Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Revisiting an Old Interpretation of QM

  1. Jul 10, 2014 #1

    jedishrfu

    Staff: Mentor

  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 10, 2014 #2

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    This is basically a crackpot article that does a disservice to the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation. Tim Maudlin's post (June 25, 2014 at 2:43 pm) in the comments section are very close to my complaints about Wolchover's article.

    If one wants to understand why the Bohmian interpretation is a technically correct possibility for solving the measurement problem in non-relativistic quantum mechanics, some good references are:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3151
    http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0308039
    http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0308038

    Here is a link to Couder and Fort's experimental report in PRL: https://hekla.ipgp.fr/IMG/pdf/Couder-Fort_PRL_2006.pdf
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2014
  4. Jul 10, 2014 #3

    Simon Bridge

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I don't think the experiments support the more far-reaching conclusions.
    You cannot do physics by analogy.
     
  5. Jul 10, 2014 #4

    jedishrfu

    Staff: Mentor

    So should we close the thread if its a crackpot article? The comment you mentioned seems to praise the article
    for some parts while commenting on other parts:

     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2014
  6. Jul 10, 2014 #5

    jedishrfu

    Staff: Mentor

    This is true and yet so much of human thought is done by analogy.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Revisiting an Old Interpretation of QM
  1. Interpretations of QM? (Replies: 16)

  2. QM Interpretations (Replies: 17)

  3. QM Interpretations (Replies: 101)

  4. Interpretations of QM (Replies: 7)

  5. QM Interpretations (Replies: 27)

Loading...