B What sort of an experiment can refute QM or QFTs?

[physika]

The problem to accept quantum theory for us is that we have to give up determinism.

But Bohmian Mechanics is deterministic.

 

[gentzen]

I also cannot explain myself better. The problem to accept quantum theory for us is that we have to give up determinism

But Bohmian Mechanics is deterministic.

The determinism of Bohmian Mechanics is mostly in the form of a mathematical model. It is a nice and simple mathematical model, allowing realism even for small closed models. However, those small closed models are still not a good approximation of the small open systems actually relevant in most cases. And if you want to have appropriate randomness over larger time scales, you need to go to bigger and bigger models (not as far as the wavefunction of the universe like MWI, but still not bounded).

On the other hand, for short time scales, Bohmian Mechanics shows that deterministic like behavior is not in contradiction to QM, and that actual discontinuous quantum jumps are not required. (Here I am talking in a mathematical "conservation of difficulty" kind of way.) Which makes sense, because it would be strange if randomness could be conjured up out of thin air exactly in the moment a measurement takes place. Even more so, because it is not even clear what constitutes a measurement, and in which exact moment it takes place.

 

[CoolMint]

The randomness hypothesis is way overused these days. Students probably get the idea that randomness can creep up into the classical realm.
If the 'randomness' of qm was real, it would likely have led to a non-classical world.
I think even the HUP suggests that we are dealing with the unpredictability of certain qualities, rather than 'randomness'.
A limit to what can be known at tiny scales.

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation.

 

[PeterDonis]

After Mentor review, the thread will remain closed.