De Broglie–Bohm pilot wave theory

[jambaugh]

Just to be clear, (JTBell and DrChinese, please correct me if I’m wrong), according to any interpretation of QM, there is a very, very, VERY remote possibility that the entire moon truly is no longer there just when you are not looking at it. Who could possibly imagine an entire BB, let alone the moon blinking out of existence. It’s a very remote possibility but it’s still possible. So how do you know that hasn’t happened if you don’t look out the window? (Caution: I have not actually studied QM seriously.)

Before asserting and trying to calculate such probabilities first understand that even within the wacky world of QM conservation laws still hold. The moon can't "just disappear" (probability = 0). The energy/momentum/angular momentum (lepton number...) must end up somewhere. There is I suppose a roughly calculable extremely small non-zero probability that say the nuclei of every atom making up the moon spontaneously decays or something.

 

[thenewmans]

Before asserting and trying to calculate such probabilities first understand that even within the wacky world of QM conservation laws still hold. The moon can't "just disappear" (probability = 0). The energy/momentum/angular momentum (lepton number...) must end up somewhere. There is I suppose a roughly calculable extremely small non-zero probability that say the nuclei of every atom making up the moon spontaneously decays or something.

OK well I wasn't thinking decay. I was thinking Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Isn't that what Einstein was referring to when he said, "I refuse to believe...?" I'm having trouble finding the quote now. (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein) So each particle of the moon has a probability cloud that is not limited by extent. So at any moment, you can calculate the probability that a particle is positioned somewhere far away. It's a small probability. And the chances of 2 particles far away is even smaller.

 

[Ken G]

The way I would put it is, quantum mechanics appears to rely for its very existence as a theory on two very surprising types of duality-- wave/particle duality, and determinate/indeterminate duality. The former gets more press, but the latter is just as important. Wave/particle duality is actually a form of unification, though some people for some reason seem to abhor it (despite the fact that unification has always been a top priority of physics). Determinate/indeterminate duality can also be thought of as a unification, but is rarely considered that way simply because we never really recognized the role of indeterminacy in physics prior to quantum mechanics. I believe that was simply a form of denial on physicsists part-- they didn't need to worry about indeterminacy because it never had to be included in the theory before, but it was certainly always there in practice.

So, when one says that the Moon is not a wave, or that the Moon is not indeterminate, one is simply saying that the Moon is not a good place to study those two dualities. It just isn't the place where the dualities are important. But the theory of QM certainly has no problem with the dualities being present there, just as Newton's theory of gravity had no problem with gravity being present between the constituents of an atom-- it just never mattered and could not be directly tested in that context.

 

[PhilDSP]

The way I would put it is, quantum mechanics appears to rely for its very existence as a theory on two very surprising types of duality-- wave/particle duality, and determinate/indeterminate duality. The former gets more press, but the latter is just as important.

Interesting comments. In his last book "Nonlinear Wave Mechanics" (in English anyway) de Broglie is of the opinion that at least some of the indeterminacy in QM is due to the use of linear mathematics (required for Hilbert Space and Fourier Analysis for example) while the interaction of charge and/or other possible sub-components of particles with a field may be governed by processes which are essentially non-linear. At least that is what I got from a very quick read of some parts of the book.