Pilot Wave theory is a theory I should have been told about
when I was a child, and it should have been mentioned in
science fiction stories at least as often as quantum mechanics
or other post-Newtonian theories of physics. ...
Pilot wave theory holds that there is no wave particle
duality, no role for probability, and that reality stays the
same before and after observation. Particles are guided by
pilot waves that act like waves, for example, forming
interference patterns in the double-slit experiment. The
observable particle behavior is as it is because the particles
follow non-observable waves. ...
<https://www.scifiwright.com/2022/09/on-the-unpopularity-of-pilot-wave-theory/>
Danke,
Pilot Wave theory is a theory I should have been told about
when I was a child, and it should have been mentioned in
science fiction stories at least as often as quantum mechanics
or other post-Newtonian theories of physics. ...
Pilot wave theory holds that there is no wave particle
duality, no role for probability, and that reality stays the
same before and after observation. Particles are guided by
pilot waves that act like waves, for example, forming
interference patterns in the double-slit experiment. The
observable particle behavior is as it is because the particles
follow non-observable waves. ...
<https://www.scifiwright.com/2022/09/on-the-unpopularity-of-pilot-wave-theory/>
Don wrote:
Pilot Wave theory is a theory I should have been told about
when I was a child, and it should have been mentioned in
science fiction stories at least as often as quantum mechanics
or other post-Newtonian theories of physics. ...
I agree. It is intuitively simple, gives mathematically correct
predictions of the results of experiments (as do all other
interpretations), and there is nothing anywhere to say that any other interpretation is better or closer to reality.
Pilot wave theory holds that there is no wave particle
duality, no role for probability, and that reality stays the
same before and after observation. Particles are guided by
pilot waves that act like waves, for example, forming
interference patterns in the double-slit experiment. The
observable particle behavior is as it is because the particles
follow non-observable waves. ...
De Broglie waves. After Comte Victor Louis De Broglie, kinda my hero,
though iirc he didn't specify much as to the "reality" or
"observability" of the waves, more to the "actuality".
Later at Copenhagen, Bohr shouted loudest and de Broglie shut up.
Bohm did some later work on Pilot Wave theory, as did Bell.
<https://www.scifiwright.com/2022/09/on-the-unpopularity-of-pilot-wave-theory/>
also Feynman's sum-over-paths (which I think is getting closer to the
real situation, but still not quite there) - actually foreshadowed by De
Broglie in part of his 1924 thesis on the principle of least action.
or the many-worlds interpretation (which I think is mostly wrong),
or the transactional interpretation (which I think is wrong but.. maybe contains a hint or two),
or the ensemble interpretation (hmmm), and so on.
Incidentally I think Pilot Wave theory is closest to being correct, but
it needs a bit more, ie an explanation of what is happening.
just my 2c
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:22:49?AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
I once read a post on Usenet suggesting that photons do not, in fact,
behave like particles in some situations and likes waves in other
situations. Instead, they behave like /photons/, and we are the ones
trying to force them into boxes that they simply will not fit in.
I think that this is a principle that practicing scientists already accept, >despite talking about wave-particle duality. The only error in that
statement is that it isn't just photons. Electrons, for example, behave
that way too.
Don wrote:
The cultural idiosyncrasies of interpretation intrigue me - Marxist
materialism as counterpoint to Copenhagen idealistic immaterialism,
for instance.
I recently learned, from a reply to a post of mine in sci.physics,
that what I had thought of as the Copenhagen Interpretation of
quantum mechanics -
quantum systems drop out of superposition, and become classical,
upon being observed by a conscious human observer
is _not_ the Copenhagen interpretation, but is, in fact, the
von Neumann - Wigner Interpretation.
This is the interpretation, of course, that keeps being used
by Tarot card readers and the like to claim that Science has
now shown that Mind has a fundamental role in the Universe,
and it's not just materialistic.
When I believed that interpretation to be the Copenhagen Interpretation,
I had formed the notion that perhaps no one really believed it, but
that instead they thought the "real" explanation of symmetry-breaking
was some as-yet undiscovered nonlinear term in the Schrodinger
equation... and this theory about consciousness being involved was
merely a *stopgap*, to turn Quantum Mechanics into a complete theory,
that agrees with the fact that no one ever sees half-dead half-alive superposed stray cats wandering the streets... which stopgap contains
no claims about what the _actual_ observation mechanism is, so as
not to bias the search for it.
But apparently von Neumann and Wigner (before the latter changed
his mind on the merits of this interpretation) did take it seriously,
so my "stopgap" hypothesis turns out not to be the case.
On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 8:06:39=E2=80=AFAM UTC-7, Don wrote:
Superposition seemingly slipped into sfnal dogma shortly after Bohr=20
bellowed the bombast heard round the world - or at least the Occidental= >=20
World. The Orient closed its ears to Copenhagen's cacophonous counter-=20
revolutionary, reactionary rhetoric in 1947, when it censured the=20
Copenhagen Interpretation at the yearly Meeting of the Soviet Union's=20
Academy of Science.
Pardon me, why should I take advice on scientific matters from
the people who thought Trofim Lysenko had a good idea?
On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:41:41=E2=80=AFAM UTC+11, Scott Dorsey wrot= >e:
Pardon me, why should I take advice on scientific matters from=20This is a valid point although some folks are starting to think that ther= >e=20
the people who thought Trofim Lysenko had a good idea?
might be something to Lysenkoism in that there are epigenetic traits whic= >h=20
are inherited in addition to the genetic ones, and some of those may be= >=20
affected by the environment.=20
That's a long way off what Lysenko argued, it also seems to be pretty minor=
compared to the main inheritance approach
On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:41:41?AM UTC+11, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 8:06:39=E2=80=AFAM UTC-7, Don wrote:This is a valid point although some folks are starting to think that there >> might be something to Lysenkoism in that there are epigenetic traits which >> are inherited in addition to the genetic ones, and some of those may be
Superposition seemingly slipped into sfnal dogma shortly after Bohr=20 >> >> bellowed the bombast heard round the world - or at least the Occidental= >> >=20
World. The Orient closed its ears to Copenhagen's cacophonous counter-=20
revolutionary, reactionary rhetoric in 1947, when it censured the=20
Copenhagen Interpretation at the yearly Meeting of the Soviet Union's=20 >> >> Academy of Science.
Pardon me, why should I take advice on scientific matters from
the people who thought Trofim Lysenko had a good idea?
affected by the environment.
That's a long way off what Lysenko argued, it also seems to be pretty minor compared to the main inheritance approach
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 31:11:51 |
| Calls: | 12,108 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,267 |