Forces (Fields) of Nature and Quantum Foundations

[Secan]

Is it possible for new forces or fields of nature to be connected to quantum foundations?

For example, new forces or fields that choose the decoherent histories or branches. Or generally actualize one of the decoherence branches?

Or should new forces or fields of nature be reserved for dynamics in atomic scale, like weak or strong forces or should be gauged fields.

So non gauged forces that *may* affect the quantum decohering dynamics (like the BM quantum potential) shouldn't be called fundamental forces (or fields) of nature?

 

[PeterDonis]

Is it possible for new forces or fields of nature to be connected to quantum foundations?

What "new forces or fields of nature" are you talking about?

(like the BM quantum potential)

The BM quantum potential is not a "new force or field". It's just what you get when you rewrite the standard Schrödinger Equation in a different way.

 

[Secan]

What "new forces or fields of nature" are you talking about?
The BM quantum potential is not a "new force or field". It's just what you get when you rewrite the standard Schrödinger Equation in a different way.

But if an experiment in future could distinguish a particular interpretation, let's say the BM quantum potential really exists and all quantum theory will be based on it plus explaining new future experiments (that other interpretations couldnt). Then one can consider the proven quantum potential as a force of nature? Or does a force or field of nature is related only to gauge symmetry?

 

[PeterDonis]

if an experiment in future could distinguish a particular interpretation

It can't, since all interpretations of QM make the same predictions for all experimental results.

If you have something that makes different predictions, it's not an interpretation of QM, it's a different theory. Some people have proposed different theories that are inspired by the Bohmian interpretation, but those theories are not the same as the Bohmian interpretation itself.

 

[Secan]

It can't, since all interpretations of QM make the same predictions for all experimental results.

If you have something that makes different predictions, it's not an interpretation of QM, it's a different theory. Some people have proposed different theories that are inspired by the Bohmian interpretation, but those theories are not the same as the Bohmian interpretation itself.

Can anyone give a list of those different theories or give summary of each. Can it also predict all existing quantum experiments? The caveit is it just has more extra predictions, perhaps that can't be tested (or can)?

 

[PeterDonis]

Can anyone give a list of those different theories or give summary of each.

That's way beyond the scope of a single PF thread. You could search these forums to see if any such theories have been discussed, or you could spend time working your way through the physics literature.

Can it also predict all existing quantum experiments? The caveit is it just has more extra predictions, perhaps that can't be tested (or can)?

This will depend on the theory.