Pilot Wave Theory: A Viable Explanation for Quantum Mechanics?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Smacal1072
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Thoughts Waves
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Pilot Wave Theory as a hidden variable theory in quantum mechanics, exploring its implications, criticisms, and comparisons to other interpretations such as the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation. Participants examine the theory's non-local properties, its relation to Bell's Inequality, and its historical context.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the Pilot Wave Theory, questioning its validity and suggesting it may be reminiscent of outdated concepts like the luminiferous aether.
  • Others argue that the theory is a respectable interpretation of quantum mechanics, comparable to the Copenhagen interpretation, and does not necessarily violate classical probability limits.
  • There is a claim that the Pilot Wave Theory, like ordinary quantum mechanics, does violate Bell's Inequality, but this is presented as a common feature of various interpretations.
  • One participant mentions Bohmian mechanics as a development of de Broglie's model, noting its non-local characteristics and suggesting that it may lead to additional testable predictions in the future.
  • Concerns are raised about the non-locality of the Pilot Wave Theory and its compatibility with special relativity, with some arguing that it does not lead to faster-than-light signaling.
  • There is a discussion about a book by Colin Bruce, with conflicting views on whether it supports the Pilot Wave Theory or the many-worlds interpretation, and requests for clarification on the arguments presented in the book.
  • Some participants express curiosity about the implications of viewing the universe from the perspective of a photon, although this topic is noted as potentially outside the current discussion's scope.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions on the validity and implications of the Pilot Wave Theory, with no consensus reached. There are competing views on its relationship to Bell's Inequality and its compatibility with special relativity.

Contextual Notes

Discussions include references to the historical context of the theory and its relation to other interpretations of quantum mechanics, highlighting the ongoing debates and unresolved questions surrounding these topics.

Smacal1072
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
I'm reading a book, "Schrödinger's Rabbit's", by Colin Bruce. In it, he subscribes to a theory that explains quantum mechanics with a hidden variable theory, called the "Pilot Wave Theory". The idea is a basically a particle theory of physics, with the exception that every particle has a corresponding "Pilot Wave" that guides the particle. This way, we can keep a classical view of what's going on in quantum systems.

This just feels wrong. Does it violate Bell's Inequality? Should I put this book down right now?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
De Broglie must have been high on crack when he came up with this theory. Its possible he was trying to hark back to the days of the Luminiferous aether. This theory may seem to be a distant relative of the idea of an aether. The controversy remains.

I say you keep reading; you will never know what your subconsciousmay discover about this matter. You may also realize that the theory is Poppycock. However, always keep an open mind until the research says otherwise.
 
This way, we can keep a classical view of what's going on in quantum systems.
It is not very classical - the guide field has non-local properties, and so does violate classical probability limits.

plutoisacomet said:
De Broglie must have been high on crack when he came up with this theory. Its possible he was trying to hark back to the days of the Luminiferous aether. This theory may seem to be a distant relative of the idea of an aether. The controversy remains.

I say you keep reading; you will never know what your subconsciousmay discover about this matter. You may also realize that the theory is Poppycock. However, always keep an open mind until the research says otherwise.

The deB-B quantum theory is alive and well and offers a way of describing quantum phenomena that does not require 'probability' densities and 'wave functions' that 'collapse', etc. These things are just as weird as a guide field - which incidentally, gives the same experimental predictions as the Copenhagen interpretation.

There are in fact several interpretation of QM that work as well as the Copenhagen interpretation.

To the OP : the guide-wave theory is perfectly respectable, and no more 'weird' than the Copenhagen interpretation. It's just that people are more used to using probability densities etc.
 
Last edited:
Smacal1072 said:
Does it violate Bell's Inequality?
It certainly does. Just as ordinary quantum mechanics does. Just as experiments with entangled particles do.

For a historical context, I recommend the book (available online for free):
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0609184
 
Last edited:
In the book "The Undivided Universe" by Bohm & Hiley which was finished just about Bohm's death, Bohmian mechanics, which I assume to be a continued development of deBroglie's model, is described as decidedly non-local (via the quantum potential, the pilot wave, which is non-local).

As far as I understood, BM's predictions are equal to the Copenhagen Interpretation and can therefore not be discerned by experiment. However the book (1999, I think) indicates that further development of the theory would lead to additional predictions that can then be tested by experiment. Any news here?
 
Smacal1072 said:
I'm reading a book, "Schrödinger's Rabbit's", by Colin Bruce. In it, he subscribes to a theory that explains quantum mechanics with a hidden variable theory, called the "Pilot Wave Theory".
In that book Colin Bruce promotes the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, not a "pilot wave" (e.g., Bohmian mechanics) view. If I recall correctly, he just brings up a cartoon version of BM in order to dismiss it.
 
Doc Al said:
In that book Colin Bruce promotes the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, not a "pilot wave" (e.g., Bohmian mechanics) view. If I recall correctly, he just brings up a cartoon version of BM in order to dismiss it.
For those of us who do not have this book, could you indicate his arguments for dismissing BM?
 
Demystifier said:
For those of us who do not have this book, could you indicate his arguments for dismissing BM?
Unfortunately, my copy is packed away and I do not trust my memory. (Especially since I'm no fan of the MWI to begin with. :wink:)

Maybe someone else who has the book can chime in. (Realize that this was just a pop-sci book, not a hardcore work; I remember picking it up thinking maybe it would change my mind regarding MWI. It didn't.)
 
Just to clarify here in case there's any ambiguity- violating Bell's inequality is a good thing :biggrin:
As I understand it, the most common objection to BM is that it is explicitly non-local, and hence it doesn't gel with special relativity. Supporters of BM respond that there is no possibility of using this non-locality to achieve faster-than-light signalling, so there would be no experimental conflict, and consider the pilot wave to be merely outside the domain of applicability of SR.
 
  • #10
muppet said:
Just to clarify here in case there's any ambiguity- violating Bell's inequality is a good thing :biggrin:
As I understand it, the most common objection to BM is that it is explicitly non-local, and hence it doesn't gel with special relativity. Supporters of BM respond that there is no possibility of using this non-locality to achieve faster-than-light signalling, so there would be no experimental conflict, and consider the pilot wave to be merely outside the domain of applicability of SR.

Somehow this made me wonder what the world looks like from the perspective of a photon. Do most things move at the speed of light, even though they have a non-zero rest mass? Or do they look like photons with a rest mass of zero? Are photons already "outside the domain of applicability of SR." ? But I guess that is a question for the relativity forum section...
 
  • #11
Somehow this made me wonder what the world looks like from the perspective of a photon
There is no 'perspective of a photon'. There are two threads now active in the Relativity forum about this. Worth looking at.
 
  • #12
Mentz114 said:
There is no 'perspective of a photon'. There are two threads now active in the Relativity forum about this. Worth looking at.

Yes, thanks for the pointer, appreciated. I would summarize the discussion as saying that SR doesn't possibly apply to the frame of reference of a photon (in so far as there even is any). I'll add a question over there.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Can wave particle dualism be replaced by a monistic model?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Graduate Pilot Wave Theory & Non-Locality
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
Graduate Wave-packet in configuration space
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Undergrad SQM vs Pilot Waves - Potential issue with Pilot Waves?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Graduate Pilot wave theory and quantum tunneling
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Graduate Can a pilot wave be instantaneous?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Why is this Pilot-wave model on a discrete spacetime stochastic?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad New experimental support for pilot wave theory?
  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
10K
Graduate What’s the physical nature of the pilot wave?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Graduate Photon direction as hidden variable in a double slit expt?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K