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

De Broglie"Bohm theory

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 1:06:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here is an interesting article: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu...

Abstract

"We show that the de Broglie-Bohm theory is inconsistent with the established parts of quantum mechanics concerning its physical content. According to the de Broglie-Bohm theory, the mass and charge of an electron are localized in a position where its Bohmian particle is. However, protective measurement implies that they are not localized in one position but distributed throughout space, and the mass and charge density of the electron in each position is proportional to the modulus square of its wave function there."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 4:03:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 1:06:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Here is an interesting article: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu...

Abstract

"We show that the de Broglie-Bohm theory is inconsistent with the established parts of quantum mechanics concerning its physical content. According to the de Broglie-Bohm theory, the mass and charge of an electron are localized in a position where its Bohmian particle is. However, protective measurement implies that they are not localized in one position but distributed throughout space, and the mass and charge density of the electron in each position is proportional to the modulus square of its wave function there."

I never did put stock in hidden variable theorems. I know recently I claimed a dualist ontology. But gave "physical" certain attributes that I now see are not in accordance with the word "physical".

I see now more people associate "physical" with a deterministic reality. Which to me, is contrary to the fabric of space-time. I do not know what I would call myself now, I am leaning more towards an idealist ontology, but the Monism concept is appealing. I imagine as time goes on Science may one day accept Neutral Monism (you know still grasping to deny God the intelligence).

I digress. I saw this study and some others that did a good number on hidden variables. I'm not exactly sure what you want to discuss, as I assume you and I are in agreement that "Reality" is non-deterministic (within the quantum system and non-relativistically speaking of course)

I still think Bohr had the best interpretations.

You might find this article interesting. May be off subject, but it also denies the Hidden Variable theorems and attempts to push for a reinterpretation of quantum substances not based on classical wave-particle duality. http://arxiv.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 11:49:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://tabish.freeshell.org...

A nice page that explains protective measurement that may help us laymen.

The Copenhagen traditional model shows the superposition state which looks like the particle is in two spots at the same time. More accurately they would say it is a wave function and the particle is smeared out in wave and does not have a local position in or on the wave. Once observed the wave collapse and poof we have a particle in the particle sense of things. It has a specific position, velocity, etc.

A protective measurement tries to garner data from the wave function without collapsing the wave thus loosing the superposition state. The link i provided shows how the particle gets smeared out in the wave (look towards bottom), thus the mass and charge get smeared out. (the article shows how the spin remains relatively constant) Since the mass, charge, ect gets smeared out along the wave the particle does not have a specific position in the wave. Once observed the wave collapses and the particle has a position for its mass and charge, etc.

De Broglie Bohm theory also uses the wave function, but it is called the Pilot Wave Model. In that model the mass, position is not smeared out on the wave, but changes position with the wave. Think of a little particle undulating in the crest and trough of a wave on a lake.

For example on a double slit, they would say that the wave travels through both slits, however the particle on the Pilot Wave is only going through one slit. If you knew all the details of the wave function and where the particle is on the wave, how far from the slit it is, where it starts, etc, one could predict which slit it is going through. They postulate it has the look of randomness because we don't have the ability to gather all those variables.

I can't pull up the OP paper, but basically it is saying that experiments using protective measurements (aka. a type of weak measurement that does not cause the wave function to collapse) shows the mass, charge is not localized on the wave but instead of smeared out.

Hope this helps explain a little better for us lay persons.