ramifications of entanglement, discovered precisely because people were thinking about interpretations?

I completely agree with Hurkyl:

* Decoherence - effectively invented by Bohm in his first papers about pilot-wave theory in 1952 (the only thing added by him to de Broglie's 1927 effort).

* Bell's theorem etc. - invented by Bell as a result of thinking about how to test whether the pilot-wave theory was wrong.

* The modern concepts arising from the hidden-variables perspective regarding quantum non-equiibrium and emergent relativity are all now minor industries.

etc.

The point Hurkyl makes about learning is equally important. Almost all questions about QM on this forum by people new to the subject (before they've been intimidated by meopemuk et al. into understanding they mustn't ask) are about things - such as Schroedinger's cat, measurement, Heisenberg uncertainty, double-slit, wave-particle duality etc. etc. - which are incomprehensible in standard QM but which have an obvious and enlightening meaning in the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation.

You don't have to make some sweeping philosophical statement about how nature 'is' if you don't wish to. Just say 'it acts as if' there are particles and waves, or whatever - then these questions no longer need to be asked. QM does not have to be weird. This is what people do in all other branches of physics - I repeat the example of the approach to equilibrium in classical statistical mechanics. How do you rationalize what is happening unless you postulate the existence of swarms of particles banging into each other? Otherwise it just sounds like Mach and the "energeticists" in the early 1900s violently asserting that atoms don't exist because we can't see them - in their world view the problem of thermal equilibrium is insoluble. Then you just say the system "acts as if it were made up of lots of little atoms" and grand vistas open up. I repeat, to deny the possibility of doing this is the result of brainwashing (see my earlier posts).

 

[zenith8]

Black holes? Early universe? OK. I rest my case.

How exactly?

Ah - of course.. You've never seen a black hole or the early universe, so you don't believe they exist, right?

 

[meopemuk]

The point Hurkyl makes about learning is equally important. Almost all questions about QM on this forum by people new to the subject (before they've been intimidated by meopemuk et al. into understanding they mustn't ask) are about things - such as Schroedinger's cat, measurement, Heisenberg uncertainty, double-slit, wave-particle duality etc. etc. - which are incomprehensible in standard QM but which have an obvious and enlightening meaning in the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation.

I think all these questions are perfectly comprehensible within standard QM, if you clearly separate observable and non-observable things and refuse to answer questions about non-observable things. There would be much less confusion if people learned this simple trick.

 

[meopemuk]

I repeat the example of the approach to equilibrium in classical statistical mechanics. How do you rationalize what is happening unless you postulate the existence of swarms of particles banging into each other? Otherwise it just sounds like Mach and the "energeticists" in the early 1900s violently asserting that atoms don't exist because we can't see them - in their world view the problem of thermal equilibrium is insoluble. Then you just say the system "acts as if it were made up of lots of little atoms" and grand vistas open up.

Well, Mach and others were wrong 100 years ago. This has been proven by experiments. But this does not mean that their ways of thinking are not applicable in new circumstances (i.e., in quantum mechanics).

 

[meopemuk]

You've never seen a black hole or the early universe, so you don't believe they exist, right?

I've told you: I'm not a believer, I'm an agnostic.

If the experimental proof of the de Broglie-Bohm theory requires such exotic objects, then quantum mechanics is safe, at least for my lifetime.

 

[Fredrik]

Well - because it just is. Though looking at the Wikipedia site that you refer to, it's perhaps best to look at the entry on "positivism" rather than "logical positivism", as this presents the ideas in a clearer manner.

Neither of those articles presents the ideas in a clear manner, but the article on logical positivism claims that logical positivists require theories to be verifiable (rather than just falsifiable). I haven't seen anything that suggests that Meopemuk holds that view. To require more than falsifiability is a huge blunder in my opinion.