What is De-Broglie's interpretation and how does it relate to DBB theory?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bhobba
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interpretation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

This thread explores De-Broglie's interpretation of quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on his Double Solution theory and its relation to Bohmian mechanics (DBB). Participants discuss the nature of the wave function, the concept of singularities, and the physical reality of waves in quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference a paper detailing De-Broglie's interpretation, noting that it contains a singularity at the particle only as a first approximation.
  • There is a discussion about the concept of cohesion in relation to wave-function collapse, with some participants clarifying that it refers to being in phase.
  • One participant argues that the interpretation states the wave remains constantly in phase with the particle, while questioning how this holds under constant observation.
  • Another participant distinguishes between De-Broglie's Double Solution theory and his pilot-wave theory, asserting that the physical wave guides the particle, while the wave function is a non-physical construct.
  • Some participants assert that the wave function is not considered physically real in De-Broglie's interpretation, contrasting it with Bohmian mechanics where the wave function is deemed real.
  • There is a contention regarding the relationship between the wave function and the physical wave, with some arguing that multiplying by a constant does not change the nature of reality.
  • Participants discuss the implications of the particle being a moving singularity and its behavior in experiments like the double slit, emphasizing the distinction between the particle and its associated wave.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the interpretation of De-Broglie's theories, particularly concerning the nature of the wave function and its physicality. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus reached on these interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the relationship between the physical wave and the wave function, as well as the implications of singularities in quantum mechanics. There are unresolved questions regarding the interpretation of interference experiments and the nature of reality in the context of De-Broglie's theories.

  • #151
atyy said:
Walchover's article is yet another well-known crackpot article!

You keep doing whatever it takes not to understand the following correct understanding of what occurs physically in nature.

"Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of ψ, arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space"."

A correct understanding of what occurs physically in nature in terms of wave-particle duality put forward by a Nobel laureate in 1954 ignored in order for mainstream physicists not to understand the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
liquidspacetime said:
It's just a matter of time until they will get the math correct. de Broglie had the correct understanding 60 years ago.

"Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of ##\psi##, arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space"."

But until that is done, I think these pop science articles are misleading. The Wolchover article is especially misleading because she considers de Broglie-Bohm theory, which needs no help from these experiments. The experiments can never produce de Broglie-Bohm theory, because for mutiple particles, the wave is in configuration space.
 
  • #153
liquidspacetime said:
You keep doing whatever it takes not to understand the following correct understanding of what occurs physically in nature.

"Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of ψ, arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space"."

A correct understanding of what occurs physically in nature in terms of wave-particle duality put forward by a Nobel laureate in 1954 ignored in order for mainstream physicists not to understand the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit.

No. We already agreed it works for single particles. Show me the formulation for multiple particles. Wolchover's article is rubbish.
 
  • #154
Closed pending moderation.

All: remember the PF rules on acceptable sources. Don't post them, and if you see someone else posting them, don't argue, report the post.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 376 ·
13
Replies
376
Views
24K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
6K
  • · Replies 115 ·
4
Replies
115
Views
15K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K