Examining the Myth of Decoherence & the Measurement Problem

[humanino]

Note that you make an assumption when you say :

Pointing out serious flaws in your reasoning hardly counts as pedantry.

If someone does not care too much about logic, then your argument fails, and you were indeed pedantic for such a person. I should say at this point in the discussion, the idea is almost scientific, since it explains quite a lot.

 

[Coldcall]

Pointing out serious flaws in your reasoning hardly counts as pedantry. You claimed that the evidence contradicted realism. Your claim is obviously false, and you know it: you are aware the evidence is consistent with QM and there exists a realist interpretation observationally equivalent to QM. It's somewhat mystifying how tightly you cling to your original claim; I'm beginning to think¹ you have the most serious defect of a crackpot -- an inability to admit you're wrong, both to others and to yourself.

1: actually, I've thought this for a while, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt

The evidence falsifying Legett's form of realistic qm theories is above. I have asked you a number of times to cite papers refuting by claim re; Legett's falsifid tests. However you fail to cite anything which leads me to the conclusion you are a pedantic bore.

Realism in quantum mechanics has zero credibility from any experimentation ever conducted. In fact every test for realism has failed. And Zeilinger quite rightly has pointed out that the argument for a quantum realism is becoming more difficult to maintain in the light of his and others work.

So all you've got is some mystical belief in variables and quantum realism of which there is no evidence. As Henry Stapp quite rightly tells it: "This deficiency means that Bohm’s theory is, at present, primarily a philosophically interesting curiosity, not a practically useful physical theory".

Any fairies at the bottom of your garden lately?

 

[Coldcall]

Note that you make an assumption when you say :If someone does not care too much about logic, then your argument fails, and you were indeed pedantic for such a person. I should say at this point in the discussion, the idea is almost scientific, since it explains quite a lot.

He is being a pedantic bore because he knows the way Bohmian mechanics was formulated to match the prediction by the more objective intepretations, means its practially unfalsifiable. In science any such theory is frowned upon because it cannot be proven. I am sure Hurkyl and Professor Maaneli would both criticize any other unfalsifiable theories, but when it comes to Bohm's control freakery inteperpretation they demand there is no need for it to be falsifiable.

It would be like me coming on here and saying its a certainty that invisible elastic bands are responsible for gravity. Its laugable, and if either Hurkyl or Prefessor Maaneli are an example of the next generation of scientists then I am afraid we are in for a long haul Dark Age.

 

[Hurkyl]

The evidence falsifying Legett's form of realistic qm theories is above.

I have asked you a number of times to cite papers refuting by claim re; Legett's falsifid tests. However you fail to cite anything which leads me to the conclusion you are a pedantic bore.

Nothing needs to be cited; you have already accepted all of the premises of my argument refuting your claim that the evidence does not contradict realism. You just refuse to put the pieces together! You already realize that the papers you have been citing only apply to a specific class of realist theories, and you have already admitted that BM (a realist theory) cannot be falsified (assuming the correctness of quantum mechanics). But for some mystifying reason, you keep clinging to your claim that realism has been contradicted by the evidence. I don't see how discussion can fruitfully if you refuse to participate in a rational manner.

 

[humanino]

Hurkyl and Professor Maaneli

Why would you add "professor" to Maaneli ? Do you want to emphasize Hurkyl's inferior intellect ?

Understand that this is not a critisism against Maaneli at all, but you don't know Hurkyl, do you ? How do you know Hurkyl is not Maaneli PhD advisor, Nobel prize, Fields medal, violin virtuose, and whatever you consider to be an "mentionable" (argumentum ad verecundiam) ?
Why would you show so little respect to the people in a discussion, where supposedly we all just want to exchange ideas ?

I maintain my opinion that you prove to be intellectually dishonnest. But probably you don't care (cf previous theory, which experiment only support so far).

BTW, Hurkyl is very patient, considering he (as a mentor) has access to argumentum ad baculum.

 

[Coldcall]

Nothing needs to be cited; you have already accepted all of the premises of my argument refuting your claim that the evidence does not contradict realism. You just refuse to put the pieces together! You already realize that the papers you have been citing only apply to a specific class of realist theories, and you have already admitted that BM (a realist theory) cannot be falsified (assuming the correctness of quantum mechanics). But for some mystifying reason, you keep clinging to your claim that realism has been contradicted by the evidence. I don't see how discussion can fruitfully if you refuse to participate in a rational manner.

Its not a dead cert BM cannot be falsified. It would be a severe mistake to think we won't ever improve our knowledge about the genuine state of quantum systems. No doubt you will hope for hell that is really is an unfalsifiable theory, if it can even be called a theory. But that's the telling part is how you feel the very lack of proof one way or the other, re BM, is something to boast about. That takes the biscuit.

Hurrah for the (apparent) unfalsifiablity of BM!

 

[Maaneli]

Yeah for the record I am certainly not a professor, and I don't know why you made that assumption.

 

[jostpuur]

Coldcall, I'll try to explain very carefully and clearly what's wrong with your thinking:

I doubt it and there is an ever increasing amount of evidence which confirms that realism is non-existent at the quantum mechanical level. Get use to it guys. Party is over for Determinism...

Your claim that there is evidence confirming that the deterministic interpretation is wrong, is wrong, because the deterministic interpretation has not been falsified with experiments. This is not a new thing to you. You have already agreed with this. Here:

First of all, let's not forget Bohmian mechanics is an "interpretation", which joins the ranks of many other "interpretations" which all equally predict the same quantum mechanical outcomes.

So while this did not specifically falsify Bohmian mechanics...

See? You agree, that the deterministic interpretation has not been falsified by experiments.

Now, it is your opinion that Bohmian mechanics is not a good idea:

Any fairies at the bottom of your garden lately?

This is a reasonable opinion. You are surely not alone with this opinion, and I don't like or believe in the Bohmian mechanics either. However, do you understand that this opinion is totally disconnected from the claims of deterministic interpretation being falsified by experiments?

The reasonable belief that Bohmian mechanics is not right, does not imply that the deterministic interpretation has been falsified by experiments.

Could it be that you making a conclusion like this: "Because it is reasonable to believe that the Bohmian mechanics is not right, and because there has been some experiments carried out, therefore the deterministic interpretation would have been falsified by experiments."?

Its not a dead cert BM cannot be falsified. It would be a severe mistake to think we won't ever improve our knowledge about the genuine state of quantum systems.

It could be that in future we discover ways of testing Bohmian mechanics, but that does not mean that the deterministic interpretation has already now been falsified by experiments.Do we now agree that there is no experimental evidence supporting the claim that the deterministic interpretation would have been falsified by experiments?

 

[jms5631]

jostpurr,
I was writing a post very similar to your's, but scrapped it. You said it all very well.

I would just like to add that including opinion quotes from Stapp (who I'm very weary of after reading quotes of his claiming quantum decoherence has been disproven) and even Zeilinger does not enforce your claim that realism has been invalidated. I could provide quotes from realist physicists like Deutsch, Valentini, and Smolin, but that does not prove that realism has been proven in the quantum domain. The bottom line is that at this point in scientific study all interpretations are empirically equivalent, and it is disingenuous to say anything to the contrary. You obviously have a problem with determinism, which you have indicated in earlier posts leads you to believe that a belief in determinism would have inimical effects on society. But your approach seems to rest on the precipice of solipsism, which intuitively seems to me to be worse. Many interpretations of QM seem to have philosophical issues that we find disconcerting, but we need to find a way to remove ourselves from these concerns long enough to be objective and fair in our assessment of the situation. Determinism, local(MWI), and non-local realism are still allowed and provide viable theories whose predictions mesh with observation. This is a fact, and you must accept it. Further, I'm of the opinon that until we observe how gravity affects the superposition of macorscopic system then applying QM interpretations to nature seems premature. It could still be that a final unified theory including gravity, is not entirely quantum in nature. A few things to consider.
That being said, I thought you approach as you intitially introduced it was innovative and well-thought out...John Wheeler would be proud, especially since you have indicated you don't have and extensive physics background (forgive me if I'm wrong on that). Just try and moderate your tone somewhat.

 

[Count Iblis]

Yeah for the record I am certainly not a professor, and I don't know why you made that assumption.

Prof. Dr. Maaneli is posting on this board from the year 2025 via backwards causation?

 

[Maaneli]

Prof. Dr. Maaneli is posting on this board from the year 2025 via backwards causation?

Yes that's right. Now I'm going back to the future.

 

[Maaneli]

He is being a pedantic bore because he knows the way Bohmian mechanics was formulated to match the prediction by the more objective intepretations, means its practially unfalsifiable. In science any such theory is frowned upon because it cannot be proven. I am sure Hurkyl and Professor Maaneli would both criticize any other unfalsifiable theories, but when it comes to Bohm's control freakery inteperpretation they demand there is no need for it to be falsifiable.

It would be like me coming on here and saying its a certainty that invisible elastic bands are responsible for gravity. Its laugable, and if either Hurkyl or Prefessor Maaneli are an example of the next generation of scientists then I am afraid we are in for a long haul Dark Age.

<< but when it comes to Bohm's control freakery inteperpretation they demand there is no need for it to be falsifiable. >>


Your deafness is astounding. Many times I have stated in this forum that deBB theory is falsifiable. Others like Humanino can attest to this. Once again you made an unwarranted assumption.

 

[humanino]

Your deafness is astounding. Many times I have stated in this forum that deBB theory is falsifiable. Others like Humanino can attest to this. Once again you made an unwarranted assumption.

I was unaware of this before you pointed it out to me. If I understood correctly, one has to search for non-thermal correlations in the CMB, as Valentini puts it " imprinted by primordial inflaton fluctuations".

A fairly recent paper is
De Broglie-Bohm Prediction of Quantum Violations for Cosmological Super-Hubble Modes

One should also note that Valentini's calculations push dBB model fairly deep, and not all dBB proponents would adhere to these extensions.

 

[Maaneli]

I was unaware of this before you pointed it out to me. If I understood correctly, one has to search for non-thermal correlations in the CMB, as Valentini puts it " imprinted by primordial inflaton fluctuations".

A fairly recent paper is
De Broglie-Bohm Prediction of Quantum Violations for Cosmological Super-Hubble Modes

One should also note that Valentini's calculations push dBB model fairly deep, and not all dBB proponents would adhere to these extensions.

That's right.

Also, sorry if I portrayed you as agreeing exactly with my views. I meant to say that you can attest to the fact that I have stated deBB theory is falsifiable.

I actually had a non-Bohmian quantum gravity theorist, Theodore Jacobson (one of the founders of LQG along with Lee Smolin) have a look at Valentini's reference, and he thought it was an interesting approach and didn't see any basic flaws in the application of deBB to inflationary cosmology, or in the predictions. There may be some other Bohmians who might not adhere to that extension - but I think they are very few and far in between since very few of them are familiar enough with inflationary cosmology to scrutinize that extension of deBB. The only other one's (besides myself) that seem really qualified to do this are Ward Struyve, Hrvoje Nikolic (Demystifyer), Hans Westman, and Roderich Tumulka. If you like, maybe we could ask Demystifyer what he thinks too?

 

[humanino]

didn't see any basic flaws in the application of deBB to inflationary cosmology

Actually my phrasing was confusing. It's not so much the dBB application which could be questionable. As Valentini writes, he uses a specific inflation model which allows non-equilibrium, but the non-observation certainly would not invalidate dBB altogether.

 

[Maaneli]

Actually my phrasing was confusing. It's not so much the dBB application which could be questionable. As Valentini writes, he uses a specific inflation model which allows non-equilibrium, but the non-observation certainly would not invalidate dBB altogether.

That's true. Non-observation would only invalidate a specific, and plausible, nonequilibrium deBB model.

 

[Coldcall]

jostpurr,

"Your claim that there is evidence confirming that the deterministic interpretation is wrong, is wrong, because the deterministic interpretation has not been falsified with experiments. This is not a new thing to you. You have already agreed with this. Here:"

I claimed and stand by that each experimental test so far set up falsify various forms of realistic/determinist theories has succeeded. I never once claimed BM had been falsified.

And i provided cited evidence above for those Dterminist/realism theories of the Legett variety which were indeed falsified. Those tests covered a wider scope of Deterministic theories than the local variable theories which had already been falsified decades ago by John Bell.

But you seem to think that BM represents all similar theories - it does not.

 

[Coldcall]

jms5631,

"and even Zeilinger does not enforce your claim that realism has been invalidated. I could provide quotes from realist physicists like Deutsch, Valentini, and Smolin, but that does not prove that realism has been proven in the quantum domain"

Zeilinger's team and associates did invalidate the Legett variety of realism theories. And he seems pretty keen on coming up with new experments to falsify other realism theories. However the tide is turning against these realism theories because whatever tests have been conducted so far have supported Zeilinger and others who believe (rightly in my opinion) that its time for scientists to get real (no pun intended) about the nature of quantum mechanics. I'd love to see any quotes (other than from Valentini, who is a BM proponent) you can show me from the above mentioned phycists that claim realism in quantum mechanics.

"A few things to consider.
That being said, I thought you approach as you intitially introduced it was innovative and well-thought out...John Wheeler would be proud, especially since you have indicated you don't have and extensive physics background (forgive me if I'm wrong on that). Just try and moderate your tone somewhat."

Clearly I am a fan of Wheeler's ideas; for the simple reason he took the quantum observables at face value and got on with formulating ideas, equations and theories which tried to explain those observables on a universal scale. Thats not to say Wheeler was right but atleast he did not seem to be driven by any philosophical or theological agenda.

You mentioned that Determinsim appears to bother me. Yes you are right. Especially when there is not one shred of evidence to support re-intepretating quantum mechanics as a Deterministic theory. In a way it saddens me because i use to hold scientists in very high regard (as in we can trust them because they are objective etc..) but its a blow to hear supposedly objective fact-finders believing in a theory which makes definite assumptions about the hidden state of a wave function.

 

[Coldcall]

Professor Maaneli, (and that is a term of endearment)

"Your deafness is astounding. Many times I have stated in this forum that deBB theory is falsifiable. Others like Humanino can attest to this. Once again you made an unwarranted assumption."

Great. Well if as you claim Valentini can make it a falsifiable theory then i would be overjoyed, and bring on the tests!

 

[Maaneli]

Professor Maaneli, (and that is a term of endearment)

"Your deafness is astounding. Many times I have stated in this forum that deBB theory is falsifiable. Others like Humanino can attest to this. Once again you made an unwarranted assumption."

Great. Well if as you claim Valentini can make it a falsifiable theory then i would be overjoyed, and bring on the tests!

Great! So hopefully you won't castigate me as an unscientific, religious determinist anymore.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't like or believe in the Bohmian mechanics either.

The funny thing is, neither do I.

 

[humanino]

This clearly indicates an intelligence behind the creation of the universe.

Considering Einstein has never such a statement, it would be best if you refrain from now on to put words into his mouth/hand, especially when it bears relevance to current issues he could not have been aware of, such as the "ID" controversy. Please use some caution considering other people can read your posts and draw their own conclusion. It has been seen before...

 

[Hurkyl]

What I have a problem understanding is why there was ever any need for a Determinst quantum intepretation.

Intellectual achievement is enough. Also, it thoroughly refutes the assertion that quantum mechanics is fundamentally nondeterminstic. Furthermore, nondeterminism is a much trickier philosophical position than determinism, so there are advantages to deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics.

The Bohm interpretation also refutes the assertion that quantum mechanics disproves the old classical-particle and classical-field approach to physics. And amongst all interpretations I know, the connection between its ontological primitives and experimental observation seems to be the most 'obvious', and demands the least explanation.

Someone who actually studies the Bohm interpretation can probably add a lot more than I have added.

I was under the impression that science is about taking observables, or lack of observables, at face value; without having to concoct a theory which in its final result contradicts the apparent indeterminsim of a quantum state. To me it just seems completely counter-intuitive.

As a practical matter, the more ways you have of approaching a subject, the better you will understand the subject. And there's also the question of what parts you take at face value -- the whole interpretation problem with quantum mechanics stems from the fact the collection of things we would like to take at face value are logically inconsistent. Different interpretations arise from giving up different things but keeping others. Bohm, for example, gives up locality as a fundamental notion, but retains the particles we're used to looking at.

Letting the theory guide the interpretation, as you seem to be suggesting, leads directly to the many worlds interpretation (and similar) -- but as I recall, the very reason you started this thread was because you wanted to complain about that...

I don't want to argue anymore, but If you are not a Determinist i would appreciate if you explained what else is it about BM that makes you think its correct?

I know you're not talking to be, but I will assume you would have asked me a similar question -- my response would be "where did you get the idea that I think it's correct?" I, personally, think the question of "correctness" of an interpretation is an effectively meaningless question. However, interpretations are important for understanding the theory -- and equally important to expose the mental blocks and personal biases that people have that impair their ability to understand the theory.

 

[Coldcall]

Hurkyl,

"Intellectual achievement is enough. Also, it thoroughly refutes the assertion that quantum mechanics is fundamentally nondeterminstic. Furthermore, nondeterminism is a much trickier philosophical position than determinism, so there are advantages to deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics."

What's so intellectual about claiming Determinism? The way I see it; the whole Determinist angst appears to require that our universe is 100% predictable. I don't agree that there is any nuance in the various degrees of Determinism vs Indeterminism. If there is one iota of indeterminsim the whole system as a whole becomes non-deterministic. Yes, certain sub systems in isolation can remain deterministic but the non-deterministic whole remains non-deterministic.

"Bohm, for example, gives up locality as a fundamental notion, but retains the particles we're used to looking at."

Yes but if I'm not mistaken Bohmian mechanics changed from insisting on maintianing locality to a non-local theory only after Bell's tests falsified locality. Is this not a case of re-interpetating a falsified local theory into one which is compatible with empirical evidence?

The part you mention about retaining particles is where i have the most difficulty because i don't know of any other theories in any scientific specialism which proposes that we accept defined values or properties, without having objectively observed it to be a truth; or provided any empirical evidence to support such unseen axioms. We are being asked to "believe" something through faith, much like religions depend on faith.

"Letting the theory guide the interpretation, as you seem to be suggesting, leads directly to the many worlds interpretation (and similar) -- but as I recall, the very reason you started this thread was because you wanted to complain about that..."

I don't think quantum theory naturally leads to a many-worlds intepretation; however it does make a bit more sense than BM. Still if I had to choose between BM and MWI; I'd regrettably settle for MWI. Though you've not given me much of a choice

"I know you're not talking to be, but I will assume you would have asked me a similar question -- my response would be "where did you get the idea that I think it's correct?" I, personally, think the question of "correctness" of an interpretation is an effectively meaningless question. However, interpretations are important for understanding the theory -- and equally important to expose the mental blocks and personal biases that people have that impair their ability to understand the theory."

Can all the interpretations be correct/genuine? If that was the case then it would make quantum mechanics even weirder; and even more of a non-realistic theory because that would suggest it becomes whatever we want it to in our minds. I'm all for non-realism at the quantum level but hey even i would not go that far.

The amazing plurality of QM intepretations does allow a very healthy debate but I would argue that it is people's biases, ideologies or philosophical considerations at the heart of the various theories. I think the objective scientific aspect of Quantum mechanics lay only in the observables or non-observables of the basic tenets of QM.

But what is amazing about this impasse regarding inepretation of quantum mechanics is how this controversy has been raging since the Copenhagen intepretation was founded almost a century ago. We appear to be no closer to an intepretation everyone can agree on.

 

[Hurkyl]

What's so intellectual about claiming Determinism?

Once upon a time, we thought that QM (if complete) required nondeterminism. Now we know better. Thus, intellectual achievement.

The way I see it; the whole Determinist angst

I shall refer you to the millenia of discourse on determinism versus nondeterminism.

Yes but if I'm not mistaken Bohmian mechanics changed from insisting on maintianing locality to a non-local theory only after Bell's tests falsified locality. Is this not a case of re-interpetating a falsified local theory into one which is compatible with empirical evidence?

I'm not knowledgeable about the history of Bohmian mechanics, but it wouldn't surprise me -- revising theories upon gathering new data is one of the most basic processes in science. But it sounds like you're implying that's a bad thing?

The part you mention about retaining particles is where i have the most difficulty because i don't know of any other theories in any scientific specialism which proposes that we accept defined values or properties, without having objectively observed it to be a truth; or provided any empirical evidence to support such unseen axioms. We are being asked to "believe" something through faith, much like religions depend on faith.

How does one observe a truth? (And you seem to want to have us "believe" that the Bohm intertation is wrong -- wouldn't that require just as much faith? )

Anyways, I would like to remind you that I do not care for discussions about the "true" nature of "reality" -- in my experience, they simply serve as an excuse for people to take their preconceived biases about how they think the universe ought to work and try to shove it down others' throats.

I should also like to remind you that you are responding to a paragraph talking about the benefits of understanding a subject from many viewpoints; there is no "belief" involved.

I don't think quantum theory naturally leads to a many-worlds intepretation;

Well, as I've said before, MWI is the only interpretation I know which deals with the unitary evolution of the wavefunction and nothing else. Every other interpretation (that I know) requires some sort of addition or change to the formalism of quantum mechanics. Sure, there is room for new analytical methods, or different choices of terminology, but as long as you're simply studying unitary evolution of quantum states, you're using the MWI.

Can all the interpretations be correct/genuine?

I'm not sure what "genuine" would mean here, and I don't think "correct" is a meaningful adjective in this context.

I think the objective scientific aspect of Quantum mechanics lay only in the observables or non-observables of the basic tenets of QM.

An interesting thing is that the role of "observables" isn't quite as obvious as they seem at first glance once you start 'internalizing' experiments into the formalism of QM.

We appear to be no closer to an intepretation everyone can agree on.

This is generally a good thing. In other mathematical subjects, progress often comes by reinterpreting problems in different ways, so as to make use of the vast amounts of mathematical machinery available in various mathematical subjects.

 

[Maaneli]

Coldcall,

Yes but if I'm not mistaken Bohmian mechanics changed from insisting on maintianing locality to a non-local theory only after Bell's tests falsified locality. Is this not a case of re-interpetating a falsified local theory into one which is compatible with empirical evidence?

Quickly, you are mistaken. The pilot wave theory of de Broglie and Bohm was always a nonlocal theory. Bohm never ever insisted on keeping locality. In fact it was the nonlocality in deBB theory that motivated Bell to think up his theorem in the first place!

 

[Coldcall]

Hurkyl,

"Once upon a time, we thought that QM (if complete) required nondeterminism. Now we know better. Thus, intellectual achievement"

All we know is its possible to concoct an imaginary determinism into the observables. Is that really such a grand achievement?

"Anyways, I would like to remind you that I do not care for discussions about the "true" nature of "reality" -- in my experience, they simply serve as an excuse for people to take their preconceived biases about how they think the universe ought to work and try to shove it down others' throats."

Yes i agree, though i consider BM to be very much in that category regarding pre-conceived biases. For instance CI, is pretty non-descript in delving into the philosophical side of things. It's microscopic/classical measurement boundary leaves it at that, and gets on with the science as observed, it does not include extra parameters of unobserved/imagined certainty.

 

[Hurkyl]

All we know is its possible to concoct an imaginary determinism into the observables. Is that really such a grand achievement?

I'm pretty sure the discovery of a deterministic interpretation of QM was a grand achievement. I could see how you might think otherwise, since it threatens the a priori decision you have apparently made about how the universe behaves.

 

[Maaneli]

Hurkyl,

"Once upon a time, we thought that QM (if complete) required nondeterminism. Now we know better. Thus, intellectual achievement"

All we know is its possible to concoct an imaginary determinism into the observables. Is that really such a grand achievement?

"Anyways, I would like to remind you that I do not care for discussions about the "true" nature of "reality" -- in my experience, they simply serve as an excuse for people to take their preconceived biases about how they think the universe ought to work and try to shove it down others' throats."

Yes i agree, though i consider BM to be very much in that category regarding pre-conceived biases. For instance CI, is pretty non-descript in delving into the philosophical side of things. It's microscopic/classical measurement boundary leaves it at that, and gets on with the science as observed, it does not include extra parameters of unobserved/imagined certainty.

You still don't seem to get that even in CI, the Schroedinger evolution is deterministic. So determinism is an indispensable part of any unitary wavefunction formulation of QM.

 

[Maaneli]

Coldcall,


My dear Professor Maaneli,

I never labelled you as religious per se. However i did label you as a Determinist, and I noted the "religious" or "evangelical" fervour of Bohmians in general. However i would not claim to know what goes on in peoples minds when it comes to spirituality etc..


You did call me a religious Bohmian and determinist. And why would you even call me a determinist when I repeatedly mentioned my interest and support of stochastic deBB theories, and the stochastic GRW collapse theories?


What I have a problem understanding is why there was ever any need for a Determinst quantum intepretation. I was under the impression that science is about taking observables, or lack of observables, at face value; without having to concoct a theory which in its final result contradicts the apparent indeterminsim of a quantum state. To me it just seems completely counter-intuitive.


No, the purpose of science (or even physics in particular) was never a priori to just take observables at "face value". That was a belief imposed by the CI interpretation of Heisenberg and Born with the advent of standard QM. Before that, with classical mechanics, electrodynamics, fluid mechanics, and statistical mechanics, it was always the goal of physics to understand how those observables evolve dynamically in spacetime before we humans interact with them in an experiment.

In the case of deBB theory, it just happens to solve the measurement problems in a mathematically very simple way (arguably the simplest of all QM formulations), and it turns out that the simplest deBB solution to the measurement problems is a deterministic one. You do know what the measurement problems are don't you? I recall I pointed you early on exactly to the references which clearly discuss how deBB theory solves the measurement problems. It also turns out that the deterministic deBB approach to QM also does the best job so far of all the formulations of QM in accounting for quantum chaos, and all manifestations of the quantum-classical limit. It also provides considerable practical computational advantages in a number of different nonrelativistic and relativistic QM phenomena.


If so, it seems a whole set of intepretations have been created with the sole purpose of re-intepreting the non-detrminstic results of quantum measurements, in order to placate a philosophical or theological preference.


As Hurkly has alread explained, a deterministic view of QM is certainly much more conceptually palatable to human intuition than an instrinsically probabilistic one. And as long as it is logically possible and plausible, it is not unreasonable to look for deterministic ones and then compare them to an intrinsically probabilistic one, and see what the merits and demerits are of each.


I don't want to argue anymore, but If you are not a Determinist i would appreciate if you explained what else is it about BM that makes you think its correct?


Hopefully what I've said above is enough for you to understand, even if you still happen to disagree.

 

[Maaneli]

You gave up Coldcall?

 

[Evo]

To all members, please use the QUOTE function, either hit the quote button in the bottom right hand corner to make your response or use the QUOTE tags around the text that is being quoted. Do not use BOLD font in place of a quote.

Thank you.