Status of deBroglie-Bohm pilot wave theory

[Frame Dragger]

Frame Dragger, I *do* believe that the TOE will look like

some_function(omnium) = 0

And all other properties (number of dimensions, particles, forces) will emerge from that equation. No words will be needed.

I think that it's fair to say that a theory which purports to describe or refute objective reality in favour in infinite mathematical constructs as REAL has a lot of explaining to do... in words. We're human after all, and short of this being a divine insight (me=agnostic, so sarcasm) I'm unimpressed by one man's ability to believe that every mathematical construct exists. As for MWI, I see your point, but why bother with an attempt to describe an objective reality that is unreachable and indescribable?!

EDIT: Don't take this the wrong way, but to postulate that everything emerges from an infinite mathematical soup is as religious a statement as any devotee of creationism has uttered. There is no proof, and no hope of proof or benefit. From a phenomenological and human point of view Tegmark's view is borderline absurdist when it's not an expression of faith.

 

[Dmitry67]

MUH is a *HYPOTESIS*

So if it s right then it will be possible to write such equation and to get rid of the word baggage completely. It does not postulate "that everything emerges from an infinite mathematical soup". In such case it would be called MUA (Mathematical universe Axiom), not MUH.

Words can be useful to simplify the explanation. But if MUH is true they are just "pure labels without any meaning". MUH allows to get rid of all questions like "what is TRUE meaning of time?" or "what space consists of?" or "is curveed spacetime embedded or not?" and all similar questions. As soon as theories mathematically isomorphic they are the same. And most of these questions are as absurd as "what number 1 is made of?"

 

[Dmitry67]

But again, returning to the subject, BM is *not* compatible with MUH

 

[Frame Dragger]

MUH is a *HYPOTESIS*

So if it s right then it will be possible to write such equation and to get rid of the word baggage completely. It does not postulate "that everything emerges from an infinite mathematical soup". In such case it would be called MUA (Mathematical universe Axiom), not MUH.

Words can be useful to simplify the explanation. But if MUH is true they are just "pure labels without any meaning". MUH allows to get rid of all questions like "what is TRUE meaning of time?" or "what space consists of?" or "is curveed spacetime embedded or not?" and all similar questions. As soon as theories mathematically isomorphic they are the same. And most of these questions are as absurd as "what number 1 is made of?"

I suppose my primary objection is that the hypothesis is baseless expcept that to some people it appears elegant. In the way that SQM offends the sensabilities of many (Bohmians especially ;) ) I find these kind of hypothetical inflated ontologies... ponderous. I'm not trying to piss on your viewpoint, but I can't pretend to see it as anything but counteruintive and counterexperiential and experimental evidence!

I see the notion that people will find a "single equation to rule them all" if you'll pardon the reference, to be as likely as religious people seeing the face of god. In fact, it strikes me as perfectly analogous, except that smart people only are drawn to one of them (and I'm not talking about religion lol).

 

[Frame Dragger]

Oh, an MUH isn't a hypothesis, it's a conjecture. One might just say it's one man's fantasy, or a reflection of what one man's reality has become... and that propogated like a faith amongst a small and dedicated community. I alwise find that physics is a field full of cognitive dissonance, and the unique solutions to that most uncomfortable of states.

 

[Dmitry67]

I suppose my primary objection is that the hypothesis is baseless expcept that to some people it appears elegant.

It is not baseless.
Check Max arguments
http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:0704.0646
page 2.

I read the article 1.5y ago and I have to admit it was the most shoking thing I've read during the whole life, so 2 weeks after that I could think only about MUH.

I see the same trend everywhere: Universe is simple and elegant, and people are always try to drag some notions they got use to into the mathematical description: either, absolte time, "wavefunction collapse"... The history with the collapse is one of the most ridiculous: after almost 60 years with the collapse and endless discussions it was discovered that... collapse can be replaced by QM and is not required at all!

The same with "local realism" some people can't give up in parralel threads, or with these Newtonian billiard balls we all like (BM particles :) )..

And yes, MWI and MUH are both crazy enough, and MUH+MWI is so crazy that I sense a smell of truth, it is so crazy that it MUST be true.. Yes, it is lyrics, not physics, but we are discussing the interpretations here...

 

[Frame Dragger]

It is not baseless.
Check Max arguments
http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:0704.0646
page 2.

I read the article 1.5y ago and I have to admit it was the most shoking thing I've read during the whole life, so 2 weeks after that I could think only about MUH.

I see the same trend everywhere: Universe is simple and elegant, and people are always try to drag some notions they got use to into the mathematical description: either, absolte time, "wavefunction collapse"... The history with the collapse is one of the most ridiculous: after almost 60 years with the collapse and endless discussions it was discovered that... collapse can be replaced by QM and is not required at all!

The same with "local realism" some people can't give up in parralel threads, or with these Newtonian billiard balls we all like (BM particles :) )..

And yes, MWI and MUH are both crazy enough, and MUH+MWI is so crazy that I sense a smell of truth, it is so crazy that it MUST be true.. Yes, it is lyrics, not physics, but we are discussing the interpretations here...

First let me just say that I appreciate your sense of humour and spirited debate. I get what you're aiming at, in that MUH, MWI, TI, CI... etc... are all pretty ad hoc and messy. I don't necessarily expect elegance from the universe, but I wish that people were more willing to live with the discomfort of dissonance and accept that we have to forge ahead with anything as comforting as a truly useful conjecture or interpretation.

Collapse is absurd, but only if you believe that is the end of the story. MWI could be true, but then lots of things could be. Collapse is simple, if not elegant. F(ominium)=0 is a wonderful notion, but to me it seems less an attempt to interpret existing data, and more an attempt to justify one man's nearly autistic (not in the medical sense) world of math.

I've stated it before, that I believe wave-particle duality represents something neither wave nor particle, but a true duality. I don't think we'll have material with which to make a palatable conjecture until/unless SQM can be rectified (or another theory) with the predictions and experimental results of GR. Until then, it's fun, but ultimately of little consequence except insofar as Zenith's argument re: shaping perspective is valid.