I Did de Broglie contribute later to pilot wave theory?

Minnesota Joe
Gold Member
Messages
130
Reaction score
52
TL;DR Summary
Did de Broglie make any contributions after taking up pilot wave theory again?
If I recall correctly it was in Adam Becker's book "What is Real?" where I read that late in life de Broglie took up again the pilot wave theory that he had introduced at Solvay in 1927 and that Bohm had done so much work on in the interim.

Did de Broglie make any contributions to pilot wave theory late in life? I have in mind published papers or influential articles.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Googling a little I found an interesting 1967 interview where de Broglie talks about returning to a causal picture: "As of today, my thoughts lead me to affirm that it would be quite advantageous to go back to much precise pictures because I think that science is always about creating causality links between phenomena and I think that this research of causality will always be extremely productive for science."

 
  • Like
Likes Quanundrum
  • Like
Likes Minnesota Joe and Demystifier
Fortunately there are several textbooks he wrote in French that have been translated to English. One is a general textbook that isn't oriented towards specialists. Others that I know about and have copies are:

Nonlinear Wave Mechanics - Elsevier - 1960 - 304 pages
Introduction to the Vigier Theory of Elementary Particles - Elsevier - 1963 - 138 pages
The Current Interpretation of Wave Mechanics: A Critical Study - Elsevier - 1964 - 94 pages

Of critical relevance to much in QM, in 1934 de Broglie demonstrated that the Dirac Equation exhibits a "shocking failure of symmetry" when applied to the hydrogen atom. He attempted to resolve the situation but could not find a way to do so. (L'electron magnetique, Hermann, Paris, 1934, page 138)
 
  • Like
Likes Minnesota Joe
P.S. This paper by Claude Daviau and Jacques Bertrand shows how influential de Broglie continued to be and how his discoveries continue to be developed in ways that bring rather important principles into the foreground.

https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2015112314063920.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes Minnesota Joe
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top