Examining the Myth of Decoherence & the Measurement Problem

[Coldcall]

Professor Maaneli

"I doubt that. And even if you did, then you really have no excuse for insisting that time does not exist in QM. I agree the time parameter in QM is classical, but that doesn't mean time doesn't exist in QM or that I'm putting classical physics in QM (it is just a basic fact about Schroedinger wave mechanics). That was my point which in your hotheadedness seem to have overlooked."

Re: Schrodinger equation. It's a fact i mentioned it first. Look back through the thread and you can confirm it for yourself. I made it clear over and over again in regards to the classical nature of using time in relation to quantum mechanics. You ignored it and kept insisting otherwise.

"First you say you don't believe time exists in QM, now you're saying we don't know if time exist in QM. Which is you believe. Look, we have evidence that something like time exists in QM by the mere fact that there is a t-parameter in the Schroedinger evolution for subsystems."

Perhaps english is not your first language because you seem to have difficulties distinguising nuance. I know for a fact we don't know the answer to the question about whether time exists at a quantum fundamental level. However i speculated that the "spooky action at a distance" may indicate that the quantum is timeless/instaneous. There is a big difference in the two perfectly logical statements.

On the other hand you were just arguing that its a certainty that time exists at the quantum level, and then you claimed Schrodinger's heuristic equation proved it. And now above you have agreed that it is indeed a classcial construct - finally.

"Tsk, tsk. Let me ask you a question Einstein. If time doesn't exist, then what is the meaning of instantaneous? And I guess by your logic, the fact that there exists instantaneous velocity in CM means that time does not exist in CM either."

Thats a good question. What is the meaning of instantaneous? It means right now with no passing of time. So it may follow that any fundamental law which can act on universe-wide scale instantaneously (as in entanglement) does not experience "time" as we know it. Another thing i cannot understand about your stance on this is that this idea about "time" is still considered an open mystery not only in reference to fundamental quantum mechanics, but also in the macroscopic universe. The way you have been behaving one would think we wrapped up the nature of time years ago.

"You should also know that the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is controversial in QG research. Meaning that not everyone thinks it is a valid equation to describe QG."

That equation, no matter how useful it will be for a final theory or not, started off quantum cosmology and led to quantum gravity research. But the fact is one of the most interesting aspects is the way it handles the question of "time" in a universal wave function. But I'm surprised that you being a Physics professor and all would denigrate research or equations by Wheeler or Zeilinger for instance. Dont you think your Determinist bias hampers your work in physics? Its a serious question

"Well, whatever, in the end nothing you think matters because I am a physicist, you're not, and in fact you don't even have a HS or college degree and never will. So cheerio"

That is the scariest part of this whole conversation! You've allowed your ideological, philosophical, or perhaps theological inclinations, get the better of your scientific principles of objectvity. You're 100% right; I'm not a scientist - i am a businessman and luckily can indulge my interests (or even biases) in these subjects without harming any principles relevant to my profession.

However you fail on that test because this is actually your profession. If i was a peer of yours in the scientitifc community and had I read this thread, i would be highly distrustful of any research you conducted or papers published on this subject.

 

[Coldcall]

Hurkyl,

"Just to make sure it's crystal clear -- you have retracted your claim that evidence contradicts realism, correct?"

I have not retracted anything. Legett's tests for non-local realism have been falsified! I clearly spelt the current situation out to you in my last post. Like i said, Bohmian mechanics is probably unfalsifiable so it has zero credibility anyway. Its like me asking you to prove that invisible elastic bands are not responsible for gravity, or that fairies don't live at the bottom of my garden.

"Anyways, are you arguing for solipsism? "

No I'm not arguing for anything, other than what i argued about with Professor Maaneli. In fact i get the feeling I'm more objective than either of you because I'm willing to accept the basic tenets of Quantum mechanics including the HUP, without promoting some incredible mythical tale about how there are defined values in the wave function but nature is hiding them from us. It would be laughable if it had not been dreamt up by a scientist.

"Eh? Interpretation is a part of science, both in the practice and the pedagogy, since it is a prerequisite to applying math & logic to the study of reality"

The difference with Bohmian mechanics is it's a counter-intepretation of the observables. It asks us to *believe* (as this appears unfalsifibale) that HUP is not fundamental, and there is some last instance Deterministic failsafe - to save all the control freaks in the world

Its not science. It's philosophy or theology. There is a clear Deterministic principle at the heart of Bohmian mechanics. It cannot be got away from.

 

[jostpuur]

Like i said, Bohmian mechanics is probably unfalsifiable so it has zero credibility anyway.

Non-Bohmian interpretation is unfalsifiable too. It would be equally logical to claim that the claim "Bohmian mechanics is wrong" is not science, because it cannot be tested.

The difference with Bohmian mechanics is it's a counter-intepretation of the observables. It asks us to *believe* (as this appears unfalsifibale) that HUP is not fundamental

Wrong, now the fact that you have learned you QM from non-mathematical sources is turning against you. The HUP deals with the shapes of the wave functions. The Bohmian mechanics still has wave functions, and surely they obey the HUP just like in non-Bohmian interpretations.

EDIT: I just noticed that I'm not liking my own post here. The feel of misunderstandings is so great... *sigh*

 

[Count Iblis]

Measurement problem

Hugh Everett's relative state interpretation, also referred to as the many-worlds interpretation, attempts to avoid the problem by suggesting it is an illusion. Under this system there is only one wavefunction, the superposition of the entire universe, and it never collapses -- so there is no measurement problem. Instead the act of measurement is actually an interaction between two quantum entities, which entangle to form a single larger entity, for instance living cat/happy scientist. Everett also attempted to demonstrate the way that in measurements the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics would appear; work later extended by Bryce DeWitt and others and renamed the many-worlds interpretation. Everett/DeWitt's interpretation posits a single universal wavefunction, but with the added proviso that "reality" from the point of view of any single observer, "you", is defined as a single path in time through the superpositions. That is, "you" have a history that is made of the outcomes of measurements you made in the past, but there are many other "yous" with slight variations in history. Under this system our reality is one of many similar ones.

So, there isn't a problem to be solved here in the first place.

 

[jms5631]

Coldcall,
Your claim that realism has been refuted is both extreme and unfounded. Even if you take Leggett's inequality as unquestionably true (and there has been debate on this issue in the physics community) then I still fail to see how the elimination of a class of non-local realistic theories dooms realism by itself. In what way is this accomplished? There are still a range of non-local realistic theories (i.e. Bohm) local realistic (MWI) objective collapse (GRW, Penrose's gravitational collapse of the state vector) and decoherence based approaches (quantum darwinsim) that preserve "realism" in some fashion. Certainly there have been some physicists like Wigner and Wheeler who think as you do, but your ideas are far from having any kind of majority acceptance. I'm interested in learning how your idea of conciousness inducing collapse is any less "philosophical" or "theological" then Bohmian mechanics or any other interpretation for that matter, because last time I checked they were all empirically equivalent.

 

[Hurkyl]

Hurkyl,

"Just to make sure it's crystal clear -- you have retracted your claim that evidence contradicts realism, correct?"

I have not retracted anything.

Then I reject your attempt to change the subject. Either make the retraction, or give evidence supporting your claim that the evidence contradicts realism.

 

[Coldcall]

Non-Bohmian interpretation is unfalsifiable too. It would be equally logical to claim that the claim "Bohmian mechanics is wrong" is not science, because it cannot be tested.



Wrong, now the fact that you have learned you QM from non-mathematical sources is turning against you. The HUP deals with the shapes of the wave functions. The Bohmian mechanics still has wave functions, and surely they obey the HUP just like in non-Bohmian interpretations.

EDIT: I just noticed that I'm not liking my own post here. The feel of misunderstandings is so great... *sigh*

You've missed the point entirely. Bohmian mechanics ignores the final indeterminacy of the HUP by claiming hidden variables.

And the ridiculous claims that Bohmian mechanics is not a deterministic theory are widely refuted by most scientists. For example Henry Stapp on Bohm:

"This second approach was developed by David Bohm (1952, 1993). His formulation of quantum theory postulates, in effect, the existence of the old-fashioned world of classical physical theory. This classical-type world is supposed to exist in addition to the wave function of quantum theory and, like that wave function, it evolves in a way completely determined by what precedes it in time. This theory reinstates determinism in a way compatible with the predictions of quantum theory, but at the expense of abandoning locality: Bohm’s theory entails strong, long-range, instantaneous action-at-a-distance.

One serious failing of Bohm’s approach is that it was originally formulated in a non-relativistic context, and it has – after half a century and great effort – not been extended to cover the most important domain in physics, namely the realm of quantum electrodynamics, which is the theory that covers the atoms that make up our bodies and brains, along with the tables, chairs, automobiles, and computers that populate our daily lives. This deficiency means that Bohm’s theory is, at present, primarily a philosophically interesting curiosity, not a practically useful physical theory."

Wake people and stop brainwashing yourselves!

 

[Coldcall]

Coldcall,
Your claim that realism has been refuted is both extreme and unfounded. Even if you take Leggett's inequality as unquestionably true (and there has been debate on this issue in the physics community) then I still fail to see how the elimination of a class of non-local realistic theories dooms realism by itself. In what way is this accomplished? There are still a range of non-local realistic theories (i.e. Bohm) local realistic (MWI) objective collapse (GRW, Penrose's gravitational collapse of the state vector) and decoherence based approaches (quantum darwinsim) that preserve "realism" in some fashion. Certainly there have been some physicists like Wigner and Wheeler who think as you do, but your ideas are far from having any kind of majority acceptance. I'm interested in learning how your idea of conciousness inducing collapse is any less "philosophical" or "theological" then Bohmian mechanics or any other interpretation for that matter, because last time I checked they were all empirically equivalent.

I've been very clear about the types of (Legett) non-local realism theories which have been falsified. The papers are above so there is the evidence to demonstrate the falsification of those specific non-local realism theories. You want to dispute those findings then I suggest you find me some papers doing so. I've looked high and low and found almost nil research to refute the falsifications of Legetts tests.

But I don't claim either CCC or any other intepretation is a certainty. Yes I have my preferences which of course are based on a philosophical bias but none of them are counter-interpretational in the sense of turning the observed indeterminacy of quantum observables into a Determinist and classical re-interpretation.

On the other hand what I find amusing about Bohmians is how sure they are that it is a legit intepretation, and then when pushed deny the control-freak Determinsim at its heart.

 

[Coldcall]

Then I reject your attempt to change the subject. Either make the retraction, or give evidence supporting your claim that the evidence contradicts realism.

You are being a pedantic bore. The evidence for the falsification of first Bell's tests, and the more recent Legett tests are cited above. I'll retract when hell freezes over

 

[Hurkyl]

You are being a pedantic bore. The evidence for the falsification of first Bell's tests, and the more recent Legett tests are cited above. I'll retract when [edited for content] freezes over

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

 

[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.