Pilot-wave is No More, Pilot-wave cracked by Bohr

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jedishrfu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bohr
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of recent experiments on pilot-wave theory in quantum mechanics, particularly in light of the bouncing-droplet experiments conducted by Yves Couder and the involvement of Tomas Bohr. Participants explore the validity and reliability of the claims made in a specific article, while also engaging in tangential discussions about related cultural references.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that recent experiments indicate pilot-wave theory is fundamentally flawed, referencing the work of Tomas Bohr and the bouncing-droplet experiments.
  • Others express skepticism about the quality of the journalism surrounding these scientific claims, specifically criticizing the article by Natalie Wolchover as misleading or erroneous.
  • There are claims that the oil-drop analogy does not adequately represent the non-local structure of Bohmian mechanics, which is seen as essential for a complete understanding of quantum mechanics.
  • Some participants note that the article may exaggerate the implications of the experiments, suggesting that a theory unable to reproduce entanglement would be inherently limited.
  • Several posts diverge into discussions about film adaptations of H.G. Wells' works, indicating a shift away from the primary scientific topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the claims made in the article or the implications for pilot-wave theory. There are competing views regarding the reliability of the journalism and the scientific interpretations presented.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight limitations in the article's claims, particularly regarding the ability of pilot-wave theory to account for quantum entanglement, but do not resolve these issues. The discussion also reflects a mix of technical and cultural commentary, which may distract from the core scientific debate.

Messages
15,688
Reaction score
10,491
Pilot wave Quantum Mechanics is doomed from recent experiments but wait there's more:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/famo...ve-alternative-to-quantum-weirdness-20181011/

In 2005, a student working in the fluid physicist Yves Couder’s laboratory in Paris discovered by chance that tiny oil droplets bounced when plopped onto the surface of a vibrating oil bath. Moreover, as the droplets bounced, they started to bunny-hop around the liquid’s surface. Couder soon figured out that the droplets were “surfing on their own wave,” as he put it — kicking up the wave as they bounced and then getting propelled around by the slanted contours of the wave.
...
Improbably, the person who put the irreparable crack in de Broglie’s idea is Niels Bohr’s grandson, the fluid physicist Tomas Bohr. A professor at the Technical University of Denmark who, as a child, enjoyed puzzling over riddles posed by his grandfather, Tomas Bohr heard about Couder’s bouncing-droplet experiments seven years ago and was immediately intrigued. “I felt a genuine interest in trying to see whether you could really get a deterministic quantum mechanics,” he said about his decision to enter the fray. Given his family history, he added, “maybe I also felt some obligation. I felt I should really try to see if it was true or not.”
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: StevieTNZ and Drakkith
Physics news on Phys.org
Interesting! I'll await responses from the professionals who know the technical details more thoroughly
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jedishrfu
I wouldn't pay any attention to Natalie Wolchover's nonsense physics journalism. Her first article on this was already bad. This merely compounds the error.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MichPod and jedishrfu
Journalists always like these stories of the grandson reprizing the grandfather's glory.

There a similar story with the grandson of HG Wells who directed a movie version of the Time Machine story in 2002 with Guy Pearce. I liked it but not as much as the Rock Hudson version of 1963. However, they did have a cool librarian avatar:



and I heard there's a TV version in the works:

https://www.slashfilm.com/the-time-machine-tv-series-hg-wells-sky/

But I digress, back to the Pilot-wave...
 
jedishrfu said:
not as much as the Rock Hudson version of 1963

Do you mean the Rod Taylor version of 1960, direceted by George Pal? Or did Rock Hudson make a third version?
 
Well, the oil-drop analogy goes not as far as to realize de Broglie Bohm theory (which would be a kind of "analogue computer" for Bohmian mechanics ;-)). That's no surprise to me. It's an interesting phenomenon of classical fluid mechanics, but that's it. It doesn't have the non-local structure of Bohmian mechanics, which is for non-relativistic QT equivalent to minimally interpreted QT (by construction). The Quanta Magazine is in general of some entertaining quality, but it seems not to be a reliable source on science. It's not too bad science journalism but not more!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier
Vanadium 50 said:
Do you mean the Rod Taylor version of 1960, direceted by George Pal? Or did Rock Hudson make a third version?

Oops, I guess I’m living in an alternate timeline where Rock Hudson and Doris Day starred in the movie and not Rod Taylor and Yvette Mimieux. Yes the George Pal pre cgi era movie with all the cool stop action film work.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nik_2213 and Vanadium 50
vanhees71 said:
It doesn't have the non-local structure of Bohmian mechanics, which is for non-relativistic QT equivalent to minimally interpreted QT (by construction). The Quanta Magazine is in general of some entertaining quality, but it seems not to be a reliable source on science. It's not too bad science journalism but not more!
In fairness the latter part of the article says exactly this. As far as the headline or jist of the article being misleading (or otherwise wrong), however, I can't say.

Edit: I mean no one sanely doubted a theory that can't reproduce entanglement would fail as a description of the world, so in that sense the article sort of blows up a non-starter to exaggerated proportions just in order to tear it down again.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Demystifier

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
20K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K