THAT satisfies me. So yes, you DO necessarily agree with the position you take. On the other hand, a devil's advocate does NOT necessarily agree with the position he takes. Therefore, you are NOT a devil's advocate, period. No need to further argue about that.You didn't take my yes, twice given, for a yes (to one version of your ambiguous question), so I don't know what to say to satisfy you.
Not at all. There is no aesthetics in BM. It is a hack without any beauty.A. Neumaier, you seem to suggest that because BM is hacked together based on aesthetic rather than experimental considerations,
The right intepretation would produce emergence. And this can give us a clue to unification with General Relativity and an insight into Quantum Gravity and the Theory of Everything.Does anyone here really think that any given interpretation of QM accurately describes physics, or is this just wheel-spinning for its own sake? It really seems like a bunch of very smart people working like mad on stationary bicycles to me.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what emergence is in this context. In addition, it seems to me that an ontology is secondary to a working theory, which is why QM has been such a raving success despite its ontological shortcomings. Do people really expect that an interpretation of two successful, but flawed theories will lead to a new one, instead of new theories leading the way for ontological progress?The right intepretation would produce emergence. And this can give us a clue to unification with General Relativity and an insight into Quantum Gravity and the Theory of Everything.
See: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=499949I'm sorry, but I don't understand what emergence is in this context. In addition, it seems to me that an ontology is secondary to a working theory, which is why QM has been such a raving success despite its ontological shortcomings. Do people really expect that an interpretation of two successful, but flawed theories will lead to a new one, instead of new theories leading the way for ontological progress?
It wouldn't work. The predictions of a Bohm-like theory with some other preferred variables would not be in agreement with those of standard QM. This is because the position variable is a "preferred" variable for decoherence, which, in turn, is a consequence of the fact that interactions between wave functions are local in the position space.In Bohmian Mechanics. Position is preferred. Why position? Maybe in some other universe it's momentum or spin that is preferred?
Yes, the quantum potential is time-independent when the system can be described by a time-independent Schrodinger equation.Demystifier. There is a time dependent and a time independent quantum potential? What's the difference? Anything to do with the time dependent and independent Schroedinger Equation?
I don't know, I didn't count.Also how many variants (or version) of Bohmian mechanics are there?
It's the usual wishful-thinking crap. Just like all the other so-called 'refutations' of deBB on this thread.Dear Bohmians and Everettians,
What do you think of this article that says that Bohmian Mechanics is really Many Worlds in disguise?
I'm saying it's the last non-standard interpretation of QM left, with the rest being dead and gone thanks to the Bell Asatz. deBB, and this is just my opinion, is only alive because of its ability to tapdance around the real issues at hand, which I doubt will be a lasting state of affairs. Ist Klar?I still don't get it. Are you saying that deBB is the only interpretation still alive?
Instead of using classy sentences, try to use clear and direct ones.
Or to quote Dirac:
"In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite."
So you admit there is a possibility that it's both MWI and de Broglie/Bohmian mechanics that is correct? The plot thickens.As I said many times, pure MWI with its minimal set of assumptions cannot explain the Born rule. Some additional assumptions must be taken. In my view, Bohmian mechanics is just one such set of assumptions. So in this sense - yes, Bohmian mechanics is MWI in denial. Or more precisely, Bohmian mechanics is the most intuitive (and perhaps most natural) completion of the MWI program.
To further clarify, the issues you (Varon) raise are what I mean by deBB tapdancing around the issues that killed its contemporary non-standard theories.So you admit there is a possibility that it's both MWI and de Broglie/Bohmian mechanics that is correct? The plot thickens.
Anyway. Just treating de Broglie/Bohmian mechanics without MWI contamination. Why do you think is the Position observable preferred in Bohmian mechanics? Explain the justification for this ad hoc and biasness. Or is it possible that position is only temporary.. meaning by changing some parameter. One can make momentum the preferred basis in Bohmian mechanics turning a world where only momentum rule and positions don't exist (this scenerio is possible in other String Landscape Universe however but let's avoid this any string case right now and just focus on raw and pure Bohmian).