How do deterministic Bohmian/Pilot Wave Theories Handle These?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DrChinese
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theories Wave
Click For Summary
Bohmian Mechanics (BM) is discussed in relation to its deterministic nature and how it addresses quantum fluctuations and particle decay. The theory does not currently have a comprehensive framework for virtual particles, as they are often considered artifacts of mathematical methods rather than physical entities. In terms of particle decay, particularly for unbound neutrons, some interpretations of BM suggest that such processes could be predetermined, although a satisfying Bohmian interpretation of quantum field theory is still under development. The discussion highlights the complexity of integrating BM with established quantum theories and the ongoing debate about its validity and applicability. Ultimately, the conversation reflects a desire for deeper understanding of BM's implications in quantum physics.
  • #61


Dmitry67 said:
I have a cosmological question to the BM supporters.

What is price per barrel next year?
I mean, it is definitely pre-coded at the time of the Big bang, right :) ? Laplace determinism is valid for any deterministic single=history theory...
Why would determinism not apply even more so to MWI? Of course, it doesn't answer what happens in this world, but that's a fundamental issue with MWI, isn't it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62


DrChinese said:
But to consider your apple example: We see a series like: Results= .8(apple) + .001(apple+pear-2 grapes) + .04(apple+grape-grape) + .01(apple+pear-pear+orange-orange)... and somehow end up with a good answer. Obviously, the success of the path integral approach was that these expansions made mathematical sense. But they once again led to confusion about the underlying meaning. So I believe you are urging us not to consider that as evidence that there are oranges, grapes and pears jumping in and out of existence, and consider that we always* start with 1 apple and end up with 1 apple. It seems to me that those "extra" terms must map to "something non-local" in BM if it is going to explain the terms in the expansion.
Like Feynman diagrams, path integrals are also nothing but a mathematical trick. Path integrals are nothing but a method of calculating the Green function. As you might know, Green functions are a useful mathematical device in solving ANY linear differential equations, including those that appear in classical physics. Thus, you can use the path integral method to solve the CLASSICAL harmonic oscillator or a CLASSICAL wave equation describing water waves.

What is relevant is the wave function. Even for BM this is all what is needed from standard QM. The way you have calculated the wave function (Feynman diagrams, path integrals, theory of special functions, Runge-Kuta method of numerical integration, ...) is completely irrelevant; there is no physics in it.
 
  • #63


Doc Al said:
Why would determinism not apply even more so to MWI? Of course, it doesn't answer what happens in this world, but that's a fundamental issue with MWI, isn't it?

Because it is not single history. In MWI has a unique symmetrical symmetry-breaking mechanism. I find it very beautiful.

So, look around. There is Sun, Earth and a void around. It is a symmetry breaking. Matter condensed HERE but not THERE. Why?

In deterministic theory you can not begin from a space with the same density and end with stars and galaxies! because if deterministic theory if 2 regions in space are in the same conditions then their evolution MUST be identical. If ALL regions are in the same state then ALL regions will continue to be in the same state.

In deterministic universe with simple initial conditions no there is no graitational instability: everyhting is in ABSOLUTE equlibrum - forever.

Deterministic theory can not, in princliple, break any symmetry, unless it is pre-coded in the initial conditions.

Now about MWI. Let's say we have 2 regions A and B, with the same density 0.5. So evolution is deterministic, so if we have sometimes after A=0.4, B=0.6 in one branch then we MUST have an opposite A=0.6, B=0.4 in another one.

Do you see how beautiful is it? Symmery is broken in every branch, but the whole universe remains symmetric and deterministic!
 
  • #64


Count Iblis said:
What do the people opposed to MWI make of the thought experiment by David Deutsch in which you do a measurement and then forget the result of the measurement but not that the measurement was carried out, in such a way that the original wavefunction of the object is restored?
From the Bohmian point of view, MWI is in fact correct (in the sense that the wave function does not collapse, making it consistent with the thought experiment above), but is not complete.
 
  • #65


dx said:
Could you give a more detailed description? I'm not familiar with the argument.

The argument appeals to artificial intelligence that can be implemented by a quantum computer. So, the first part of the argument is that however the brain works, it is ultimtely formally describable using a finite number of bits. Therefore it can be implemented by a computer and thus also by a quantum computer.

The different branches of the observer correspond to the different projections of the quantum computer in the |0>, |1> basis of the qubits. Suppose that this observer measures the state of a qubit in the |0>, |1> basis. Let's call this qubit a "spin" to avoid confusion with the qubits that are part of the observer.

Then what we can achieve is the following.

1) We start with the spin in state |0>, then we rotate it to
1/sqrt(2) [|0> + |1>]


2) The observer then does a measurement in the |0>, |1> basis, which causes a qubit (that was initiallized to |0>) of his memory to be entangled with the state of the spin. This is performed using the controlled NOT gate. Also another qubit of his memory that was initialized to |0> is flipped to |1>. That qubit detects that a measurement has taken place (but not the result of the measurement).


3) The observer then applies the controlled NOT gate again, reversing the measurement. Then he flips another qubit that was initialized to |0> to |1>, which records the fact that the memory qubit that registered the spin has been erased.


4) At this stage the spin is back in the state 1/sqrt(2) [|0> + |1>]. The observer can verify this by applying the inverse rotation that he appied to the spin at the start, rotating it back to the state |0>. A measurement of the spin by the observer (or some other observer) will yield zero with 100% probability.


Now, the fact that the observer knows that he measured the spin in the |0>, |1> basis when it was rotated to 1/sqrt(2) [|0> + |1>] means that in the CI interpretation, the spin's state should have collapsed to either |0> or |1>. Only one of the branches really exists. Then, applying the inverse rotation won't bring the spin back to the state |0>, instead it will be a mixed state of

1/sqrt(2) [|0> + |1>]

and

1/sqrt(2) [|0> - |1>]

Measuring the spin again in the |0>, |1> basis must thus yield a 50% probability of finding it to be |0>.
 
  • #66


dx said:
Could you give a more detailed description? I'm not familiar with the argument. I don't see how us forgetting things can have any effect on the wavefunction.

I'm also interesting in hearing the detailed argument and the supposed problem. Since I'm not into MWI or Deutch I never read anything from him.

Edit: I just noticed that we got a response while I was typing. thanks.

About forgetting information in general though, in my view, this happens all the time for an evolving observer in the form of dissipation of actual history. If all history was retained, the mass of the observer would have to increase. This can happen, as well as that it can loose mass, but for a constant mass observer the evolving observer constantly processes information, remodels it's retains history and dissipates excess. I picture this as a form of radiation that is random (contains no informatin) _from the point of view of the observer_ but which generally does contain information relative to the environment.

/Fredrik
 
  • #67


Demystifier said:
What is relevant is the wave function. Even for BM this is all what is needed from standard QM. The way you have calculated the wave function (Feynman diagrams, path integrals, theory of special functions, Runge-Kuta method of numerical integration, ...) is completely irrelevant; there is no physics in it.

I wouldn't say there is no physics in it. Excerpted from Wikipedia:

* The Casimir effect, where the ground state of the quantized electromagnetic field causes attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates.

* The van der Waals force, which is partly due to the Casimir effect between two atoms.

* The so-called near field of radio antennas, where the magnetic effects of the current in the antenna wire and the charge effects of the wire's capacitive charge are detectable, but both of which effects disappear with increasing distance from the antenna much more quickly than do the influence of conventional electromagnetic waves, for which E is always equal to cB, and which are composed of real photons.

* The spontaneous emission of a photon during the decay of an excited atom or excited nucleus; such a decay is prohibited by ordinary quantum mechanics and requires the quantization of the electromagnetic field for its explanation.

* Lamb shift of positions of atomic levels.

* The Coulomb force between electric charges. It is caused by exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space this exchange results in inverse square law for force.

* The strong nuclear force between quarks - it is the result of interaction of virtual gluons. The residual of this force outside of quark triplets (neutron and proton) holds neutrons and protons together in nuclei, and is due to virtual mesons such as the pi meson and rho meson.

I realize you are saying that these effects are essentially an artifact of the math, but you have to admit that they are not the first things you would guess would come from something that is just a mathematical device. I mean, the virtual particle analogy seems pretty apt given the above. I admit that doesn't prove anything, just pointing out that the popularity of the viewpoint that virtual particles exist might be tied to the phenomena they help to explain.

And always, these "mathematically virtual particles" appear randomly without apparent cause. So that seems to go against the tenor of BM-type theories. If the psi^2 quantum equilibrium hypothesis for initial positions leads to the uncertainty in BM, which would otherwise be determinate, then I would expect another hypothesis to appear to explain additional random behavior of the field.

I don't think it all flows from that single hypothesis; but I could easily be wrong as I am not sufficiently versed in the matter. But maybe you can help on that. Or maybe that is what you have already said and I am too dense to follow. :)
 
Last edited:
  • #68


DrChinese said:
And always, these "mathematically virtual particles" appear randomly without apparent cause.
This statement does not make any sense to me. Can you write down any equation that determines PROBABILITIES for the random appearance of these objects? I don't think so. Without a probability, it does not make sense to talk about their randomness.

Some physicists like to talk about virtual particles as if they really existed because they want to have some intuition about quantum processes, and yet do not want to cope with interpretations of QM seriously. But in my opinion, this is the worst thing to do. One should either strictly stick to the "shut up and calculate" approach, or think in terms of some of the logically consistent interpretations, such as Copenhagen, Bohm, many world, etc. Virtual particles do not play any serious role in any of these logically consistent interpretations.
 
  • #69


Demystifier, again, it depends on how you define what is a reality.
Tell me, is a real (non virtual) photon real?
You say, it is real? But do you know that photon is just a mixture of Z0 and anti-Z0?
So what is real, photon, Zo or anti-ZO? :)
 
  • #71
Dmitry67 said:
But do you know that photon is just a mixture of Z0 and anti-Z0?

Reference, please? I wasn't aware that there is such a thing as an anti-Z0.

A Google search quickly turned up a few pages from http://books.google.com/books?id=7toILlSQtI0C&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=z0+antiparticle&source=bl&ots=Lyksel-f45&sig=oiWWk2IJgEIGzvcjhp-zIgiFSZg&hl=en&ei=g7_dScWDBIXsyQWo_szRDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#PPA121,M1 which includes the statement that "The Z0, photon and Higgs particle are each their own antiparticle..."
 
  • #72


Nore sure I got the point here.
Count Iblis said:
The argument appeals to artificial intelligence that can be implemented by...
Since I didn't ever think of this before, and the way I think of information in physics is different than the usual backgroun dependent information theory, I am not sure if I got the picture in clear here.

It's mentioned about "we rotate" and "the observer". How many views are in this picture? Does "we" refer to the observer, or to and external observer? From my perspecive, that is extremely important. If we have a memory device for example, who is describing it?

It seems the general idea is that

1. We have an observer, that prior to an interaction, has a certain expectation of the result of the measurement.
2. Then interaction takes place.
3. The observers expectation is updated.

so far so good

4. Now there is some construction where the observer looses the previous measurement result, but instead keeping some information about that a measurment has been made, as an attempt to "undo the information update"?

This physical basis of this construction is unclear to me.

The only way would then be to picture another interaction, whose resulting information update, would exactly cancel the previous update.

Is that possible in my view? Yes possibly. But an observer, can not CHOOSE what feedback to get. An observer can only choose what questions to ask, moreover it does not KNOW what the right question is, if he wants a particular answer. That's IMHO the whole basis for reasoning upon incomplete information, and an evolving observer.

The problem suggest is: what question should an observer ask, in order to provoce from the environment, a particular feedback (necessary to arrive at a certain state of information).

But this question can not be answered with certainty by the observer. If such an constraint is nervertheless imposed, then you are adding information to this picture, that the observer doesn't have.

So when this example, assumes that this right question is asked, and the tries to suggest that it implies an inconsistency, then the problem is that the inconsistency is arrived at by mixing information that belongs to different views. It's an abuse.

It's a mix of reasoning, a bird reasoning about how a frog behaves, suggesting that the frogs behaviour is inconsistent with the birds view. But this doesn't contradict a rational inside view. This is one of the effects of acting upon incomplete information, and as I see it the reason for existence of interactions.

In short, an inconsistency that is inferred from mixing two different views, is not a real contradicton. It's just an apparent paradox due to abuse. Ie. it's not an _observed inconsistency_ because the inconsistency can not be inferred by an inside observer. It's an inconsistency only in a thought experiment.

That somehow different views, seems to come to different conclusions, is not itself an inconsistency, instead it's in my view the basis for an interaction between the views. If two frogs disagree, it means there is an interacting between the frogs (they will "fight" each other"), which in turns leads to that frogs deforming. This is the prediction.

The inconsistency is more obvious though, if you relate it to a birds view, because it doesn't make sense if there are several birds views. So as I see it, the inconsisntecy is the idea that there exists a bird view. without this, I see no observable inconsistency. All there is are evolving frog views. What frog is "bird enough" to judge the global consistency here? IMO, none.

It is what I envision a relational ideal of interactions. The only way to compare view is by means of physical interaction, and clearly there are physical forces involved here. these forces, by magnitude and classification are related to the type and order of disagreement.

Note sure if this answered the question, but as far as I understood the thought experiment,
it seems doubtfully constructed. If so, the above is my response.

Other than that, perhaps there is a more clear description of the experiment explaning that is the observer and what is the computer and why/how these reversed measurements happens and from whose point of view.

I apologise if I missed the point.

/Fredrik
 
  • #73


photon and Z0 are mixtures of 'real' Zo and anti-Zo in the same sense as
KL and KS are mixtures of K0 and anti-K0
For that very reason both photon and 'apparent' Z0 are their own antiparticles.
I need more time to find a link. Not sure where it was...
 
  • #74


There are ways to turn discussions of foundational issues into experimental tests (such as Bell's inequalities). Speaking of which, I thought that some papers by the nobel laureate Tony Leggett combined with experiments, ruled out nonlocal-realism as well. A quick google search brought up a reference to this paper which may be the one I was remembering:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.html

Demystifier said:
Some physicists like to talk about virtual particles as if they really existed because they want to have some intuition about quantum processes...
It is more than that. You are dismissing way too much here.

Note that the Dirac equation (the relativistic equivalent of Schrodinger's equation for spin 1/2 particles) can be solved exactly for the hydrogen atom. Despite this exact solution of the Dirac equation, this does NOT account for the Lamb shift. That is because solving the Dirac equation to obtain a wavefunction in that manner is forcing the assumption that particle number is constant (just like in non-relativistic quantum mechanics). It takes quantum field theory, which considers contributions from "fluctuations of particle number" to get the Lamb shift.

You essentially are arguing that we should only consider on-shell contributions. It is _very_ clear from experiment that we need to consider off-shell contributions.

Furthermore, to claim a particle is "real" or not only has a good mathematical definition in the limit the particle goes off to infinity. Only on-shell excitations can survive at that point, so one could argue that what makes a particle "real" or not is whether it is on-shell or not. However it is clear that such a black-white distinction cannot be made. As Griffith's elementary particles textbook likes to comment, would you consider a photon released from the sun and absorbed by your eye as "real"? The system of your eye and the sun would, in calculations treating them as one system, have that photon as an internal propagator in a feynman diagram. Similarly, the photon didn't exist forever, so will have a small off-shell component. (I'll even add, consider the top quark ... a distribution of masses is measured due to its short lifetime causing one to essentially just have a concept of "near-shell".) So there is no black-white distinction between "real" and "virtual" particles. You need them all.


The point is this: if you agree that fields exist and have quantized excitations, and you call these excitations particles, then you can't accept some and dismiss others as "not real" just because you don't like that physicists use the word "virtual" at times. Off-shell contributions are important, with experimental implications that have been verified. So people insisting on non-local realism would have to explain not just a particle deterministically, but also all off-shell fluctuations deterministically (even though there is not a "single" determined fluctuation, but the sum and interference of possible fluctuations).

You may be able to hobble together a theory equivalent to quantum mechanics in that it predicts the same values for all experiments, but to do so you would have to abandon much of what we learned about the deepest symmetries of physics. To cling onto one a priori expectation you have, you'd end up replacing real physics with adhoc results. Sure, Lorentz Ether Theory predicts the same results as Special Relativy for electrodynamics .. but do all those ad-hoc statements really amount to a better, or even useful, theory ... can you even call it an "interpretation" of a theory if you replace all the beauty and guts with something else to fit your a priori expectation? There is a reason LET and the Bohm interpretation haven't led to new predictions and advancement of physics. In my opinion they are a waste of time.
 
Last edited:
  • #75


Dmitry67 said:
Tell me, is a real (non virtual) photon real?
You say, it is real? But do you know that photon is just a mixture of Z0 and anti-Z0?
So what is real, photon, Zo or anti-ZO? :)
First, you misunderstood something about electro-weak unification; photon is NOT a mixture of Z0 and anti-Z0.
Second, both MWI and BI agree that the photon wave function (which turns out to be a superposition of certain U(1) and SU(2) gauge wave functions) is real.
 
  • #76


JustinLevy said:
Speaking of which, I thought that some papers by the nobel laureate Tony Leggett combined with experiments, ruled out nonlocal-realism as well. A quick google search brought up a reference to this paper which may be the one I was remembering:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.html
No, it just rules out SOME NAIVE VERSIONS of nonlocal realism.

Concerning virtual particles, I am not saying that you do not need to take into account their mathematical contribution to measurable quantities. Of course you do. But I am saying that you can obtain the same result on measurable quantities by applying a different calculation method (a non-perturbative method) in which the concept of a virtual particle does not even make sense.
 
  • #77


Demystifier said:
First, you misunderstood something about electro-weak unification; photon is NOT a mixture of Z0 and anti-Z0.
Second, both MWI and BI agree that the photon wave function (which turns out to be a superposition of certain U(1) and SU(2) gauge wave functions) is real.

Hm, it was on a papar source. I need more time.
Meanwhile, can I reformulate my question:

1 What particles from the list: K0, anti-K0, KL, KS are real?
2 Are quarks real? The fit the same criteria: like virtual particles, then can be just a mathematical model of barions.
 
  • #78


Dmitry67 said:
1 What particles from the list: K0, anti-K0, KL, KS are real?
2 Are quarks real? The fit the same criteria: like virtual particles, then can be just a mathematical model of barions.
1. Any of them may be real, depending on the wave function.
2. If QCD is correct, then quarks in barions are real. If QCD is correct, then virtual particles are not real.

I have already explained the following, but let me try again. Virtual particles are NOT a part of a mathematical model (like QCD). Instead, virtual particles are a part of a specific mathematical method of calculation within the model (like perturbative QCD within QCD).
 
  • #79


Demystifier said:
1. Any of them may be real, depending on the wave function.
2. Virtual particles are NOT a part of a mathematical model (like QCD). Instead, virtual particles are a part of a specific mathematical method of calculation within the model (like perturbative QCD within QCD).

1. Well, check this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaon
Table, Quark contents for K-short and K-long.
Any comments?

2. The only way to tell these 2 things apart and prove that you're right is to suggest another mathematical method, which is virtual-particle free but gives the same result
 
  • #80


JustinLevy said:
So people insisting on non-local realism would have to explain not just a particle deterministically, but also all off-shell fluctuations deterministically (even though there is not a "single" determined fluctuation, but the sum and interference of possible fluctuations).
There is no such thing as a sum of fluctuations. There is only a sum of quantum states, represented e.g. by wave functions. In non-local realistic theories such as the Bohmian interpretation such wave functions are real and evolve deterministically, so they automatically contain the stuff you call "deterministic off-shell fluctuations".
 
  • #81


Dmitry67 said:
2. The only way to tell these 2 things apart and prove that you're right is to suggest another mathematical method, which is virtual-particle free but gives the same result
Check out lattice QCD.
Or even better, check out certain low dimensional field theories that can be solved analytically.
Or as the simplest example, check out Ryder textbook on QFT, Sec. 9.3, where it is shown that a real free massive particle can be represented in terms of an infinite number of massless virtual particles.
 
Last edited:
  • #82


Dmitry67 said:
1. Well, check this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaon
Table, Quark contents for K-short and K-long.
Any comments?
I am not sure what your point is. Is your point that kaons are not real, but that only quarks are real? If that is your point, then I agree. In this sense, I apologize for saying before that kaons were real.
 
  • #83


Dmitry67 said:
Ha ha!
This is possible because you don't believe in black holes.
But wait, there are much MORE differences between GLET and GR then 4 items in your list.

jets from AGNs, possibility/impossibility of the reception of the gravitational waves, hypernovas, et cetera et cetera... Such radical theory has much more then 4 predictions different from SR. What is a reason for not giving your theory a chance to win? Put 20-30-100 predictions, the more predictions, the sooner your theory would win LOL

Sorry, but I see no other differences. The theory has a natural GR limit, so there is no et cetera et cetera.
 
  • #84


Demystifier said:
There is no such thing as a sum of fluctuations. There is only a sum of quantum states, represented e.g. by wave functions. In non-local realistic theories such as the Bohmian interpretation such wave functions are real and evolve deterministically, so they automatically contain the stuff you call "deterministic off-shell fluctuations".

JustinLevy said better what I was getting at. I am trying to follow your thinking, and am not intentionally trying to be dense. I understand that you view the extra contributions as deterministic, and that those contributions are not descriptive of virtual particles actually existing.

Yet I can't help but believe that in a non-local theory, there is a contribution from non-local particles which is "causing" the behavior we refer to as random. So if an electron (or unbound neutron or whatever) emits a photon (or the related decay products for other particle transitions) and drops to an inner shell, that behavior is caused by something. I do not believe you are asserting that there is any INTERNAL difference in one particle that decays vs. another which has not yet decayed, but might in the future. So the cause must be an EXTERNAL one, and I must assume that is a "field fluctuation" (or whatever terminology you want to use) and that fluctuation - a result of non-local influences - is the CAUSE determining what happens and when it happens.

So a) there is a BI particle - which is described by the mathematical apparatus we all agree upon - but which does not uniquely determine the trajectory or decay of that particle (else we wouldn't be having this discussion); and b) there is a BI field - with non-local components which supply the missing determinism (which includes both the particle trajectory and the actual decay time/mode); then c) it seems to me that a theory of the particle plus the field would be MORE than what current QFT supplies. That would be a good thing. :)

Am I getting a little closer yet?
 
  • #86


Demystifier said:
I am not sure what your point is. Is your point that kaons are not real, but that only quarks are real? If that is your point, then I agree. In this sense, I apologize for saying before that kaons were real.

My point is that if quarks are real, then how Kaons can contain an irrational number of them?
In fact, as K0 and anti-KO are almost indistnguishable, then we always observe a mixture of both.

So if kaons are not real, then how can they carry energy and momentum?
I also ask you as BM supporter, how many 'real' particles are 'guided' by the kaon wave?
In general, do you deny the 'real' existence to all particle mixtures?
Finally, if kaons as you are not real, are they virtual? or are there 3 types of particles - real, virtual, and something in the middle?
 
  • #87


Demystifier said:
First, you misunderstood something about electro-weak unification; photon is NOT a mixture of Z0 and anti-Z0.

But it is a mixture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model_(basic_details)#The_W.2C_Z_and_photon

Z bosons (Zμ) and photons (Aμ) are mixtures of W3 and B. The precise mixture is determined by the Weinberg angle.

The Weinberg angle or weak mixing angle is a parameter in the Weinberg-Salam theory of the electroweak force. It gives a relationship between the masses of the W and Z bosons (denoted as MW and MZ), as well as the ratio of Z boson mediated interaction which behaves like a photon, i.e. its mixing
 
  • #89


Dmitry67 said:
My point is that if quarks are real, then how Kaons can contain an irrational number of them?
In fact, as K0 and anti-KO are almost indistnguishable, then we always observe a mixture of both.

So if kaons are not real, then how can they carry energy and momentum?
I also ask you as BM supporter, how many 'real' particles are 'guided' by the kaon wave?
In general, do you deny the 'real' existence to all particle mixtures?
Finally, if kaons as you are not real, are they virtual? or are there 3 types of particles - real, virtual, and something in the middle?
Man, what are you talking about? All that "mixtures" you refer to are nothing but quantum superpositions. They have nothing to do with virtual particles.

Kaons are real (not real) in the same sense as classical tables and chairs are real (not real). They are real in the sense that they consist of fundamental entities which are real, but they are not real in the sense that it is a matter of human interpretation what will be considered as a chair, table, or kaon.

In addition, it seems to me that you don't understand well the difference between the concepts of quantum field operator and quantum state in quantum field theory. Someone who supports MWI, as you do, should understand that difference very well, because only the later has an ontological status in MWI. A state in QFT is NOT a superposition of "real" and "virtual" states; a state in QFT is a superposition of real states only. Thus, even your MWI says that virtual particles do not exist.
 
Last edited:
  • #90


Dmitry67 said:
I also ask you as BM supporter, how many 'real' particles are 'guided' by the kaon wave?
Probably two. Although, perhaps this number could be even bigger, it is difficult to say with certainty with our incomplete understanding of nonperturbative QCD. For example, it could even turn out that kaon contains also something like a coherent state of gluons, which in the Bohmian interpretation would imply that kaon consists of an infinite number of pointlike particles. But all that is mainly a matter of nonperturbative QCD, while the Bohmian interpretation plays only a secondary role.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Undergrad Pilot Wave Theory: Against the Rest of Quantum Mechanics?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate A retrocausal amendment to de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
Undergrad Is this why a pilot wave theory cannot be accepted?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Understanding Bohmian Mechanics of Instrumentalists
  • · Replies 109 ·
4
Replies
109
Views
11K
Undergrad No relativistic Bohmian mechanics and superluminal causation
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Graduate What are Bohmian trajectories for a free electron?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Does the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory make predictions?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Graduate The Quantum State as a Function of The Quantum Field
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Undergrad Questions on the Bohmian mechanics interpretation for instrumentalists
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Undergrad Local mechanism for nonlocal anticorrelations inside spin theory
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
4K