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

[microsansfil]

Incorrect.

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

Ok

The french title : an attemp of Non-linear ... [ 137€ :-( ]

In 1982 he write also : "1982 Les incertitudes d’Heisenberg et l’interprétation probabiliste de la mécanique ondulatoire " (The Heisenberg uncertainties and the probabilistics interpretation of wave mechanics )

Patrick

 

[bhobba]

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

No - we are discussing Bells inequality as it applies to QM. It applies to all quantum objects - not just photons.

The fact you chose something from quantum optics to explain a general concept suggests not understanding the issues involved.

Thanks
Bill

 

[liquidspacetime]

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

Why you can't understand there are two waves in de Broglie's double solution theory, when that's the whole point of the theory, has me beat.

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 ψ wave, even though the two equations may be considered identical almost everywhere."

 

[bhobba]

Why you can't understand there are two waves in de Broglie's double solution theory, when that's the whole point of the theory, has me beat.

Precisely what don't you get with I don't agree with De-Broglie?

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

that the equation of the propagation of the v wave is, basically, non-linear and, consequently, different from that admitted for the ψ wave, even though the two equations may be considered identical almost everywhere."

Since it is simply multiplied by a constant that's impossible.

Thanks
Bill

 

[liquidspacetime]

Ok

The french title : an attemp of Non-linear ... [ 137€ :-( ]

In 1982 he write also : "1982 Les incertitudes d’Heisenberg et l’interprétation probabiliste de la mécanique ondulatoire " (The Heisenberg uncertainties and the probabilistics interpretation of wave mechanics )

Patrick

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/682/bfm%253A978-94-009-2127-6%252F1.pdf?auth66=1413116342_e6b5ffb00ea42194256acbe74c92a075&ext=.pdf

"But in about the last 20 years I have again convinced myself that one should return to the idea that a particle is a very small object that is localized and moves along a trajectory. As I have shown in a series of increasingly thorough studies, malized W wave, with the aid of my concept of a particle guided by its wave, if one completes this notion by a so-called hidden thermodynamics, whose development opens up very novel perspectives. One particular consequence of this therrnodynamics appears very important to me: The principle of least action would merely
be an aspect of the second principle of thermodynamics."

 

[liquidspacetime]

No - we are discussing Bells inequality as it applies to QM. It applies to all quantum objects - not just photons.

The fact you chose something from quantum optics to explain a general concept suggests not understanding the issues involved.

Thanks
Bill

I am explaining what is occurring in terms of entanglement. You can't even understand there are two waves in de Broglie's double solution theory.

 

[atyy]

In the version of the double solution theory in http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf the $v$ wave can be considered in physical space, and the $\psi$ wave in configuration space in the special case of one particle. That does not generalize to two particles.

 

[liquidspacetime]

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

Thanks
Bill

de Broglie says it's the wave-function wave is fictitious. I agree with de Broglie.

 

[liquidspacetime]

Precisely what don't you get with I don't agree with De-Broglie?

Thanks
Bill

I understand you disagree with de Broglie. However, are you capable of understanding in de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves?

 

[liquidspacetime]

In the version of the double solution theory in http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf the $v$ wave can be considered in physical space, and the $\psi$ wave in configuration space in the special case of one particle. That does not generalize to two particles.

Correct. Two waves, one particle. A fictitious wave used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments and a physical wave which guides the particle.

 

[microsansfil]

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/682/bfm%253A978-94-009-2127-6%252F1.pdf?auth66=1413116342_e6b5ffb00ea42194256acbe74c92a075&ext=.pdf

There is an error

This one http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf work

I cannot review here in detail the present state of the double solution theory. A complete presentation may be found in the referenced publications. However I would like to insist on the two main and basic ideas of this interpretation of Wave Mechanics. A/- In my view, the wave is a physical one having a very small amplitude which cannot be arbitrarily normed, and which is distinct from the ψ wave. The latter is normed and has a statistical significance in the usual quantum mechanical formalism. Let v denote this physical wave, which will be connected with the statistical ψ wave by the relation ψ = Cv, where C is a normalizing factor. The ψ wave has the nature of a subjective probability representation formulated by means of the objective v wave.
This distinction, essential in my opinion, was the reason for my naming the theory “Double solution theory”, for v and ψ are thus the two solutions of the same wave equation.
B/- 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, ...

Physical wave are not an ontological concept of wave.

Patrick

 

[bhobba]

'But in about the last 20 years I have again convinced myself that one should return to the idea that a particle is a very small object that is localized and moves along a trajectory. As I have shown in a series of increasingly thorough studies, malized W wave, with the aid of my concept of a particle guided by its wave, if one completes this notion by a so-called hidden thermodynamics, whose development opens up very novel perspectives. One particular consequence of this therrnodynamics appears very important to me: The principle of least action would merely be an aspect of the second principle of thermodynamics.'

Mate - why do you keep simply posting text?

You realize physics is written in the language of math?

When I look at a physics paper I look at the equations. That's why I know De-Broglies wave is simply the wave-function multiplied by a constant - he states it right at the outset. That's why I know the particles motion is determined by the quantum potential - its what the force equation says. You must look at the math.

You must also read the paper critically - looking for what's really going on and trying to understand it - rather than non-critical acceptance.

I will have a look at your link as see what I think.

I had a look. It contains basically the same stuff as the paper I posted eg equation 12 and 13 are the same as 34 and 35.

Thanks
Bill

 

[liquidspacetime]

Since it is simply multiplied by a constant that's impossible.

Thanks
Bill

Not according to de Broglie. And the physical wave is now being mathematical determined by chaos theory which de Broglie also understood.

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-strange-behavior-pilot-wave-dynamics-action.html

""Molacek's work also led to a trajectory equation for walking droplets, which is currently being explored by my graduate student Anand Oza," Bush said. "Our next step is to use this equation to better understand the emergence of quantization and wave-like statistics, both hallmarks of quantum mechanics, in this hydrodynamic pilot-wave system."

http://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/89790

"Bell (1987) championed the de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory on the grounds that it presents a conceptual framework for a mechanistic understanding of quantum dynamics, a framework that a purely statistical theory cannot possibly provide. Whatever its shortcomings and limitations, the new physical picture suggested by the walkers, that of a relatively complex chaotic pilot-wave dynamics, also has this appealing feature."

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/fluid-systems-quantum-mechanics-0912

"The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It’s impossible to measure a bouncing droplet’s position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments."

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"."

 

[liquidspacetime]

There is an error

This one http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf work
Physical wave are not an ontological concept of wave.

Patrick

They are if they are hidden.

 

[liquidspacetime]

Mate - why do you keep simply posting text?

Mate - why can't you understand there are two waves in de Broglie's Double Solution theory? You don't have to agree to it, however, why can't you even understand it?

 

[atyy]

'But in about the last 20 years I have again convinced myself that one should return to the idea that a particle is a very small object that is localized and moves along a trajectory. As I have shown in a series of increasingly thorough studies, malized W wave, with the aid of my concept of a particle guided by its wave, if one completes this notion by a so-called hidden thermodynamics, whose development opens up very novel perspectives. One particular consequence of this therrnodynamics appears very important to me: The principle of least action would merely be an aspect of the second principle of thermodynamics.'

Mate - why do you keep simply posting text?

You realize physics is written in the language of math?

When I look at a physics paper I look at the equations. That's why I know De-Broglies wave is simply the wave-function multiplied by a constant - he states it right at the outset. That's why I know the particles motion is determined by the quantum potential - its what the force equation says. You must look at the math.

You must also read the paper critically - looking for what's really going on and trying to understand it - rather than non-critical acceptance.

I will have a look at your link as see what I think.

I had a look. It contains basically the same stuff as the paper I posted eg equation 12 and 13 are the same as 34 and 35.

Thanks
Bill

Take a look at liquidspacetime's post #101, which will explain why he is correct - he is only talking about a single particle theory (which also makes sense in terms of the John Bush papers he's been linking to). They are all about one particle, and in that case $v$ can be in physical space, and $\psi$ can be in configuration space.

 

[bhobba]

I understand you disagree with de Broglie. However, are you capable of understanding in de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves?

I am capable of understanding he interprets it that way.

What I am not capable of understanding is, except for that constant multiplication factor, its in anyway different from the wave-function. Any statement otherwise is obvious - well - rubbish.

Thanks
Bill

 

[liquidspacetime]

I am capable of understanding he interprets it that way.

What I am not capable of understanding is, except for that constant multiplication factor, its in anyway different from the wave-function. Any statement otherwise is obvious - well - rubbish.

Thanks
Bill

And that attitude is why you won't advance your understanding of what occurs physically in nature.

See https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/de-broglies-interpretation.775636/page-6#post-4879540

 

[bhobba]

Not according to de Broglie. And the physical wave is now being mathematical determined by chaos theory which de Broglie also understood.

Then he is wrong - simple as that.

He states right at the beginning of section 2 in the paper I linked to the wave-function is simply a multiple of his wave-function.

There is simply no escaping it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

And that attitude is why you won't advance your understanding of what occurs physically in nature.

And with your attitude you won't understand anything.

Stop reading just the text. Understand and interpret the equations.

Thanks
Bill

 

[atyy]

And with your attitude you won't understand anything.

Stop reading just the text. Understand and interpret the equations.

Thanks
Bill

liquidspacetime is correct. Look at his post #101.

 

[bhobba]

Take a look at liquidspacetime's post #101, which will explain why he is correct - he is only talking about a single particle theory (which also makes sense in terms of the John Bush papers he's been linking to). They are all about one particle, and in that case $v$ can be in physical space, and $\psi$ can be in configuration space.

Atty - its simply a multiple of it. It can't change the space it resides in.

But maybe what you mean is something like this.

For a single particle it can be viewed as residing in physical space ie an actual wave - got it. In general the wave-function will contain multiple particles and reside in configuration space and can't be interpreted that way.

Is that what you are getting at?

If so - yes I get that.

But - that does not change the fact its a multiple of the wave-function so can't be different from it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[atyy]

Atty - its simply a multiple of it. It can change the space it resides in.

Thanks
Bill

As we know from standard quantum mechanics, the wave function for one particle can be considered a physical wave or a configuration space wave. In the same way, $v$ can be also considered a physical wave, and $\psi$ can be considered a configuration space wave.

 

[bhobba]

As we know from standard quantum mechanics, the wave function for one particle can be considered a physical wave or a configuration space wave. In the same way, $v$ can be also considered a physical wave, and $\psi$ can be considered a configuration space wave.

See my previous post - I think I get it now.

I may glimpsing what Liquidspace could be getting at - but I wish he had explained it from the start.

Correct me if I am wrong. He is associating an actual wave with the wave-function of a single isolated particle. You can do that. Now when they interact and become entangled then that wave-function gets changed - in fact standard QM doesn't even have the concept of that - its a hidden variable.

Thanks
Bill

 

[atyy]

See my previous post - I think I get it now.

I may glimpsing what Liquidspace could be getting at - but I wish he had explained it from the start.

Correct me if I am wrong. He is associating an actual wave with the wave-function of a single isolated particle. You can do that. Now when they interact and become entangled then that wave-function gets changed - in fact standard QM doesn't even have the concept of that - its a hidden variable.

Thanks
Bill

It's something like that, but I'm not sure about the part you wrote about interacting and becoming entangled. The main thing is he is only talking about single particle theory, so $v$ and $\psi$ can be constant multiples of each other, but we can consider $v$ to be in physical space and $\psi$ to be in configuration space. There is no known generalization to multiple particles. In the known generalizations, both $v$ and $\psi$ have to be in configuration space to reproduce quantum mechanics. Both of us initially assumed that liquidspacetime was talking about the general multiple particle case, but it seems he is only talking about the single particle case.

 

[liquidspacetime]

In the version of the double solution theory in http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf the $v$ wave can be considered in physical space, and the $\psi$ wave in configuration space in the special case of one particle. That does not generalize to two particles.

That's one of the things de Broglie was working on. John Bush is also working on it.

 

[liquidspacetime]

See my previous post - I think I get it now.

I may glimpsing what Liquidspace could be getting at - but I wish he had explained it from the start.

Correct me if I am wrong. He is associating an actual wave with the wave-function of a single isolated particle. You can do that. Now when they interact and become entangled then that wave-function gets changed - in fact standard QM doesn't even have the concept of that - its a hidden variable.

Thanks
Bill

That's not it at all. The wavefunction doesn't interact with anything as it doesn't physically exist. It is a mathematical construct only.

 

[bhobba]

There is no known generalization to multiple particles.

Yea I see how it can be interpreted differently.

I dug up a copy of his reference and De-Broglie and, interestingly, he did generalise it to many particles.

Didn't go through the detail, and really haven't the inclination to, but I got the impression it was along the lines I mentioned.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

That's not it at all. The wavefunction doesn't interact with anything as it doesn't physically exist. It is a mathematical construct only.

OK - you are interpreting it differently - one in configuration space and another in physical space.

Now for the 64 million dollar question - what happens when two particles are entangled - what happens to the physical wave-function residing in physical space. The actual wavefunction no longer can be interpreted that way.

Thanks
Bill