Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

My conversation with Tim Maudlin

Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 6:15:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have been researching experiments that the DDO RationalThinker mentioned to me as refutations of the Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics. Here is a portion of my conversation with the philosopher Tim Maudlin in relation to one of these experiments.

Dr. Maudlin,

I have some questions in regards to the Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics. I have read from physicists such as Brian Greene and Craig Callender that the Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics is empirically equivalent to all other interpretations. I have heard similar statements made by the philosophers Quentin Smith and William Lane Craig. However, anti-Bohmians are citing experiments such as the one by Shan Gao (http://image.sciencenet.cn...) demonstrating that it is not. As a teenage layman, I have a hard time deciding on an issue when both sides are experts on the issue. Could you shed some light on why some physicists and philosophers state that Bohmian mechanics is empirically equivalent to other interpretations in light of the evidence? The only reason I could think of is that Bohmian mechanics follows the Born rule (wavefunction squared) like all of the other interpretations, so it has to give the same results. However, this is so, then I have no idea how to explain these kind of experiments. As a philosopher and physicist, could you help me understand the implications of these experiments and the differences in beliefs among physicists in philosophers in relation to this issue?

Thank you,
-(Sargon's Name)l


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear (Sargon's Name),

There is no general rule for deciding in cases like this who is right without going into the details of the case. In this particular instance, Shan Gao is wrong. The quantum state in Bohmian theory carries no mass or charge distribution, and even if it did the appeal to an "electrostatic interaction" is an appeal to classical theory, which has no place here. In the theory, the quantum state determines the particle trajectories via the guidance equation, and all the other talk of Shan Gao about change and mass distributions has no significance. Once you have the particle trajectories, the empirical predictions of the theory follow. They are the same as "standard" theory wherever the latter is well defined.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Tim Maudlin
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 9:50:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The world being thousands of years old is observationally equivalent to the idea that the world is billions of years old, you just have to assume God created the Earth with the appearance of an old earth. I mean, God created Adam, who appears to be a man who has an age of many years, but he had this appearance even at only a second years old. The moral of the story? With enough assumptions you can make a lot of ideas observationally equivalent. With Bohmian mechanics for example, you have to assume the existence of particles that there is 0 evidence for to make it work lol
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 9:54:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And I'm not sure how appealing to classical theory has no place here, when Bohmian mechanics is just synthetic classical theory lol