# De Broglie–Bohm pilot wave theory

1. Oct 19, 2011

### Thenewdeal38

I have been reading about diffrent interpretations and find the bohm theory personally the most convincing interpretation of QM. I refuse to beleive that my car turns into a wave when Im not looking at it. Anyways I wanted to know if theres a list that shows the number of physists who support or disagree with the Bohm theory?

Also the idea that a say a 3 pound ball (or the moon) is a wave when its not being observed can be easly disporven. Have a room split the room in two by a steel wall then place a double slit just big enouph that the ball cannot pass through it, (start the slits at the floor and end them at the ceiling), sterilize the room, put the ball on a propulsion slingshot with a timer, clear the room of all "observers". If after the slingshot has launched the (wave ball) at the slits the ball dosent reconsitute itself on the other side the ball never acted like a wave. If the ball ends up on the other side when you check on it, head for your nearest church.

2. Oct 19, 2011

### Thenewdeal38

Also its facinationg that Bohm created a form of physics that argues against the "counciess observer" yet he personally beleived he was spychic. What irony!

3. Oct 19, 2011

### Demystifier

Me too.

Of course, it's far from being perfect and it contains some yet unsolved problems too, but so do other interpretations.

4. Oct 19, 2011

### atomthick

You are asking a question about QM and yet you formulate the paradox with a ball. The wavelength of the ball is incredibly small this is why you will never see it behave like a wave.

5. Oct 19, 2011

### Demystifier

Please calculate the wavelength of the ball the mass of which is m=1 kg and momentum is p=0.

6. Oct 19, 2011

### Thenewdeal38

I dont understand how someone can say a ball is a wave (be it a short wave) that completley ignores the geometric structures and patterns of things which obviously exist.

7. Oct 19, 2011

### atomthick

Why are you using p=0? You shoud instead use f = E/h, E = mc2, l = 1/f

8. Oct 19, 2011

### Delta²

Arent waves with very small wave length supposed to be able to pass through the slits???

9. Oct 19, 2011

### DrChinese

I think atomthick was pointing out to the OP that the experiment, as formulated, will not accomplish the intended result. Of course atomthick is right, it won't.

10. Oct 19, 2011

### DrChinese

They need to be small slits too! And most of the time, you won't be able to shoot it precisely enough to be diffracted. It will simply bounce off the wall, there will be no interference pattern of any kind.

And guess what, even in a standard double slit setup, some of the particles bounce back too. Nothing strange about that really.

11. Oct 19, 2011

### Thenewdeal38

Scuese me if it IS a wave with the proper instrumentation we should observe it act LIKE A WAVE. It either IS a wave or it ISNT, I beleive its a mass of particles and that all motion is wave-like in some form or another so it move in a wave like manner.

12. Oct 19, 2011

### Thenewdeal38

"shoot it precisely enough to be diffracted"
1. If it is in fact a wave you shouldnt have to shoot it precisely enouphto be diffracted
2. Why would you not be able to shoot it precisley enouph, because its too big?

Sounds like a copout

13. Oct 19, 2011

### atomthick

I can see you imagine the associated wave spanning at infinity. It's not. A short wave lenght means the particle (ball) is "highly" localized. If the wave lenght was bigger let's say 1 meter it meant the particle (ball) could be found anyware on 1 meter radius.

14. Oct 19, 2011

### Thenewdeal38

The how do you explain its affront to geometric structures and patterns, a wave cant have a nuleus? A wave dosent form shape or intricate geometric shapes.

15. Oct 19, 2011

### atomthick

The explanation is simple. There are no waves there are just particles. Waves are something that was mathematically derived from observation (experiments) like Maxwells equations. In reality the waves are just probability distributions of how particles interact with eachother. Waves are not real and it has to be accepted like that.

16. Oct 19, 2011

### Thenewdeal38

Oh well if you put it like that I agree. But then how does the double slit work then, do particles move in a wave like motion?

17. Oct 19, 2011

### atomthick

I belive no one can tell you how exactly are the particles moving. There are formulas for the interference of the associated probabilities based on the observed interaction between particles. The asociated probabilities (which happens to have a wave formula) combine eachother in such a way that produces the double slit experiment result.

Imagine what happens if you take two particles that can be located anywhere on 1 meter radius (you don't know where) and you try to move them closer. It's strange but from the observations you get interference (constructive or destructive depending on the distance between the two).

18. Oct 19, 2011

### Thenewdeal38

"Imagine what happens if you take two particles that can be located anywhere on 1 meter radius (you don't know where) and you try to move them closer. It's strange but from the observations you get interference (constructive or destructive depending on the distance between the two)."

Could it be that each particle emits a curciular wave like gravity. And the interference is the collision of two wave like gravitys colliding into each other?

But since photons dont have mass like electrons do they also emit a gravitational feild?

19. Oct 19, 2011

### Thenewdeal38

"A dramatic series of experiments emphasizing the action of gravity in relation to wave–particle duality were conducted in the 1970s using the neutron interferometer.[14] Neutrons, one of the components of the atomic nucleus, provide much of the mass of a nucleus and thus of ordinary matter. In the neutron interferometer, they act as quantum-mechanical waves directly subject to the force of gravity. While the results were not surprising since gravity was known to act on everything, including light (see tests of general relativity and the Pound-Rebka falling photon experiment), the self-interference of the quantum mechanical wave of a massive fermion in a gravitational field had never been experimentally confirmed before."

20. Oct 19, 2011

### atomthick

I don't think gravity has something to do with it. For example in your question the ball can't get through the double slit unless you move the wall very close to the ball (because the ball has a very short wave length therefore it's localized in a very short range of space). If gravity was to play a part in this then wave length would be larger because the ball has a bigger mass.