0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I found an article talking a bout a different view on quantum mechanics: http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality
I was thinking about the universe as a kind of super-fluid for some time now, even posted some thoughts, questions in this forum.
Too bad people dont really want to try a different view on quantum mechanics.
Why is that?
Though I disagree that pilot wave theory is revolutionary (most physicists know of it and believe that it is in agreement with the mathematics of quantum mechanics), it is not in violation of Bell's inequalities. In fact, it appears to be in complete agreement with mathematics and experimental tests of quantum mechanics, but is also indistinguishible based on current experiment from the more standard Copenhagen interpretation. Though these water drop experiments are cool, they're also really overhyped. It's not some revolution in physics going on here--it's a neat classical analogy to a well known theory. But there's nothing special about this--optical physicists have used ray models which are analogous to the pilot wave theory for decades.In addition, it introduces the idea of a pilot wave in which particles interact non-locally with each other. This is the inherent problem with interpretations of quantum mechanics: experimental results confirm that it is weird and counterintuitive, so no matter what interpretation you apply to explain those experiments, it will have counterintuitive features. More here:https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Bohm_interpretation.html
Quote from: McKayI found an article talking a bout a different view on quantum mechanics: http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-realityDid you read it and then search the web to find other sources of pilot waves and then pick up a book that discusses pilot waves? If so then your next task is to pick up a book on hidden variable theory and perhaps even a book or two by Bohm explaining his work in this area. Then you can say you have a good enough background knowledge to take an educated guess as to why people don’t bother with it.Quote from: McKayI was thinking about the universe as a kind of super-fluid for some time now, even posted some thoughts, questions in this forum.Why? What are the properties of such a fluid? Did you hypothesize this to account for a description of pilot waves?Quote from: McKayToo bad people dont really want to try a different view on quantum mechanics.Hold on, please. Where did you get that idea from? In my experience it’s certainly not true. The reason there are few (not absolutely zero) people who look into this is because experiments have shown that they don’t exist.In 1964 a physicist by the name of John Bell showed the physics community that it makes an observable difference whether a particle actually has a precise (although unknown) position prior to measurement or not. Bell’s discovery made eliminated the view that a particle has a position prior to its position being measured. That effectively meant that there are no hidden variables. And the pilot wave theory is a hidden variable theory. Still there are those who keep trying and studying. So you’re quite mistaken when you assert/imply that nobody tries different views on quantum mechanics. However the reason few people do is because it’s already been established that the orthodox view is the right one. This is only the written equivalent of “a sound bite” on the topic. You can’t expect a complete answer to such a question by reading such a “sound bite”. Depending on your level of expertise you should pick up a book on the subject.Quote from: McKayWhy is that?Because you were mistaken in your assumption that we don’t try different views on quantum mechanics. But after 30 to 40 years of thinking about the subject and the entire physics community gets nowhere and all observation is consistent with theory then that’s what we expect to happen when we have the right theory. So how would you expect to know when we have the physics right? When you believe that you have the physics right how would you approach looking for the errors in it when everything you could think of for the last several decades failed as it has for the rest of the physic community?Quote from: McKayAren't scientist supposed to be truth seekers and put aside any personal bias?We sure are.
Aren't scientist supposed to be truth seekers and put aside any personal bias?
Actually Bell's Theorem states that there are no LOCAL hidden variables.
Quote from: jeffreyHActually Bell's Theorem states that there are no LOCAL hidden variables. Yeah. I know. I'm just tired of putting in the "Local" all the time. You do understand what a local hidden variable is, don't you? A local hidden variable theory is a hidden variable theory in which distant events are assumed to have no instantaneous (or at least faster-than-light) effect on local events.
Quote from: jeffreyHActually Bell's Theorem states that there are no LOCAL hidden variables. Yeah. I know. I'm just tired of putting in the "Local" all the time. You do understand what a local hidden variable is, don't you? A local hidden variable theory is a hidden variable theory in which distant events are assumed to have no instantaneous (or at least faster-than-light) effect on local events.What do you think it means for a non-local hidden variable theory to be consistent with quantum mechanics?
What it doesn't necessarily mean is superluminal communication. If that is the point you are driving at. It does have other very weird properties such as everything depends upon the state of everything else but that is just chaos theory writ large and we have no trouble accepting chaos theory.
Quote from: jeffreyHWhat it doesn't necessarily mean is superluminal communication. If that is the point you are driving at. It does have other very weird properties such as everything depends upon the state of everything else but that is just chaos theory writ large and we have no trouble accepting chaos theory.No. That's not my point. Local hidden variable theory is a hidden variable theory in which distant events are assumed to have no instantaneous (or at least faster-than-light) effect on local events. While a hidden variable theory can exist in which distant events have a delayed effect on local events the experiments of Aspect and others were set up precisely to exclude such cases.Suppose there were such a thing as a pilot wave and pilot waves guided electrons around the nucleus of the atom. If that's true then electrons would have a classical trajectory and as such they'd radiate energy as they acccelerated. Since that's not observed then that cannot be the case.