Can the PBR Theorem Prove the Reality of Quantum States?

[Demystifier]

Is it really true the interference pattern of the screen is the Fourier transform of the slits?

It's true, that's a standard method in crystallography. That's also how the shape of DNA was discovered.

 

[fanieh]

It's true, that's a standard method in crystallography.

I just ordered the book Atlas of Optical Transforms this morning to see the other drawings because he got it from the Atlas book.
But he was suggesting that every object has a real momentum space counterpart.. so pilot wave of a particle is connected to the inverse spacetime. He said just as we have apples in our physical universe.. there is another apple in the inverse spacetime... and the two are coupled by something. In his experiments.. He can adjust the coupling such that he can make the thermodynamics of this physical spacetime be connected to the inverse spacetime so all his experiments show oscillations and that's how he concluded there was a real reciprocal spacetime. Are you saying this is also true? If not true, why not true?

 

[vanhees71]

Mathematicians would probably disagree, but I guess you think the same about string theorists.

I think, the string theorists are neither physicists (no interest in making predictions that can be empirically tested) nor mathematicians (lack of rigor). SCNR.

 

[Demystifier]

I just ordered the book Atlas of Optical Transforms this morning to see the other drawings because he got it from the Atlas book.
But he was suggesting that every object has a real momentum space counterpart.. so pilot wave of a particle is connected to the inverse spacetime. He said just as we have apples in our physical universe.. there is another apple in the inverse spacetime... and the two are coupled by something. In his experiments.. He can adjust the coupling such that he can make the thermodynamics of this physical spacetime be connected to the inverse spacetime so all his experiments show oscillations and that's how he concluded there was a real reciprocal spacetime. Are you saying this is also true? If not true, why not true?

I wouldn't say it's another apple in the inverse spacetime. I would say it's just another representation of the same apple.

I you are not too young, you have probably seen a negative of a photography, in which all colors are inverted. But it does not mean that there is another inverted you in an inverted universe. The above is similar.

 

[fanieh]

I wouldn't say it's another apple in the inverse spacetime. I would say it's just another representation of the same apple.

I you are not too young, you have probably seen a negative of a photography, in which all colors are inverted. But it does not mean that there is another inverted you in an inverted universe. The above is similar.

Thanks I got it now what is the conventional idea of this reciprocal space. He was also suggesting magnetic monopoles are located in this actual reciprocal space and he can make magnetic monopoles appear in his experiments. I think this is the part that is not true.

 

[Demystifier]

I think, the string theorists are neither physicists (no interest in making predictions that can be empirically tested) nor mathematicians (lack of rigor). SCNR.

So Bohmians are more rigorous than string theorists? Tell it to Lubos Motl!

Now more seriously. I don't think that there should be strict separation between physics, mathematics, philosophy, etc. It is perfectly natural and healthy to have interdisciplinary research which combines some (but not all) features of two or more fields. For instance, string theory combines some features of physics and mathematics; quantum foundations combines some features of physics, mathematics and philosophy, etc. The only condition is that researchers understand well all fields which they try to combine.

 

[Demystifier]

Thanks I got it now what is the conventional idea of this reciprocal space. He was also suggesting magnetic monopoles are located in this actual reciprocal space and he can make magnetic monopoles appear in his experiments. I think this is the part that is not true.

I guess it means that, in reciprocal space, electric charges look like magnetic monopoles. The emphasis is on look like.

 

[vanhees71]

Now more seriously. I don't think that there should be strict separation between physics, mathematics, philosophy, etc. It is perfectly natural and healthy to have interdisciplinary research which combines some (but not all) features of two or more fields. For instance, string theory combines some features of physics and mathematics; quantum foundations combines some features of physics, mathematics and philosophy, etc.

There cannot be a strict separation between physics and mathematics, but there must be a strict separation between physics and philosophy to make any progress in either of these fields.

I still don't know, whether I'm wrong in my claim that according to dBB the trajectories in configuration space are considered as unobservable (or "hidden") or not. If so, dBB is just the same as QT in its testable predictions and thus merely an interpretation with IMHO unnecessary complications. To calculate unobservable trajectories which don't help in predicting anything observable is just pointless from a physicist's point of view. It's maybe a nice mathematical exercise for bored QM students.

 

[fanieh]

I guess it means that, in reciprocal space, electric charges look like magnetic monopoles. The emphasis is on look like.

btw.. let me emphasize my questions:

Are you saying that if your perform Fourier transform of the 2 dots above.. it will produce the interference patterns at the bottom even without any light or electron passing thru the slits?

 

[vanhees71]

If nothing goes through the slits, you don't see any interference pattern. I think about this triviality even non-minimalistic philosophers agree. You cannot get an interference pattern by calculating a Fourier integral. The latter predicts the interference pattern in Fraunhofer observation based on some theory with wave equations (e.g., classical electrodynamics).

 

[Demystifier]

there must be a strict separation between physics and philosophy to make any progress in either of these fields.

Why do you think that philosophy cannot make progress by using insights from physics?

I still don't know, whether I'm wrong in my claim that according to dBB the trajectories in configuration space are considered as unobservable (or "hidden") or not.

In the simplest minimal version of dBB, you are right. But other versions are explored too.

If so, dBB is just the same as QT in its testable predictions and thus merely an interpretation with IMHO unnecessary complications.

It's unnecessary only if you don't think that there is the problem of measurement.

To calculate unobservable trajectories which don't help in predicting anything observable is just pointless from a physicist's point of view. It's maybe a nice mathematical exercise for bored QM students.

Bohmian trajectories are not only an interpretation, but also a practical tool. There are many cases in which calculation of trajectories actually helps to make measurable predictions.

 

[fanieh]

btw.. let me emphasize my questions:

View attachment 211086

Are you saying that if your perform Fourier transform of the 2 dots above.. it will produce the interference patterns at the bottom even without any light or electron passing thru the slits?

This is the person complete context of how it differs:

"Using this particular duplex-space perspective, one can see an entirely different explanation for the very famous Young's double slit experiment from the era of the classical mechanics paradigm. The conventional, single-space explanation (the old space and time explanation) saw the result as the interference of the light waves entering the two parallel slits. In that model, the slit structure itself contributes nothing but the two, parallel gap openings. This duplex-space perspective says the slit structure itself, without the light waves, already has an R-space substance interference pattern existing around the slit regions of the D-space structure. The model is that it is this reciprocal space pattern that guides the light into its maxima and minima ordinary space intensity locations behind the slits."

That's why I was asking if without any light entering the slits. Fourier transform of the slits can produce the same interference patterns that the particle is simply guided to the minima and maxima as described... can it?

 

[Demystifier]

Are you saying that if your perform Fourier transform of the 2 dots above.. it will produce the interference patterns at the bottom even without any light or electron passing thru the slits?

See the reply by @vanhees71 above.

 

[vanhees71]

Ok, perhaps I should give dBB a chance again and learn the details about it...

 

[fanieh]

If nothing goes through the slits, you don't see any interference pattern. I think about this triviality even non-minimalistic philosophers agree. You cannot get an interference pattern by calculating a Fourier integral. The latter predicts the interference pattern in Fraunhofer observation based on some theory with wave equations (e.g., classical electrodynamics).

What I meant was.. can you compute the interference patterns of the bottom based on the slit dimension itself? I know something has to go to the slits for the interference patterns to be visible but I was asking simply if the bottom is the Fourier transform of the top as in:

 

[Demystifier]

Ok, perhaps I should give dBB a chance again and learn the details about it...

Noooo, it wouldn't be you!

Seriously, if you are interested in actual applications of dBB as a practical tool, I can recommend you some literature which is pure science even by your standards.

 

[vanhees71]

Yes, pure science would be good, but isn't that textbook by Dürr good? I could omit the philosophy introduction easily ;-)).

 

[Demystifier]

Yes, pure science would be good, but isn't that textbook by Dürr good? I could omit the philosophy introduction easily ;-)).

The book by Dürr contains some rigorous mathematics (if this is what you want), but it does not discuss real applications.

For real applications see e.g. the books
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0387229647/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3642180914/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3642179738/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[fanieh]

See the reply by @vanhees71 above.

The person really said he can compute it by principle.
Look. This is all related to Pilot wave. It shows our pilot wave concept is still very incomplete. He shared this (is this the pre 1920 or 1927 deBroglie idea of pilot wave?):

About able to solve the Fourier transform in principle of any spacetime object. He wrote:

"A very important mathematical property of this particular duplex-space comprised of D-space and R-space, is that a unique quality in one subspace has an equilibrium quantitative connection to its conjugate quality in the reciprocal subspace. "
"This quantitative connection is called the equilibrium Fourier transform pair relationships. Thus, if you know a mathematical description of a quality in one subspace, you can, in principle calculate the equilibrium conjugate quality in the other subspace."
"in Figure 6.6b, the experimentally-generated diffraction pattern for a D-space hexagon of holes is given. To prove to the reader that the Fourier transform truly represents the diffraction pattern, we calculate the normalized R-space intensity (square of the amplitude) spectrum for this D-space hexagon of holes so as to compare it with the experimentally-generated diffraction pattern. Figure 6.7 shows this comparison and completely supports the assertion that the Fourier transform quantitatively reproduces the diffraction result of specific cases."

The following is computed:

So what I was asking is if anyone has also computed the pattern in principle too? Thanks.

 

[Demystifier]

@fanieh you didn't tell us the author and title of the book you are referring to.

 

[fanieh]

@fanieh you didn't tell us the author and title of the book you are referring to.

<Moderator's note: link removed>

 

[DrClaude]

That link is not an acceptable reference. Time to close the thread.