The Myth of Wave-Particle Duality

[Demystifier]

I think that what I should have said above is that the statistical interpretation requires EITHER local hidden variables, OR it requires superluminal hidden variables. I guess this is what Demystifier meant when he described Bohmian mechanics as a specific realization of the statistical interpretation, because BM requires the quantum potential (or equivalent) which takes care of the superluminal stuff. Is that correct?

Yes, I would agree with that. And from the Ballentines textbook, it seems that he finds nonlocal hidden variables to be a more viable option.

It's also interesting to see what he says about the Bohmian interpretation (in the same textbook):
"The most important consequence of Bohm's theory is its demonstration that, contrary to previous belief, it is logically possible to give a more detailed account of microscopic phenomena than that given by the statistical quantum theory. The significance and utility of the resulting quantal trajectories, however, remain controversial."

 

[Varon]

That's not quite correct. The Bohmian approach needs only ONE of these two assumptions, because they are equivalent. And not for each particle separately, but for all particles at once.

Quantum Potential and the Bohm Omniscient Wave Function (BOWF) is equivalent? I thought BOWF is pure information only while the Quantum Potential is some kind of force that pushes the particle to either pass thru the left or right slit depending on how the BOWF able to detect configuration changes even a billion light years away.

I read in a book someone asking how a particle can be pushed. Some suggest a electron may have an internal part and there may be some kind of nano-jetpack that can manuever it. Lol... So how can the particle be influenced to take the left or right slit? Don't say initial condition, take a case where a quantum potential can influence it.. what's a good example?

Well, I like to view the Bohmian interpretation as a concrete realization of the more general Ballentine interpretation.

 

[Demystifier]

So how can the particle be influenced to take the left or right slit? Don't say initial condition, take a case where a quantum potential can influence it.. what's a good example?

To say "initial condition" is not in contradiction with saying that it is influenced by the quantum potential. Both answers are correct, so it's not clear to me what kind of an answer do you actually want.

Or consider a CLASSICAL particle. What will determine the slit through which the particle will pass? Initial position? Classical force derived from a classical potential? Isn't it obvious that both answers are correct?

 

[Varon]

To say "initial condition" is not in contradiction with saying that it is influenced by the quantum potential. Both answers are correct, so it's not clear to me what kind of an answer do you actually want.

Or consider a CLASSICAL particle. What will determine the slit through which the particle will pass? Initial position? Classical force derived from a classical potential? Isn't it obvious that both answers are correct?

I thought that in the concept of quantum potential. Even if the initial condition is equal.. meaning the particle is sent off from the emitter straight. The quantum potential can push the particle while in mid flight.. this is why they mentioned it in the book (I forgot the title) how the electron may have structure that allows this propulsion system.

 

[Demystifier]

Even if the initial condition is equal.. The quantum potential can push the particle while in mid flight..

What you suggest here may be achieved with a time dependent quantum potential, provided that two particles are fired at different times. However, in a typical 2-slit experiment the quantum potential is usually time-independent to a great accuracy.