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

  • Thread starter Thread starter bhobba
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interpretation
Click For Summary
De Broglie's interpretation, particularly his Double Solution theory, posits that particles are guided by a physical wave, which differs from the wavefunction that exists in a fictitious configuration space. The discussion clarifies that while both De Broglie's theory and Bohmian mechanics (DBB) involve waves associated with particles, De Broglie views the wavefunction as a non-physical construct used for probabilistic predictions. There is contention regarding the concept of singularity in De Broglie's theory, where it is described as a moving singularity that occupies a small region of the guiding wave. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the distinctions between these interpretations and their implications for understanding quantum mechanics.
  • #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 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 376 ·
13
Replies
376
Views
22K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
6K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K