What is De-Broglie's interpretation and how does it relate to DBB theory?

[bohm2]

Unless you can evade Bell's theorem, it cannot be done. The only reason Ross Anderson can hold his view that one can have both realism and locality is because he argues that it can be done in fluid mechanics. But I don't think many physicists would agree with this:

In this paper we show that Bell's inequality can be violated in a completely classical system. In fluid mechanics, non-local phenomena arise from local processes. For example, the energy and angular momentum of a vortex are delocalised in the fluid.

Violation of Bell's inequality in fluid mechanics
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.6822.pdf

 

[atyy]

Unless you can evade Bell's theorem, it cannot be done. The only reason Ross Anderson can hold his view that one can both realism and locality is because he argues that it can be done in fluid mechanics. But I don't think many physicists would agree with this:

Violation of Bell's inequality in fluid mechanics
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.6822.pdf

I don't know if the paper is right, but to be fair to Brady and Anderson they are not claiming that their theory is a local hidden variables theory, only that it is "classical", and they don't claim that it is "local classical". Brady and Anderson explicitly agree that there cannot be a local hidden variables theory for QM.

 

[atyy]

Interpretation of quantum mechanics
by the double solution theory
Louis de BROGLIE

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium"

"If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory"

NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS
A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION
by
LOUIS DE BROGLIE

Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of W, arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space".

"which escapes our observation", as in hidden.

But he does not say the subquantum medium is one of the double solutions.

 

[bohm2]

I don't know if the paper is right, but to be fair to Brady and Anderson they are not claiming that their theory is a local hidden variables theory, only that it is "classical", and they don't claim that it is "local classical". Brady and Anderson explicitly agree that there cannot be a local hidden variables theory for QM.

Look at their conclusion:

We conclude that Bell's analysis does not exclude the possibility of purely local interactions underlying and explaining quantum mechanics.

 

[liquidspacetime]

Unless you can evade Bell's theorem, it cannot be done. The only reason Ross Anderson can hold his view that one can have both realism and locality is because he argues that it can be done in fluid mechanics. But I don't think many physicists would agree with this:

Violation of Bell's inequality in fluid mechanics
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.6822.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

"Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variables as a viable explanation of quantum mechanics (though it still leaves the door open for non-local hidden variables)."

In order for there to be conservation of momentum, the downconverted photon pair are created with opposite angular momentums.

Each of the pair can determine the position and momentum of the other based upon their own position and momentum.

de Broglie's double solution theory is a non-local hidden (to us, not to each of the pair) variable theory.

 

[atyy]

Look at their conclusion:

They say "local interactions", which does not obviously map to local hidden variables (true light cone). For example, one can have non-relativistic models with only "local interactions", but faster than light propagation (fake light cone from "Lieb-Robinson bound").

I don't know they are right, but they are not obviously crackpots either (at first I thought they were).

 

[liquidspacetime]

But he does not say the subquantum medium is one of the double solutions.

That's exactly what he is saying. The physical $v$ wave propagates through the subquantum medium.

"For me the wave of Wave Mechanics should have evolved in three-dimensional physical space."

"From the causal point of view adopted by the Double Solution it must be demonstrated that the guidance formula and the statistical interpretation of W both result from interactions between the singular regions of w-type waves evolving in three-dimensional physical space."

"If the waves of Wave Mechanics were to retain any physical reality, it seemed to me that we had to be able to consider the motion of the particles, as well as the evolution of the wave phenomenon associated with them, in the framework of three-dimensional physical space."

 

[liquidspacetime]

Look at their conclusion:

We conclude that Bell's analysis does not exclude the possibility of purely local interactions underlying and explaining quantum mechanics.

The physical interactions are purely local in de Broglie's double solution theory.

 

[bhobba]

That's fine. No one is saying you have to agree with it. However, when you say de Broglie thinks the particle is a deformation of the wave-function then you don't understand it.

Hmmmm. From page 3 of the paper I started the thread with:

'For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation to a moving singularity

Now since the v wave is simply the wave-function multiplied by a constant its obvious the particle is a small region of high energy concentration in the wave function.

Sorry - have to disagree with you.

The difference between BM and De-Brogle is simply that. BM assumes the pilot wave guides an actual particle - De-Broglie assumes its a small region of high energy concentration - OK - I will call it that instead of deformation etc since it seems to bother you.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

The physical interactions are purely local in de Broglie's double solution theory.

Since his wave is simply a multiple of the wave-function that's not possible - Bell forbids it.

What is possible is a sub-quantum world that is an approximation to QM to violate Bell.

But the Doublesolution theory, exactly like BM, has been cooked up to be equivalent to QM, so its not possible. There must be interactions that are non-local.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

However this is not $v$, which is what de Broglie calls a physical wave but is in configuration space. There is also a statistical wave $\psi$ which is also in configuration space.

See section 4 - it too has the quantum potential - just like BM does - that determines the motion of the particle - which is a localised bit of energy in the wave-function in that interpretation. But that seems to be the only difference.

Thanks
Bill

 

[microsansfil]

Well since philosophers can never agree on what physical reality is that's hardly surprising.
Me - I say it's what our models tell us - but that's just me.

I have the same understanding and the questions here seem to be more philosophical than physical. Reality or not of the physics concept of "wave".

J-L. Destouches a student of L. de Broglie remind that in 1928 he abandoned his theories "Pilot wave" and "double solution theory" to rally to the Bohr and Heisenberg concept.Patrick

 

[bhobba]

I have the same understanding and the questions here seem to be more philosophical than physical. Reality or not of the physics concept of "wave".

QM is the formalism and an interpretation. Your choice reveals how you want to view the world rather than anything 'real'.

Well spotted - many don't get that.

a student of L. de Broglie remind that in 1928 he abandoned his theories "Pilot wave" and "double solution theory" to rally to the Bohr and Heisenberg concept.

That's true - its a very old backwater interpretation these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave
'From this idea, de Broglie developed the pilot wave theory, and worked out a function for the guiding wave.[4] Initially, de Broglie proposed a double solution approach, in which the quantum object consists of a physical wave (u-wave) in real space which has a spherical singular region that gives rise to particle-like behaviour; in this initial form of his theory he did not have to postulate the existence of a quantum particle.[5] He later formulated it as a theory in which a particle is accompanied by a pilot wave. He presented the pilot wave theory at the 1927 Solvay Conference.[6] However, Wolfgang Pauli raised an objection to it at the conference, saying that it did not deal properly with the case of inelastic scattering. De Broglie was not able to find a response to this objection, and he and Born abandoned the pilot-wave approach. Unlike David Bohm, de Broglie did not complete his theory to encompass the many-particle case.'

That said - its still valid since it has been deliberately cooked up, just like BM, to be indistinguishable from QM. Although it was never completed like BM, its similarity means that would be rather easy.

Added Later:
Must actually check if De-Brogle actually did extend it to multi particles.

Yes - he did - but it didn't seem that difficult.

Thanks
Bill

 

[liquidspacetime]

Hmmmm. From page 3 of the paper I started the thread with:

'For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation to a moving singularity

Now since the v wave is simply the wave-function multiplied by a constant its obvious the particle is a small region of high energy concentration in the wave function.

Sorry - have to disagree with you.

The difference between BM and De-Brogle is simply that. BM assumes the pilot wave guides an actual particle - De-Broglie assumes its a small region of high energy concentration - OK - I will call it that instead of deformation etc since it seems to bother you.

Thanks
Bill

The wave-function is a mathematical construct only. It doesn't physically exist. The particle can't physically be a small region of high energy concentration on a fictitious wave.

The particle is a small region of high energy concentration of the physical wave.

$v$ - physical wave.
$\psi$ - non-physical, statistical, fictitious wave.

 

[liquidspacetime]

Since his wave is simply a multiple of the wave-function that's not possible - Bell forbids it.

What is possible is a sub-quantum world that is an approximation to QM to violate Bell.

But the Doublesolution theory, exactly like BM, has been cooked up to be equivalent to QM, so its not possible. There must be interactions that are non-local.

Thanks
Bill

There are two waves in de Broglie's Double Solution theory. There is the $v$ wave which physically exists and guides the particle and there is the $\psi$ wave which is fictitious and used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments. Until you understand this you are incapable of understanding what is, or isn't, possible in de Broglie's Double Solution theory.

 

[bhobba]

In order for there to be conservation of momentum, the downconverted photon pair are created with opposite angular momentums.

What have photons to do with Bell in a general sense?

de Broglie's double solution theory is a non-local hidden (to us, not to each of the pair) variable theory.

Now you are saying its non-local - as it must be from Bell.

A theory is either local or not - it can't be non-local but local to each pair - whatever that means.

Thanks
Bill

 

[liquidspacetime]

See section 4 - it too has the quantum potential - just like BM does

Correct, as de Broglie's Double solution theory has the $\psi$ wave-function wave.

- that determines the motion of the particle

Incorrect. The $v$ wave determines the motion of the particle.

- which is a localised bit of energy in the wave-function in that interpretation. But that seems to be the only difference.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

The wave-function is a mathematical construct only. It doesn't physically exist. The particle can't physically be a small region of high energy concentration on a fictitious wave.

It can't be fictitious if its a simple multiple of it - your constant saying otherwise notwithstanding.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Incorrect. The $v$ wave determines the motion of the particle.

Sorry - wrong.

Its exactly the same as BM - see section 4 and equation 10 of my linked paper.

Its determined by the quantum potential.

Thanks
Bill

 

[microsansfil]

There is the $v$ wave which physically exists and guides the particle and there is the $\psi$ wave which is fictitious and used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments.

What is the experiment that is proposed to address this ontological affirmation ?

Patrick

 

[liquidspacetime]

I have the same understanding and the questions here seem to be more philosophical than physical. Reality or not of the physics concept of "wave".

J-L. Destouches a student of L. de Broglie remind that in 1928 he abandoned his theories "Pilot wave" and "double solution theory" to rally to the Bohr and Heisenberg concept.Patrick

Incorrect.

NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS
A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION
by
LOUIS DE BROGLIE

"It is sometimes said that when a man grows old he goes back to the preoccupations of his youth. Perhaps that is why, for some four years now, I have asked myself the following question: Might not the concepts which guided my research from 1922 to 1928, when I first worked on Wave Mechanics, be more accurate and fundamental than those that have prevailed since that time?

But, as I have said, since 1951 I have once again been wondering if, after all, my first idea was not the right one. Further reflections on this very difficult problem have led me to refine certain points of the original double-solution theory and, in certain other points actually to modify that theory, notably by introducing a hypothesis that today strikes me as indispensable: namely, that the equation of the propagation of the u wave is, basically, non-linear and, consequently, different from that admitted for the W wave, even though the two equations may be considered identical almost everywhere."

 

[liquidspacetime]

It can't be fictitious if its a simple multiple of it - your constant saying otherwise notwithstanding.

Thanks
Bill

In de Broglie's double solution theory the wave-function wave is part of the fictitious configuration space.

I don't understand how you are unable to understand the whole point of de Broglie's DOUBLE SOLUTION theory is that there are two waves, the
$v$ physical wave and the $\psi$ non-physical, statistical, fictitious wave.

 

[bhobba]

What is the experiment that is proposed to address this ontological afirmation ?

That's why its an interpretation - its deliberately cooked up to mimic standard QM so you can't do it - exactly as you can't observe the pilot wave of BM.

Thanks
Bill

 

[liquidspacetime]

Sorry - wrong.

Its exactly the same as BM - see section 4 and equation 10 of my linked paper.

Its determined by the quantum potential.

Thanks
Bill

The $\psi$ is statistical only. It determines the probabilistic results of experiments. As it doesn't physically exist it is incapable of guiding the particle. The $v$ physical wave guides the particle.

 

[liquidspacetime]

What is the experiment that is proposed to address this ontological affirmation ?

Patrick

In the following experiment, if the results are as I propose, it is evidence de Broglie is correct. In the following experiment nothing is erased and nothing is delayed, and if the results are as I propose, there will still be two interference patterns determined at D0.

There are two interference patterns being generated at D0 regardless of what else occurs in the experiment. It is the interaction with the second beam splitter which allows for the idler photons to be detected at certain detectors which correspond to the photons being detected at D0.

 

[bhobba]

I don't understand how you are unable to understand the whole point of de Broglie's DOUBLE SOLUTION theory is that there are two waves, the $v$ physical wave and the $\psi$ non-physical, statistical, fictitious wave.

That's because you don't get that multiplying something by a constant simply changes units.

All De-Broglie is doing is changing units to better suit his purposes - its done all the time in physics. De-Broglie however is interpreting it differently - but IMHO he is wrong.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

In the following experiment, if the results are as I propose, it is evidence de Broglie is correct. In the following experiment nothing is erased and nothing is delayed, and if the results are as I propose, there will still be two interference patterns determined at D0.

Great

Get it published, have some experimenter do it, and get back to us with your results.

Oh - and do be so kind as to post the reply from the whatever journal you submit it to - it should prove - most interesting.

Thanks
Bill

 

[liquidspacetime]

What have photons to do with Bell in a general sense?

We are discussing if Bell's Inequality applies to entangled photons.

Now you are saying its non-local - as it must be from Bell.

You are mistaking non-local behavior with non-local hidden variables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

"Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variables as a viable explanation of quantum mechanics (though it still leaves the door open for non-local hidden variables)."

A theory is either local or not - it can't be non-local but local to each pair - whatever that means.

Thanks
Bill

The behavior can be local to each pair and the theory can be a non-local hidden variable theory.

 

[liquidspacetime]

That's because you don't get that multiplying something by a constant simply changes units.

All De-Broglie is doing is changing units to better suit his purposes - its done all the time in physics. De-Broglie however is interpreting it differently - but IMHO he is wrong.

Thanks
Bill

de Broglie is trying to determine the mathematics associated with two different waves. A physical $v$ wave and a non-physical $\psi$ wave.

de Broglie himself says, "the two equations may be considered identical almost everywhere."

"But, as I have said, since 1951 I have once again been wondering if, after all, my first idea was not the right one. Further reflections on this very difficult problem have led me to refine certain points of the original double-solution theory and, in certain other points actually to modify that theory, notably by introducing a hypothesis that today strikes me as indispensable: namely, that the equation of the propagation of the $v$ wave is, basically, non-linear and, consequently, different from that admitted for the $\psi$ wave, even though the two equations may be considered identical almost everywhere."

 

[bhobba]

The $\psi$ is statistical only. It determines the probabilistic results of experiments. As it doesn't physically exist it is incapable of guiding the particle. The $v$ physical wave guides the particle.

You keep harping on that - why you think repeating it changes anything has me beat.

However the issue has nothing to do with section 4 where the quantum force is the negative gradient of the quantum potential Q.

I will concede however, just like BM, the pilot wave is related to the wave-function. In fact the local phase variation determines the guidance equation - see equation 13.

Thanks
Bill