[liquidspacetime]

As far as I can tell Bohm modified the original theory. Hence de Broglie-Bohm theory.

De Broglie realized his pilot-wave theory was incorrect and abandoned it. That is why he went back to his original idea of the double solution theory. The pilot-wave was the wave-function wave and thought to exist over all of configuration space. De Broglie realized configuration space was a mathematical construct only. It doesn't physically exist. He then realized the pilot-wave as the wave-function wave was also a mathematical construct only.

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

"During the summer of 1951, there came to my attention, much to my surprise, a paper by David Bohm which appeared subsequently in The Physical Review [3]. In this paper Bohm went back to my theory of the pilot-wave, considering the W wave as a physical reality* He made a certain number of interesting remarks on the subject, and in particular, he indicated the broad outline of a theory of measurement that seemed to answer the objections Pauli had made to my approach in 1927.3 My first reaction on reading Bohm’s work was to reiterate, in a communication to the Comptes rendus de VAcademic des Sciences [4], the objections, insurmountable in my opinion, that seemed to render impossible any attribution of physical reality to the W wave, and consequently, to render impossible the adoption of the pilot-wave theory."

In de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves. There is the wave-function wave which is statistical, non-physical and is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments. There is also a physical wave in a hidden subquantic medium which guides the particle.

The hidden subquantic medium is the dark matter.

[alancalverd]

An electron changed state in a hydrogen atom in a star two thousand light years away, and emitted a photon when Jesus was born. If you look up tonight, you will see that photon. Now how did the atom know that you, and you alone, would be around to measure it? And why did it care?

There is no doubt that the electron changed state, because the photon you saw has exactly the properties and direction of every hydrogen line from that region of space, and it is absurd to propose that its wavefunction collapsed 2000 years after the photon was emitted: all the photons we observe in the laboratory seem to have been generated by very recent quantum events.   

[alancalverd]

As for the poll, no experiment has contradicted my statement that 47 angels can dance on the head of a pin. Doesn't make it true, though, or even useful.

And there ain't no "why" in physics - or indeed in any proper science. We start with the hypothesis that the laws of physics have not changed and will not change, therefore there is no "purpose" in any interaction: stuff happens the way it does, and our job is to explain and predict what happens. We deal with "how", not "why".

[liquidspacetime]

The "how' in terms of the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment is that the particle traveled through a single slit and the associated wave in the dark matter passed through both. If you strongly detect the particle it destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the dark matter and the particle no longer creates an interference pattern.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Why bring dark matter into it. What benefit does that give us? I really don't understand why these philosophical issues cloud quantum mechanics. No one knows why things happen the way they do. They just do. The phrase shut up and calculate likely arises from the frustration felt by a lot of scientists with the arguments.

[liquidspacetime]

The dark matter is what waves. The associated wave in the dark matter is the wave of wave-particle duality.

[puppypower]

A quantum universe, in general terms, limits the options that are possible relative to a continuous universe defined by continuous functions. For example, the hydrogen spectrum has five energy levels and not an infinite number a continuous universe might have assumed before one was able to measure it.

When science began to think in terms of a quantum universe, the dice of the classical universe became loaded and far more deterministic. The continuous models went from infinite energy levels for the hydrogen atom to only five quantum levels. This meant most of the random has gone, since the dice were so loaded.  But since nobody asked why quanta, the universe became more random. This was not even rational from 20/20 hindsight. The tradition continues so it is time to ask why?

There is no rule in science that say the scientific mind has to be calibrated, even though it is the most important tool in science. Say convention says we need to calibrate the mind so we can see  randomness in loaded dice. As we throw the dice, the bias of the calibration will cause the dice to appear to beat the odds, thereby needing to add another layer of explanation to make this possible. It is time to ask why quanta in the first place?

Puppypower, the “motion” in your picture has nothing to do with change continuing when time is stopped. Taking the picture stops both change and time. The motion you see is simply the result of your brain’s interpretation of the scene.

You are correct, the brain is interpreting the Δd of the blur as connected to motion or d/t, thereby adding virtual time for motion. This natural brain interpretation may be the same unconscious affect that connected space and time into space-time. This will make sense to us, since the brain already will make this connection as proven my motion blur. Motion blur caused this brain affect in 1850's, decades before relativity. The mind already had a precedent in terms of a tangible affect in photography.

[alancalverd]

The "how' in terms of the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment is that the particle traveled through a single slit and the associated wave in the dark matter passed through both. If you strongly detect the particle it destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the dark matter and the particle no longer creates an interference pattern.

But you detect the particle after it has gone through the slit, so the act of measurement cannot determine which slit it will go through. 

[liquidspacetime]

But you detect the particle after it has gone through the slit, so the act of measurement cannot determine which slit it will go through.

No one is saying anything about having to predict the future. This is about understanding the particle always travels through a single slit in a double slit experiment and it is the associated wave in the dark matter which passes through both.

You perform a boat double slit experiment a million times. On the millionth and first time you close your eyes. When you open your eyes you see the boat exiting one of the slits. Are you able to deduce which slit the boat entered?

In a boat double slit experiment you are capable of understanding the boat always travels through a single slit and the bow wave passes through both whether you detect the boat or not?

The path the boat travels is deterministic whether you closed your eyes and did not know what the path was, or not.

The particle in a double slit experiment travels a well defined path whether you detect the particle or not.

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 [the wave-function wave], 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”.”

The “subquantic medium” is the dark matter.

‘Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy’
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.”

A “fluidic pilot-wave system” is the dark matter.

‘When Fluid Dynamics Mimic Quantum Mechanics’
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729111934.htm

“If you have a system that is deterministic and is what we call in the business ‘chaotic,’ or sensitive to initial conditions, sensitive to perturbations, then it can behave probabilistically,” Milewski continues. “Experiments like this weren’t available to the giants of quantum mechanics. They also didn’t know anything about chaos. Suppose these guys — who were puzzled by why the world behaves in this strange probabilistic way — actually had access to experiments like this and had the knowledge of chaos, would they have come up with an equivalent, deterministic theory of quantum mechanics, which is not the current one? That’s what I find exciting from the quantum perspective.”

What waves in a double slit experiment is the dark matter.

[alancalverd]

No one is saying anything about having to predict the future. This is about understanding the particle always travels through a single slit in a double slit experiment and it is the associated wave in the dark matter which passes through both.

You are now saying that observing the particle affects the wave, but you began by asserting that the wave precedes and determines the position of the particle (that's why you called it a pilot wave). You can't have it both ways.

[liquidspacetime]

You are now saying that observing the particle affects the wave, but you began by asserting that the wave precedes and determines the position of the particle (that's why you called it a pilot wave). You can't have it both ways.

The particle is guided by its associated wave. When you strongly detect the particle you destroy the coherence between the particle and its associated wave. When you strongly detect the particle prior to entering or when it is exiting the slit you destroy the coherence between the particle exiting a slit and the associated wave exiting both slits, the particle is no longer guided by its wave and it does not create an interference pattern.

I recommend watching all of the following video. The part having to do with the double slit experiment is at the 2:43 mark.

[alancalverd]

When you strongly detect the particle you destroy the coherence between the particle and its associated wave.

You said that before, but it is a circular argument. Either the pilot wave determnes where the particle will be, in which case detecting the particle cannot alter anything, or it isn't a pilot wave. Just calling  it "coherence" doesn't change the fact that you are hypothesising a cause (wave) and effect (position of particle), and in this universe, causes precede effects.

[liquidspacetime]

You said that before, but it is a circular argument. Either the pilot wave determnes where the particle will be, in which case detecting the particle cannot alter anything, or it isn't a pilot wave. Just calling  it "coherence" doesn't change the fact that you are hypothesising a cause (wave) and effect (position of particle), and in this universe, causes precede effects.

If you place a bunch of pilings in front of a boat in order to detect it, while it is getting knocked around by the pilings it's not going to be in sync with its bow wave.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I want to ask a question here because I am not sure what the answer will be. If we fired 1 photon every minute in the double slit experiment would we still get the interference fringes? That is it is not a continuous stream of photons.

[liquidspacetime]

You would still get an interference pattern.

The following image shows the interference pattern build up over time for electons.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Double-slit_experiment_results_Tanamura_2.jpg

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I had read that in various texts but I wanted to get my ducks in order before proceeding. This then means that the interference is not dependent upon more than 1 particle being present at the same time. It will 'interfere' with itself. Does this mean that it does in fact pass through both slits? It would appear so. The 'pilot wave' approach appears seductive. It looks like it can explain the effect. However this should indicate that a particle is an expanding sphere that will ultimately expand to infinity. If we were to construct a spherical style multiple slit experiment would we see a 3 dimensional interference pattern? It may be that this pattern may likely mimic the profile of the magnetic field. If it does then the magnetic field may play the role of the wave. If this experiment is not done then no one will know. This should dispel the idea of an ongoing spherical expansion of the wave.

[alancalverd]

If you place a bunch of pilings in front of a boat in order to detect it, while it is getting knocked around by the pilings it's not going to be in sync with its bow wave.

It's a bad analogy.

1. The reason a boat has a bow wave is because it is moving through an effectively incompressible medium. Photon or electron diffraction occurs in the absence of a medium (double slit in vacuo) or a dense medium (x-ray and electron diffraction in crystals).

2. The bow wave moves ahead of the boat but doesn't determine the path of the boat.

3. You can see the diffraction of a bow wave as a boat approaches a row of stanchions or a harbor entrance, but the boat doesn't diffract!

[alancalverd]

3 We see wave on screen because  ( WAVE IS FASTER )

You might get away with that explanation in the case of an electron, but what wave is faster than a photon?

[alancalverd]

The following image shows the interference pattern build up over time for electons.

The key here is "build up over time". A single electron can't provide an interference pattern because, unlike a wave, it is indivisible. What we actually detect, whether electrons or photons, is individual particles hitting the detector with a spatial distribution that looks like wave interference. 

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I see that yet again we are moving away from reasonable debate and learning opportunities. I have picked up some useful information from reliable sources so I am officially abandoning this thread. Since I started it I don't mind if the mods lock it.