= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gavin comments on Open thread, Nov. 3 - Nov. 9, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (310)
I was recently linked to this Wired article from a few months back on new results in the Bohmian interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/
Should we be taking this seriously? The ability to duplicate the double slit experiment at classical scale is pretty impressive.
Or maybe this is still just wishful thinking trying to escape the weirdnesses of the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations.
Bohmian mechanics and the Many Worlds interpretation make identical predictions (at least, as long as we ignore anthropic considerations). I haven't yet read the article, but if it is claiming that this experiment is some sort of vindication of Bohmian mechanics, then I suspect it is wrong.
Not exactly. Bohmian QM allows superluminal signalling in certain circumstances.
Not sure what you mean by this. It is true that Bohmian particles can influence one another superluminally. However, if the experimenter's epistemic state is represented by the wave function (as Bohmian mechanics presupposes), then this superluminal influence can't be leveraged to transmit information superluminally.
Yes, theoretically it could, but not in an average sense. Quantum mechanics standard is recovered when the wave functions is in equilibrium, but in out-of-equilibrium states you can have violation of relativity or of the Heisenberg uncertainty.
Well, quantum non-equilibrium (based on your Wikipedia link) violates the condition I specified ("the experimenter's epistemic state is represented by the wave function"). I had assumed that was a pre-supposition of Bohmian mechanics, but apparently it is not (at least for some proponents of Bohmianism).
Interesting, thanks.
Well, have any differences been tested, and if not, why not?
Yes, they have been tested and no, so far no such effect has been found.
So why do people still believe it? Would you expect an effect to have been found at the scales tested?
I'm afraid you'll have to ask to someone who actually believes it...
Really? Could you tell us more?
I'll let wikipedia do the work: quantum non-equilibrium.
I have seen this some time ago when it was mentioned on slashdot. By now there should be lots of nice videos illustrating those on YouTube. One is this.
What I really like about this is that it allows to gain conflict-free intuitions about QM via macroscopic processes.
See also De Broglie–Bohm theory. I do not see a clear reason why MWI must be preferred. For me the deciding point is which can (better) be generalized relativistically. Apparently there are bohmian mechanic-based approaches
ADDED: The latter article contains the interesting conclusion: "if Bohmian mechanics indeed cannot be made relativistic, it seems likely that quantum mechanics can’t either".