The Refutation of Bohmian Mechanics

[A. Neumaier]

You can consider an isolated system including the instrument (and the observer, if you wish). Do you mean unitary evolution does not hold for such a system?

It does, but there are no measurement results in such a picture, since one forever remains in indeterminate superpositions.

 

[A. Neumaier]

Do you mean that no operators explicitly dependent on time can exist in the Schroedinger picture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_picture says:

the Heisenberg picture is a formulation of quantum mechanics in which the operators (observables and others) incorporate a dependency on time, but the state vectors are time-independent. It stands in contrast to the Schrödinger picture in which the operators are constant and the states evolve in time.

Of course, one can introduce time-dependent operators by extending the Schroedinger picture, but then their meaning remains obscure since the usual rules to interpret the measurement of operators via an ensemble break down.

 

[atomistic]

I found this objection from a physicist:

Bohm's version of (nonrelativistic) quantum mechanics was originally written down in such a way that it (a) yielded the same results as standard quantum mechanics and (b) contained hidden classical variables that could be blamed for quantum indeterminism. If I remember correctly, that was done in order to spite von Neumann, who maintained that quantum mechanics is incompatible with hidden variables. Bohm succeeded in producing a theory that eluded von Neumann's criticism but that victory was only symbolic: the hidden variables would have to have bizzarre properties like non-locality. Recall that these variables were introduced to chase away the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Instead, the theory is even worse because it violates locality* and—in a relativistic context—causality.

Standard quantum mechanics has its own share of bizzarre features. The wave function exhibits non-locality, too. However, the wave function is not a physical observable. Any physical observable in quantum mechanics, including its relativistic extensions, obeys locality, causality etc. You cannot devise an experiment that would instantly transmit information over finite distance even though the wave function changes instantaneously.

In light of this, Bohmian mechanics is a project aiming to rewrite standard quantum mechanics in a specifically prescribed way. The few hard-core aficionados might succeed in that one day, but what exactly is the point of that exercise? They have "succeeded" with the non-relativistic version of QM but no one seems eager to adopt their scheme for doing any calculations.

Compare that with the success of Feynman's path-integral reformulation of quantum mechanics. It not only reproduces the results obtained in the framework of the standard QM and makes some intuitive connections to classical mechanics. On top of that, it provides ways to solve some problems that could not be solved in the canonical framework. In the old days, theorists relied on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WKB_approximation" , based on Feynman's path integral, solves the one-dimensional problem equally well and is applicable to higher dimensions and extends easily to field theory.

In contrast, Bohmian mechanics is totally useless. These guys are still trying to teach their old dog to do tricks standard theory learned half a century ago. They are hopelessly behind.

I would appreciate some input from someone more knowledgeable than I am. Thank you!

 

[A. Neumaier]

The paper
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0509019 [Found. Phys. 36, 1601 (2006)]
may also be relevant here. (It cites your paper.)

Well, the paper says on p.32 that

The analysis of multi-time probabilities in Bohmian mechanics above does not
guarantee that the predictions of Bohmian mechanics coincide with those of
standard quantum theory. We shall demonstrate now that the key property
that permits that is the inherent non-locality of Bohm’s theory.

It is right with the first sentence, but the permission mentioned in the second sentence given by the subsequent analysis amounts to nothing. Nothing is proved in the paper for the Bohmian case. The permission refers only to the fact (p.34) that the argument given for local hidden variables doesn't apply, which is well-known.

 

[A. Neumaier]

I found this objection from a physicist:

no one seems eager to adopt their scheme for doing any calculations.

Compare that with the success of Feynman's path-integral reformulation of quantum mechanics. It not only reproduces the results obtained in the framework of the standard QM and makes some intuitive connections to classical mechanics. On top of that, it provides ways to solve some problems that could not be solved in the canonical framework. In the old days, theorists relied on the WKB approximation to calculate tunneling rates. Unfortunately, the WKB method is not easy to generalize beyond one-dimensional quantum mechanics. The instanton approach, based on Feynman's path integral, solves the one-dimensional problem equally well and is applicable to higher dimensions and extends easily to field theory.

In contrast, Bohmian mechanics is totally useless. These guys are still trying to teach their old dog to do tricks standard theory learned half a century ago.

I fully agree.

But why didn't you state the source of your quote? This is part of scientific practice.
The quote comes in fact from ''olegt'', within a discussion last October in http://telicthoughts.com/hawking-on-science/

How do you know that olegt is a physicist?

I would appreciate some input from someone more knowledgeable than I am. Thank you!

What kind of input are you looking for?

 

[atomistic]

I fully agree.

But why didn't you state the source of your quote? This is part of scientific practice.
The quote comes in fact from ''olegt'', within a discussion last October in http://telicthoughts.com/hawking-on-science/

My mistake. Apologies.

How do you know that olegt is a physicist?

Someone pointed me to one of his papers in Nature. I will try and find it.

What kind of input are you looking for?

A balanced input from both sides please.

 

[A. Neumaier]

A balanced input from both sides please.

Well, this still doesn't tell what you want to know. As you can see from the thread so far, you can't expect to get a balanced opinion. You just get the extremes.

Nicolic, whose work was commented on in the discussion from which you quoted, calls himself here Demystifier - so his view is that of one of the active workers on Bohmian mechanics. And I am playing here the devil's advocate...

 

[akhmeteli]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_picture says:

Even if you find a more reliable source for this definition than Wikipedia, I am sure you fully understand that this definition cuts some corners, as I don't think you can tell me with a straight face that there are no such things in the Schroedinger picture as time-dependent Hamiltonians, time-dependent perturbation theory, Fermi's Golden Rule... If, however, you feel you can do that, please advise...

Look, Schroedinger representation is just that - a representation of the Heisenberg commutation relations. If you insist that there can be no time-dependent operators in the Schroedinger picture, how can it be equivalent to the Heisenberg picture? Or you don't think it is equivalent? Or do you think some operators are forbidden in the Heisenberg picture because their equivalents are forbidden in the Schroedinger picture? Then there is no time-dependent perturbation theory or Fermi's Golden Rule in the Heisenberg picture either?

Of course, one can introduce time-dependent operators by extending the Schroedinger picture, but then their meaning remains obscure since the usual rules to interpret the measurement of operators via an ensemble break down.

Again, time-dependent operators (e.g. time-dependent Hamiltonians) are part and parcel of the Schroedinger picture, not some artificial "extension". And again, they have the same meaning as in Heisenberg picture, as these pictures are equivalent.

 

[akhmeteli]

It does, but there are no measurement results in such a picture, since one forever remains in indeterminate superpositions.

Precisely. And you call this contradiction "harmless"?

In this context I repeatedly quoted this article here: arXiv:quant-ph/0702135 (Phys. Rev. A 64, 032108 (2001), Europhys. Lett. 61, 452 (2003), Physica E 29, 261 (2005))

I summarized the article as follows (edited here):

"they rigorously study a model of measurement. In the process of measurement of a spin projection, the particle interacts with a paramagnetic system. This paramagnetic system evolves into some macroscopic ferromagnetic state, and this seems to decide the outcome of the measurement. However, according to the quantum recurrence theorem, after an incredibly long period of time this macroscopic state will inevitably return into the paramagnetic state, if unitary evolution is correct, thus reversing the outcome of the measurement." So, as I often say, no measurement is ever final.

 

[qsa]

I basically agree with Neumaier for two reasons. One is my own theory which I cannot mention (Neumaier, I have send you an email about it, QSA) . the second, is just a question which I did not feel I had an answer. if you assume the particle picture ,then when electrons overlap in hydrogen molecule and when they sit on top of each other(statistically) you would expect that their gravity would produce effect that will can be noticed. But because they are actual waves then no problem, only small effect.

 

[A. Neumaier]

Even if you find a more reliable source for this definition than Wikipedia, I am sure you fully understand that this definition cuts some corners, as I don't think you can tell me with a straight face that there are no such things in the Schroedinger picture as time-dependent Hamiltonians, time-dependent perturbation theory, Fermi's Golden Rule... If, however, you feel you can do that, please advise...

There are time-dependent Hamiltonians, but these are not fundamental but semiclassical approximations, in which an external field/force is replaced by a classical field/force.
More importantly, the usual probability interpretation cannot be extended to them, unless the time-dependence is very low frequency (which is not the case for the kind of time-dependent operators that appear in time-correlations).

And time-dependent perturbation theory is done in the interaction picture, not in the Schroedinger picture.

 

[A. Neumaier]

Precisely. And you call this contradiction "harmless"?

There is no contradiction, since nothing is observed.

Talking about observations means approximating the observation part in a semiclassical fashion. But nobody ever claimed in any field of science that the fact that an approximation is not exact would constitutes a contradiction.

 

[A. Neumaier]

One is my own theory which I cannot mention (Neumaier, I have send you an email about it, QSA) .

When did you send it?

 

[Demystifier]

And I am playing here the devil's advocate...

So, you don't really think what you say?

 

[Demystifier]

Atomistic, here are I my replies to some of the objections you quoted:

"Instead, the theory is even worse because it violates locality* and—in a relativistic context—causality."
Is violation of those really worse than violation of reality? Is it really more acceptable to you that electron does not have any objective properties at all, until you observe them? Do you really believe that the Moon is not there when nobody looks? Or if it is not acceptable to you either, then what IS your favored interpretation of QM?

"... but no one seems eager to adopt their scheme for doing any calculations."
That is not true. See e.g.
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v82/i26/p5190_1

"In contrast, Bohmian mechanics is totally useless."
It is true that Bohmian mechanics is less useful than Feynman path integrals, but the example above (and there are other examples too) shows that it is not completely useless. Besides, one should have in mind that the main intention of Bohmian mechanics is NOT to be useful. Its basic intention is something else.

 

[alxm]

if you assume the particle picture ,then when electrons overlap in hydrogen molecule and when they sit on top of each other(statistically) you would expect that their gravity would produce effect that will can be noticed. But because they are actual waves then no problem, only small effect.

That makes no sense. The potential between two electrons is a point-charge (or mass) potential regardless of whether you're treating them classically or quantum-mechanically. Why would the effect be smaller if you 'assume the particle picture', and what would that even mean in this context - since it surely does not change the potential?

And how on Earth would it be measurable in any case? The q^2/r Coulomb point-charge repulsion is over fifty orders of magnitude larger than the m^2/r gravitational point-mass attraction.
The Rydberg constant is known to 14 digits of precision. You're missing almost 40 digits.

 

[qsa]

When did you send it?

I just sent it to you again , just now to

Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at

 

[qsa]

That makes no sense. The potential between two electrons is a point-charge (or mass) potential regardless of whether you're treating them classically or quantum-mechanically. Why would the effect be smaller if you 'assume the particle picture', and what would that even mean in this context - since it surely does not change the potential?

And how on Earth would it be measurable in any case? The q^2/r Coulomb point-charge repulsion is over fifty orders of magnitude larger than the m^2/r gravitational point-mass attraction.
The Rydberg constant is known to 14 digits of precision. You're missing almost 40 digits.

what I am guessing is that treating the two electrons(overlaping) as particles although not moving in the conventional sense must come close to each other statistically then m^2/r will shoot to the roof. that is why we use the full wave to do any calculation and things work out right because the electrons are waves. just handwaving argument.

 

[A. Neumaier]

So, you don't really think what you say?

I only say what I think is valid.

Did you mean to imply with your comment that I am the devil, rather than the devil's advocate, because it isn't make believe only?

 

[Demystifier]

I only say what I think is valid.

Then you are not the devil's advocate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

 

[A. Neumaier]

Then you are not the devil's advocate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

There it only says

a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure

Thus a devil's advocate is allowed to agree with the position taken. The key is to identify weaknesses, whereas it is secondary whether or not one agrees with the position taken.

 

[Demystifier]

Come on, it clearly states that a devil's advocate does NOT necessarily agree with the position he takes. Do you or do you not necessarily agree with the position you take? Simply answer yes or no?

 

[akhmeteli]

There are time-dependent Hamiltonians, but these are not fundamental but semiclassical approximations, in which an external field/force is replaced by a classical field/force.

Neither is the Coulomb potential fundamental, as it’s just an approximation to photon mediated interactions of charged particles, so I don’t think your argument is relevant. It looks like you cannot deny that time-dependent Hamiltonians are legitimate in the Schroedinger picture, otherwise you would have to expel the Coulomb potential from the Schroedinger picture as well.

More importantly, the usual probability interpretation cannot be extended to them, unless the time-dependence is very low frequency (which is not the case for the kind of time-dependent operators that appear in time-correlations).

If, say, Fermi’s Golden rule does not fit into an interpretation, this is a problem for the interpretation, not for Fermi’s Golden Rule. Anyway, there is no consensus on the interpretation of quantum theory, as exemplified by the results of the recent poll in this forum and the fact that you promote your own interpretation.

And time-dependent perturbation theory is done in the interaction picture, not in the Schroedinger picture.

It is not relevant how time-dependent perturbation theory IS done, it’s important how it CAN be done, and it is quite obvious that any derivation of the results of time-dependent perturbation theory in the interaction picture CAN be rewritten in the Schroedinger picture. Furthermore, your argument does not hold water as it can be used to prove that time-dependent perturbation theory does not belong in the Heisenberg picture, as “time-dependent perturbation theory is done in the interaction picture”. I guess it was not your intent to prove that:-)

Therefore, I totally reject your claim that there can be no time-dependent operators in the Schroedinger picture. Please don’t paint yourself into a corner defending this claim.

Let me also repeat that even if your claim were true, it would mean that you blame the Bohm interpretation for something that the Schroedinger picture is guilty of too, so again, maybe the Bohm interpretation is in good company?

 

[akhmeteli]

There is no contradiction, since nothing is observed.

I guess you have to choose: either the contradiction is "harmless", or it does not exist. In the latter case I guess you have just solved the measurement problem in quantum theory:-)

Talking about observations means approximating the observation part in a semiclassical fashion. But nobody ever claimed in any field of science that the fact that an approximation is not exact would constitutes a contradiction.

So let me ask you again, is the contradiction "harmless" or nonexistent?

While I am waiting for your reply, let me consider your euphemism "approximation". Approximation to what, exactly? To unitary evolution of "the observation part"? Then how can you blame the Bohm interpretation for (possibly) being inconsistent with the theory of measurement of standard quantum theory, if this interpretation is faithful to the ultimate truth - unitary evolution? If the Bohm interpretation is consistent with the precise theory, its inconsistency with the approximation is not its fault, as otherwise it's also unitary evolution's fault that, strictly speaking, it's inconsistent with its own approximation (otherwise the approximation would have been a rigorous result, not an approximation). By the way, I do tend to think that unitary evolution is a precise law. If you question this, please say so. If, however, you tend to agree with that, then maybe it's not so easy to find true inconsistency between the Bohm interpretation and standard quantum theory, if they both reproduce this precise law?

 

[A. Neumaier]

Come on, it clearly states that a devil's advocate does NOT necessarily agree with the position he takes. Do you or do you not necessarily agree with the position you take? Simply answer yes or no?

Not necessarily means, according to established practice, that he MAY but NEED NOT agree with the position he takes. Thus I may regard myself as playing the devil's advocate even though (as I had already stated) I say what I really mean.

 

[Demystifier]

Yes or no, please!

 

[A. Neumaier]

Yes or no, please!

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.

 

[Demystifier]

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.

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.

 

[A. Neumaier]

THAT satisfies me. So yes, you DO necessarily agree with the position you take.

No. I voluntarily agree with the position I take, though I am free to do otherwise.
A devil's advocate is allowed to do what I do.

 

[pyrotix]

I've been reading a bunch of this debate. I'm not really able to understand all of the elements of the argument (engineering student with some QM), and excuse me if I'm way off base in saying this, but it seems that this in some ways this is a disagreement about philosophy. There is some give take and regarding whether bohmian mechanics is truly consistent within conventional QM insofar as it makes experimental predications; I'll admit that is entirely physics.

At the same time, Demystifier, you seem to suggest that Bohmian mechanics is good because it's deterministic. I.E. it avoids ideas as ontologically offensive as a cat that is both alive and dead at the same time.

A. Neumaier, you seem to suggest that because BM is hacked together based on aesthetic rather than experimental considerations, and doesn't possesses particularly great explanatory power (e.g. doesn't make the math easier) it's bad physics.

The funny thing is, even if the Bohmian mechanics is entirely identical with QFT from an observables POV, the question of whether bohmian mechanics is "right" or "wrong" seems to be about something more than its status as a formalism. It's kind of similar to the canonical problem of hard underdetermination-- we infer others are conscious like we are cause we seem them act like we do. At the same time there is no possible experiment devisable to test whether they are conscious and have experiences, or simply act like they are conscious. And despite the fact it is possible to discern by any method between whether others are conscious or not, the question appears to be meaningful. I.E. it is 'wrong' to believe that others don't have consciousness.

Ideally some testable incompatibility for BM is found and an experiment is done. Supposing however BM is compatible with QFT, whether it is "right" seems similar to the question of whether people are conscious. Arguing that Bohmian mech or conventional models are "right" is a question of whether one values determinism or mathematical parsimony.

Please pardon my sophomoric analysis if it is extremely off-base. Regardless of whether anyone agrees with anything I've said I think its worth noting how close the issues under argument stray to problems in philosophy of science.

 

[A. Neumaier]

A. Neumaier, you seem to suggest that because BM is hacked together based on aesthetic rather than experimental considerations,

Not at all. There is no aesthetics in BM. It is a hack without any beauty.

BM is an ugly theory that sacrifices all elegance in favor of a weird ontology with the only virtue that it allows its adherents to believe in some form of realism. (This statement is very different from what I had argued before on a scientific level, since it uses subjective value-laden terms like beauty, ugly, elegance, weird. But it is part of the reason why few subscribe to the Bohmian view.)

In contrast, I believe in a neatly designed universe describable by beautiful mathematics and having elegant foundations, possessing a high degree of realism but lacking the weirdness of both the Bohmian view and the traditional mainstream view.

See the entry ''Foundations independent of measurements'' in Chapter A4 of my theoretical physics FAQ at http://arnold-neumaier.at/physfaq/physics-faq.html#found0 and the discussion in the thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=490492

 

[Demystifier]

At the same time, Demystifier, you seem to suggest that Bohmian mechanics is good because it's deterministic. I.E. it avoids ideas as ontologically offensive as a cat that is both alive and dead at the same time.

That's called realistic, not deterministic.

 

[Varon]

In Bohmian Mechanics. Position is preferred. Why position? Maybe in some other universe it's momentum or spin that is preferred?

To Neumaier. You are vague on the Bell's Theorem even on your web site. But do you believe non-local correlation is real or in your view, do loopholes explain the correlations? In Copenhagen, it is the measurement setting that is non-local. In Bohmian, it is the wave function that is omniscient. In your view Neumaier, what produced the correlations? Maybe with your superior mathematical ability. You can make algorithm that can make the correlations work artifically (without actual non-local correlations). Is this what you are saying?

 

[Misericorde]

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.

 

[Varon]

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.

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.

 

[Misericorde]

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.

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?

 

[Varon]

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?

See: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=499949

 

[Demystifier]

In Bohmian Mechanics. Position is preferred. Why position? Maybe in some other universe it's momentum or spin that is preferred?

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.

 

[Varon]

In the other thread I asked "Even if the initial condition is equal.. The quantum potential can push the particle while in mid flight.."

Demystifier (defendant of Bohmian Mechanics) answers:

"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."

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?

Also how many variants (or version) of Bohmian mechanics are there? There are many variants in Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Objective Collapse and even Statistical Interpretations.

 

[Demystifier]

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?

Yes, the quantum potential is time-independent when the system can be described by a time-independent Schrodinger equation.

Also how many variants (or version) of Bohmian mechanics are there?

I don't know, I didn't count.
But the variations mainly refer to extensions to relativistic QM and quantum field theory. There are no many variations within nonrelativistic QM.

 

[Varon]

Dear Bohmians and Everettians,

What do you think of this article that says that Bohmian Mechanics is really Many Worlds in disguise?

http://193.189.74.53/~qubitor/people/david/structure/Documents/Research%20Papers/CommentOnLockwood.html

"It is also, by the way, a logical consequence of Bohm’s ‘pilot-wave’ theory[3]and its variants[4].Their proponents think of them as single-universe theories. The idea is that the ‘pilot wave’, i.e. the wave function of the multiverse, guides Bohm’s single universe along its trajectory. This trajectory occupies one of the ‘grooves’ in that immensely complicated multi-dimensional wave function. The question that pilot-wave theorists must therefore address, and over which they invariably equivocate, is what are the unoccupied grooves?It is no good saying that they are merely a theoretical construct and do not exist physically, for they continually jostle both each other and the‘occupied’ groove, affecting its trajectory. For example, we may in principle arrange for complex computations to be performed in vast numbers of‘unoccupied grooves’ (i.e. in parallel universes), and then observe the results directly. So the‘unoccupied grooves’ must be physically real. Moreover they obey the same laws of physics as the ‘occupied groove’ that is supposed tothat they be ‘the’ universe. But that is just another way of saying that they are universes too. (Cf. Lockwood’s discussion of the “mindless hulk” objection to any single-mind theory.) In short, pilot-wave theories are parallel-universes theories in a state of chronic denial."

 

[zenith8]

Dear Bohmians and Everettians,

What do you think of this article that says that Bohmian Mechanics is really Many Worlds in disguise?

It's the usual wishful-thinking crap. Just like all the other so-called 'refutations' of deBB on this thread.

Valentini has a nice article on precisely this point:

"http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.0810" "

I can recommend the search-engine "Google" as being quite useful for this sort of thing.

 

[Demystifier]

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.

 

[Misericorde]

I would have said that deBB is the wishful thinking; the last of the truly wishful thinking really. It certainly ends up being MWI in denial for all ontological purposes, it's just a beefier way of getting there. MWI being the ramifications of a non-local and non-realistic universe with everything QM has to offer in denial, I'd say it's a double cut against deBB. I realize MWI is as valid as any other interpretation, but it seems pretty clear that the science can only support SUAC (Shut Up And Calculate) right now; anything more is just metaphysical meandering.

 

[Demystifier]

I would have said that deBB is the wishful thinking; the last of the truly wishful thinking really.

Why last?

 

[Misericorde]

Why last?

Simple, the rest of the alternatives to QM have gone the way of the dinosaurs, leaving QM and its interpretations, and deBB, that's it.

 

[Demystifier]

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."

 

[Misericorde]

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."

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?

 

[Varon]

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.

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).

 

[Misericorde]

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).

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.