I am not an expert for applications of BM as a computational tool, but I think the Wyatt's book is the best.Blue Scallop said:
This is only one of version of Copenhagen. For other versions see https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.08341 Sec. 2.1.Blue Scallop said:
I feel exactly the same way, even though my hypothesis may lie in a different direction. Power to you for not swallowing what is really substandard reasoning, and not loosing focus! That in an environment where it is a fact that "most people" seem to ignore these things probably for pragmatic reasons. I have found this extremely disturbing.Demystifier said:
Asking cat does not help much: https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3221AlexCaledin said:
Demystifier said:
@Demystifier, I did not read your article until today, thank you for a very interesting account! And an extra thumbs up from me for the very funny title!Demystifier said:
Agreed here. Even from a purely mathematical PDE point of view, the striking similarity between QM and hydrodynamics, i.e. the so-called quantum hydrodynamics, absolutely fascinates me. A mathematical physicist by the name of R. Carroll rejoins in this fascination, quoted here.Demystifier said:
I think it cannot explain why the unique measuremenet outcomes appear. For instance, in the two-slit experiment with a single photon, why do we detect photon at a single position only?Auto-Didact said:
In which sense is BM a "computational tool"? It only adds the trajectories a posteriori when the wave function is calculated from "conventional QT". I always considered BM as just an alternative deterministic non-local interpretation of non-relativistic QT but not that one can establish some practical calculational tools using it.Demystifier said:
There is a way to compute trajectories first and then to infer the wave function from it. See e.g. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.5190vanhees71 said:
You may call it wishful thinking, I call it physical hypothesis motivated by physical intuition based on BM. In a sense, any scientific hypothesis can be thought of as wishful thinking, but it doesn't make the hypothesis less scientific. The 19th century hypothesis that matter is made of atoms was also an example of "wishful thinking".martinbn said:
The way your proposal looks to me, in line of your example, is as someone proposing that atoms don't exist and it only appears that way. And he suggests that based on his favorite model.Demystifier said:
The mathematical reason for unique measurement outcomes in single particle wavefunctions is due to the non-local nature of the system i.e. the presence of some cohomology element ##\eta##: for any sufficiently small open subregion ##G'## of a region ##G##, the cohomology element ##\eta## vanishes when restricted down to ##G'##. See this thread for elaboration and/or further discussion.Demystifier said:
"The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them. In this methodological uncertainty, one might suppose that there were any number of possible systems of theoretical physics all equally well justified; and this opinion is no doubt correct, theoretically. But the development of physics has shown that at any given moment, out of all conceivable constructions, a single one has always proved itself decidedly superior to all the rest."martinbn said:
"Long may Louis de Broglie continue to inspire those who suspect that what is proved by impossibility proofs is lack of imagination."Demystifier said:
"One should not reproach the theorist who undertakes such a task by calling him a fantast; instead, one must allow him his fantasizing, since for him there is no other way to his goal whatsoever. Indeed, it is no planless fantasizing, but rather a search for the logically simplest possibilities and their consequences."martinbn said: