The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Anti-atheist
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Bohm Interpretation Of Quantum Mechanics Is Probably False

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,650 times Debate No: 40965
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

I am going to be arguing that the Bohm interpretation of QM is probably false. The burden of proof will be shared (Con must show that the Bohm interpretation of QM is probably true).

The first round is for acceptance.
Anti-atheist

Con

Bring it, bro. I just got be BA in physics :) and no i dont believe in the Bohm interpretation but Ill play devils advocate.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Introduction

In this debate, I show why we should reject Bohm mechanics completely.

Support For Bohm Mechanics In The Scientific Community

Physicist Sean Carrol has presented a graph which shows how little support Bohm mechanics has in the scientific community compared to other interpretations (such as the Copenhagen interpretation)[1]:

Quantum Poll

As we can see, the Bohm interpretation has such little support that it shows up as 0% on the graph. This doesn't mean the interpretation is incorrect (that would be an Ad Populum fallacy), but it does show that my opponent has an uphill battle. It's hard to argue for an interpretation that is widely regarded as unfavorable by experts in the field. Now, perhaps a scientists "favorite" interpretation is one that they do not find true. However, I find that highly unlikely

My Argument

P1: If Bohm mechanics is true, then there are non-local hidden variables

P2: There are not non-local hidden variables

C: Therefore, Bohm mechanics is not true

---

The argument is clearly valid Modus Tollens[2]. The question that remains pertains to whether the premises are true or not.

Defense Of P1

Bohm's theory is a hidden variable theory which requires non-local hidden variables:

"The Hidden-Variable Theory of David Bohm: ....Hidden-variables theories, with their underlying determinism, must be non-local..."[3]

This premise is not controversial.

Defense of P2

Tests of Leggett's inequalities by Zeilinger in 2007 falsified a broad range of non-local hidden variables and naive realistic pictures [4][5].

"Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism."[4]

Of course, that doesn't mean that all non-local naive realistic pictures were refuted. This still leaves the ball park open for Bohm mechanics in regards to what we call "loopholes". Unfortunately, as recent as last year, all loop holes were closed[6].

"No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results." - Xiao-song Ma, Johannes Kofler, Angie Qarry, Nuray Tetik, Thomas Scheidl, Rupert Ursin, Sven Ramelow, Thomas Herbst, Lothar Ratschbacher, Alessandro Fedrizzi, Thomas Jennewein, Anton Zeilinger[6]

Obviously, non-local hidden variables theories like Bohm's entail naive realism[7].

Conclusion

The conclusion follows necessarily.

Summary

I showed that non-local hidden variables have been falsified by modern experiments. Since Bohm's interpretation is a hidden variable theory; it should be rejected.

The resolution has been affirmed. I will leave you with a quote from Physicist Victor Stenger:

"Now, after a series of percise experiments, the issue has been decided: the Copenhagan interpretation of Quantum Mechanics has been convincingly confirmed, while the most important class of hidden variables have been ruled out." - Victor Stenger[8]

Sources

[1] http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...
[2] http://www.philosophy-index.com...
[3] http://www.counterbalance.org...
[4] http://physicsworld.com...
[5] http://www.quantumphil.org...
[6] http://arxiv.org...
[7] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[8] http://www.colorado.edu...
Anti-atheist

Con

Rational were you high when u wrote that last round? Cuz lol you had to be. Ohhh god.


Support For Bohm Mechanics In The Scientific Community

This sh1t doesn't matter. Physicsts study physics assumign non realism. the methodolgy assumes quantum space-time which doent exist. They all asume to work toward a greater theory, this assumes anti reductionism which is wat science is based on. The methodoloy of the avarage quantum physicsist assuems science is flawed.

Rats arugment

I agree wit premise 1.

Premise 2 a.k.a where the Sh1t goes wrong

where u get ur weed from? Silk road? They got some good sh1t there but dont be high and write argumetns k?

Bohm is a hidden varriabe theory.

hidden varriabe theory.

Hidden

You cant have an experiment to disprove bohm because then it wont be a hidden varriable theory. Premise one contradicts premise tow bc u cant ever know if there is not something hidden.

Bohm's mechanics do not assume naive realism

Naive realism is

"For various reasons, after the discovery of quantum mechanics it quickly became almost universal to speak of an experiment associated with an operator A in the manner just sketched as a measurement of the observable A — as if the operator somehow corresponded to a property of the system that the experiment in some sense measures. It has been argued that this assumption, which has been called naive realism about operators, has been a source of considerable confusion about the meaning and implications of quantum theory" From Pro's (7) source

Bohm say observer is irrelevent. Spin of a particle shows this

"This occurs because the Stern-Gerlach magnets are so designed and oriented that a wave packet (a localized wave function with reasonably well defined velocity) directed towards the magnet will, by virtue of the Schrödinger evolution, separate into distinct packets — corresponding to the spin components of the wave function and moving in the discrete set of directions. The particle itself, depending upon its initial position, ends up in one of the packets moving in one of the directions."

The spin of particle is dependent on intinal position not an observer. No naive realism

There are non local hidden variables

We gots non locality this is proved with quantum entanglement. All particle has a non local connection. Yes entanglement stats with a superposition which is a hidden variable bc it hides which state a system is in (1)(2). Wow this mean quantum entanglement shows there ARE non local hidden variables.

No other interpreation is true and correct

Local hidden variables got f*cked by John bell. Bell's theorem made einstiens wet dream a fiction (3). Many physicsts are now jizzing themselves cuz they have a random theory of QM called the copenhagen (because Neils Bohr would chew some copenhagen when workin on it). Copen says sh1ts all random. They all say Born's rule can calculate where particle go by intensitty of the wave (amplitude^2). Born's rule got sh1t on by Guang-Liang Li and Victor O. K. Li.

Born's probability explanation of the wave function is incorrect due to a false assumption on "continuous probabilities" in modern probability theory. "Continuous probability" means a "probability measure" that can take every value in a subinterval of the unit interval (0, 1). We prove that such "continuous probabilities" are invalid. (4)

Ratman got pwned

Smoke it up, 420


(1) Griffiths, David J. (2004), Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.), Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-111892-7
(2) Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos, p. 11
(3)https://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) http://arxiv.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Introduction

My opponent has violated conduct beyond belief. Not only that, his spelling is atrocious. To top it off, his rebuttals fall flat on their face as well.

Support For Bohm Mechanics In The Scientific Community

My opponent just seems to be rambling here, and makes many unsubstantiated claims. There is not much to see here.

Can Hidden Variables Be Ruled Out?

The experiments I sourced in the first round actually do show that hidden variables can be ruled out. Just because they are called "hidden" doesn't mean science cannot rule them out; that is a non-sequitur. Take for instance violations in Bell's inequalities. They conclusively ruled out local hidden variables a long time ago. Here is a basic outline of Bell's theorem:

"Specifically, the theorem says that no theory of local hidden variables can account for all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. Bell proves this theorem through the creation of Bell inequalities, which are shown by experiment to be violated in quantum physics systems, thus proving that some idea at the heart of local hidden variables theories has to be false."[1]

We know that violations of Bell's Inequalities proved that there could be no local hidden variables. Just because they were "hidden", that didn't mean they couldn't be ruled out. Therefore, experiments can indeed rule out hidden variables regardless of the description of "hidden". This means that the claim of a contradiction in my argument is hogwash.

Non-Local Hidden Variables Ruled Out

So, we know that violations of Bell's Inequalities rule out local hidden variables, but I provided an experiment in the first round from 2007 which showed violations in Leggett's equalities; this rules out non-local hidden variables. With violations of Bell's inequalities ruling out local hidden variables, and violations of Leggett's inequalities; what left then for Bohm mechanics if my opponent accepts Bohm relies on non-local hidden variables? Not much. However, as I said, there are still some loopholes. However, they were closed last year.

Bohm Mechanics Assumes Realism

None of the quotes my opponent proposed show that Bohm mechanics doesn't assume realism. Either way, it is common knowledge that it does:

"Bohmian mechanics insists on realism..."
[2]

"Bohmian mechanics is realist."
[3]

So, we know that Bohm mechanics is a realist interpretation. What is realism (or "naive" realism)? It is the view that reality exists when you are not observing it:

"The quality of the universe existing independently of ourselves (or our observations)."[4]

"The philosophical doctrine that physical objects continue to exist when not perceived."[5]

Thus, it follows that Bohm mechanics entails that reality is there when not perceived. However, as I already showed, violations in Leggett's give a smack to that assumption:

"They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it."[5]

This would still seem to leave the door open for some non-local models. However, that is false due to certain quantum experiments:

"Nonlocal \realistic Leggett models can be considered refuted by the before-before experiment." - Antoine Suarez[7]

Bohm mechanics, as I have shown, is realistic and non-local. Thus, violation in leggett's inequalities/ the before-before experiment clearly refute it. Not only that, but as I outlined in my last round, a recent result (as new as last year) refuted any chance of a realistic picture:

"No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results... It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether." - Xiao-song Ma, Johannes Kofler, Angie Qarry, Nuray Tetik, Thomas Scheidl, Rupert Ursin, Sven Ramelow, Thomas Herbst, Lothar Ratschbacher, Alessandro Fedrizzi, Thomas Jennewein, Anton Zeilinger[8]

So, Bohm assumes non-local hidden variables and non-local realism. All of these have been ruled out by experiments.

Does Quantum Entanglement Entail Non-Local Hidden Variables?

A hidden variable has to have deterministic causal effects. This is something that a quantum superposition does not have, so there is no way it can be a "hidden variable" in context. Also, non-local causal interactions between two photons (making anyone appear as a particle) have been proven false in non-causal quantum eraser experiments:

"This rules out the possibility of any physical signal between the two photons." - Xiao-Song Ma[8]

"Our work disproves the view that a quantum system might, at a certain point in time, appear definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle. This would require communication faster than light – which is dramatically at odds with Einstein's theory of relativity. And so, I think that this view needs to be abandoned completely. In a certain sense, quantum events are independent from space and time." - Anton Zeilinger[8]

So, of course quantum entanglement happens but a non-local causal interaction (involving hidden variables) would violate Einstein's theory of Relativity (as Anton Zeilinger explains above). Thus, the most reasonable option is to assume there is no causal connection like my opponent claims.

As a said in the earlier section, Bohm mechanics assumes non-local realism which is clearly not true:

"An experimental test of non-local realism: In the experiment, we measure previously untested correlations between two entangled photons, and show that these correlations violate an inequality proposed by Leggett for non-local realistic theories." - Simon Groeblacher, Tomasz Paterek, Rainer Kaltenbaek, Caslav Brukner, Marek Zukowski, Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger[9]

All the evidence we have suggests that Bohm mechanics is false.

Is No Other Interpretation True or Correct?

My opponent contradicts himself. Earlier in his round he says that hidden variables cannot be ruled out because they are "hidden", but clearly goes against that by saying "local hidden variables got f*cked by John Bell". Either way, he gave no argument in favor of Bohm's mechanics here.

Conclusion

The burden of proof is shared in this debate. My opponent seems more focused on attacking my case rather than presenting a positive one on his own. Regardless, all of this rebuttals were based on misunderstandings and old/ outdated information. I provided experiments from 2007 - 2012 which support my position (Pro relies on ideas that are multiple decades old). I proved that Bohm mechanics assumes non-local realism, and that non-local realism is considered almost impossible by recent results in the field. Thus, Bohm mechanics is probably false:

The resolution has been affirmed.

Sources

[1] http://physics.about.com...
[2] http://atdotde.blogspot.ca...
[3] Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal, Volume 132 (P.246)
[4] http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca...
[5] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
[6] http://physicsworld.com...
[7] http://www.quantumphil.org...
[8] http://phys.org...
[9] http://arxiv.org...
Anti-atheist

Con

Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

My opponent foreited.
Anti-atheist

Con

Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Yo anti, do you plan to reply on the debate?
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Anti-atheist
yah i FF cuz i was out spreading nazism. I couldnt have defend bohm anymore anyway
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
Not to worry this will end in a forfeit by Anti-atheist.
Posted by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
Oh boy. This looks interesting...
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Anti-atheist
Bohm can explain some stuff that copen cant. But the best interpretation is the Jesus interpretation.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Ok this is going to be interesting. Bring the interpretations.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
Rational_Thinker9119Anti-atheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF Anti-atheist just wastes peoples valuable time, besides the forfeit Anti-atheist's arguments are lame and have no merit. The Pro did a great job and presented good evidence for his arguments. Anti-atheist's spelling is atrocious, whether he is trolling or not. Sources go to Pro.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Rational_Thinker9119Anti-atheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not present any solid arguments and violated conduct by using foul language and forfeiting the last two rounds. Pro tried to steer the debate into a rational discourse but Con had no intention of doing this. While Con's rant was entertaining, I do not find it beneficial to serious discourse. Sources cited points clearly go to Pro.
Vote Placed by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
Rational_Thinker9119Anti-atheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF con's argument's did not hold.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
Rational_Thinker9119Anti-atheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is clear from the forfeits and language. S&G because Con used text speak. Sources go clear to Pro for using more than 1 that was within the last decade. Arguments also go to Pro for several reasons. Con never defended his side and only attempted to attack Pros side. Con contradicted himself multiple times. Con flat out dismissed several arguments made by Pro.