Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "David Bohm's Pilot Wave Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" video.

In actual science history Copenhagen went out the window before Bohm even wrote his paper. There is no need for it in relativistic quantum field theory. Even the term "Copenhagen interpretation" seems to have been coined long after it had become more or less obsolete for fundamental physics. The reason why we still teach non-relativistic quantum mechanics to students is because the relativistic theory is mathematically extremely demanding and it is not well suited for the analysis of bound states, which occur far more frequently in the non-relativistic regime (unless one is interested in the structure of proton, neutron and pions). So it's kind of a weird ghost that just doesn't want to die, even though its time has been up since the 1930s.
2
@ The double slit was explained completely in 1801 by Young and you can do it with water waves in your bathtub. It's not even a quantum experiment. You need to stop the binge drinking. ;-) Why does the pattern form with ensembles of independent quanta? Because the slit is always the same. It's the matter of the slit that provides the necessary "memory". Did I say that you have to stop the binge drinking? Look what it's doing to your brain, Dude! You have no analytic abilities left. :-)
2
The grammar police is here to arrest all of us for willful destruction of the English language. Everybody who is not a native English speaker, please quickly leave the premises through the back door!
2
@jamesbond_007 I am saying that you didn't say anything about physics.
2
QFT is local in the sense that the Hamiltonian is local, which can be expressed as commutation between the Hamiltonian and all other operators at different spacetime locations (I am not a theorist, so don't nail me to the precise conditions). It is strongly "non-local" in the sense that multi-particle states are always symmetric or anti-symmetric, which leads to the entanglement of states due to these symmetries. I have heard opinions that this should better be called something else, like "inseparable" and I would agree with that since non-locality in classical physics was defined differently. Having said this, the language of QFT is (for historical reasons) a big mess, anyway. There are, most notably, no particles in QFT, even though textbooks and physicists call quanta particles all the time, which is one of the worst misnomers of all times in physics. So, essentially, you just have to get used to the language idiosyncrasies and do mental substitutions for poorly chosen terms all the time. So what shall we call this, then? QFT is a "local but inseparable theory", maybe?
1
Well, I am happy to inform you that nobody has ever seen a pilot wave. I don't know any physicist who works on multi-verses, either. Extra dimensions were more or less off the table about 20 years ago, so you are hunting for Ghosts of Christmas Past.
1
It's not even an alternative to Copenhagen. Quite the contrary: it's a distraction. By pretending to fix things about Copenhagen that are not broken it robs you of the necessary intellectual curiosity that is needed to understand why Copenhagen is the way it is and why it makes an enormous amount of sense.
1
Except that Bohm is just as "ambiguous" as Copenhagen. It can not make any predictions beyond Copenhagen, either. You get exactly the same outcome for adding completely unnecessary woo that is actually in your way of understand why Copenhagen follows from quantum field theory in a natural way.
1
@reppich1 Ma! I found the great wall of bullshit on the internet!
1
@reppich1 It took you eleven days to come up with that? In that time you could have read most of the foundational papers on quantum mechanics twice over. ;-)
1
Something that doesn't exist is what? :-)
1
There are no particles. You are welcome.
1
@likesunshineafterrain2298 Yes, it does. Once you realize that quanta are not "stuff" but merely small amounts of energy that quantum fields exchange with other systems, then quantum mechanics turns from weird to completely natural.
1
Have you ever seen a particle? I am an experimental high energy physicist and I have never seen one. How can something that nobody has ever seen be guided by something that has also not been seen? Is this fairytale time? It sure ain't physics. ;-)
1
@kurtiserikson7334 Science didn't talk about amoebas before they had been seen in a microscope. It knew about diseases that were caused by them, but nobody speculated that there is such a thing as a floppy single cellular creature that nobody had ever seen. The reason why a physicist does not have to speculate about the existence of particles is trivial, by the way. We KNOW what we are detecting in these experiments: it's energy, momentum, angular momentum and charges. Why these? Because these are the only properties that nature conserves between systems, at least locally. So why would we need to talk about particles? They are both unseen and completely unnecessary. Just like Hogwarts. :-)
1
There are no conceptual gaps in quantum mechanics. It follows trivially from relativity. There are, however, a lot of people who don't know enough about it or who outright don't have the required physics intuition to understand it.
1
Both are just two kinds of intellectual nonsense.
1
Einstein didn't miss anything. Instead he invented something that does not exist: corpuscular photons.
1
So he failed. :-)
1
Why are you listening to stochastic parrots? ;-)
1
Bohm's version says nothing about the internal properties of "the particle". The math doesn't even suggest that there should be particles. Schroedinger's equation is very deceptive because it reduces a theory that can be formulated in any basis to a special case that is not even particularly useful. Most of the time we aren't measuring locations in QM but frequencies, which is far more precise.
1
Particles do not collapse. There simply are no particles in nature. These are all just very poor language constructs that are leading people astray.
1
No. Field theory is perfectly local. It says so in basically every introductory chapter of every textbook on field theory.
1
I would address it with "Bullshit from people who don't have a working physics education.". :-)
1
@ We taught you that "quanta are small amounts of energy" in school. We also taught you that "energy is the ability of a system to perform work on another system". Those are 19 words in total and they are enough to understand quantum mechanics. How comes you can't remember 19 words? Were you binge drinking or something? Is your brain that shot? ;-)
1
@ Yes, Feynman made a joke and you don't have a sense of humor. No education and no sense of humor... that's a left swipe for me. ;-)
1
@ My argument is that you simply don't know what you don't know because you were always too lazy to learn. ;-)
1
@ And now you just keep begging for attention. ;-)
1
@ How do you like my attention anyway? ;-)
1
@ That was not really a question. ;-)
1
Non-locality has never been observed. Most people simply don't understand the difference between non-locality and non-separability.
1
@jodscience3741 Why would I pay you for attempting to do scientific nonsense? If you want to waste your time on it, then do it on your own time and money. :-)
1
@jodscience3741 I have a PhD in physics, kid. More precisely: high energy physics. You are saying?
1
Bell didn't "prove" anything. He re-analyzed an old paper by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) and then came to the conclusion that his own analysis was flawed because it wasn't relativistic. People who take Bell's result seriously usually overlook his own admission of that problem. Bohm suffers from the very same problem, he just never admitted it.
1
It doesn't. It doesn't have to because no such thing ever happens in reality. That's just a false mythology that is being repeated on the internet daily to get hits.
1
Everything she says is biased because she is a troll. That, however, doesn't save Bohm. ;-)
1
Events are neither determined nor predictable (not in principle and not in practice). You are still stuck in a 18th and 19th century philosophical falsehood.
1