This is a very important discussion for me and my research and I am currently reading Adam's book.

This was wonderful. Thank you. I just finished the book. This was an excellent companion for understanding it.

That was really interesting talk, thanks, and I must add that I agree wholeheartedly with your cocnclusion.

@54:01 Becker: "The strangest feature of Bohm's theory is that the position of one far-distant particle can affect the pilot wave of another particle instantaneously, faster than the speed of light." This claim is a mischaracterization of Bohmian Mechanics. In BM, pilot waves guide the movements of particles. However, there is no mechanism by which a particle's position can influence the behavior of a pilot wave, instantaneously or otherwise. The pilot wave that guides the motion of entangled particles is not "far distant" (i.e. separated by some physical distance), it is intrinsically associated at all times with the particles it guides. Pilot waves do not propagate across physical space-time, they manifest solely in Configuation Space, the complex-valued domain of potentially limitless numbers of dimensions where the quantum wave-function is defined. Pilot waves are influenced not by particle interactions in physical space-time, but instead by the evolution of the quantum wave-function in accordance with the Schrodinger Equation. As ALL interpretations of quantum mechanics agree, the evolution of the quantum wave-function is inherently non-local and deterministic, and consequently, so is Bohmian Mechanics. However, the positions where particles are observed in relativistic space-time are probabilistic in nature, rather than deterministic, as predicted by Born's Rule, which in Bohmian Mechanics is derived from its concept of quantum equilibrium.

If you like the talk and haven't read the book then likely reading it will change you.

Very interesting talk. Thank you.

@arthurc.clarkecenterforhum6745

5 жыл бұрын

What did you find most compelling?

@mykobe981

5 жыл бұрын

@@arthurc.clarkecenterforhum6745 The attempt to address underlying principles most simply ignore. If we can't be bothered to ask the hard questions, meaningful progress may elude us. I also enjoyed all speakers presentation styles. Inquisitive, yet clear and concise. The conversation was easy to follow, but mentally challenging and intellectually stimulating. I watch a LOT of physics lectures. Everything from World Science Festival style pop-physics talks, to Leonard Susskind's advanced Stanford physics classes. After awhile, you hear it all. This presentation was fresh and fascinating, even to a jaded enthusiast like me. I was pleasently surprised by your question. It shows you care about your channel and the quality of it's content. You have my respect and appreciation. Thank you.

That which is irreplaceable

If entanglement can only occur through the local interaction of the particles, how can one then claim that the interaction gives them a specific correlation, and then use that to claim locality doesn't exist. What the difference between a measurement being taken immediately after said interaction or taking it with some time delay?

Was the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Physics and "shut up and calculate" practice in the Physics community a case of "Politicized" science which held us back from coming up with better theory and understanding of quantum physics? IMO it was. If it was, let us not make that mistake again please.

@lepidoptera9337

2 жыл бұрын

You are wrong. :-)

I wish they’d discussed Bohmian mechanics in a bit more detail, specifically the supposed ad Hoc pilot wave that guides particles. I mean, as far as I know, there’s no evidence for a separate pilot wave whatsoever, it requires no energy, its strength doesn’t diminish with distance, doesn’t feel the effect of other known forces, etc. Other than that, it’s great. ;)

@davidwright8432

4 жыл бұрын

The book has a wider discussion. But Bohm's version doesn't play well with quantum field theory. This in the end is fatal to Bohm.

@RickyForITZY

4 жыл бұрын

The Wave function does carries energy and momentum just as usual orthodox textbook Quantum Mechanics. The objection about the action-reaction principle isn't a good one because we aren't in a Newtonian world and in any case some take the wave function as Nomic, arxiv.org/abs/1712.01666. As for Relativity and QFT see Travis Norsen, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics ;)

@lepidoptera9337

2 жыл бұрын

@@RickyForITZY But what do you need an unobservable, unphysical guardian angel for? This ain't religion. Stick to what can be observed and you will be fine. Don't make things up just because.

@RickyForITZY

2 жыл бұрын

@@lepidoptera9337 Not sure what you mean by stick with what we can observe, that seems to just be question begging in some form of Verificationism or Operationalism which itself is not science but a Philosophy about Science. In any case BM is at least empirically equivalent to other forms of QM (though it can actually solve the measurement problem). Also Science often has used the best explanation it has using things that cannot be directly observed and are theoretical (Black Holes, Neutrinos, Quarks, etc).

@lepidoptera9337

2 жыл бұрын

@@RickyForITZY Nobody has ever observed a pilot wave. Bohmian mechanics makes exactly the same prediction as Copenhagen but needs additional unscientific woo. Black holes can and have been observed. So have neutrinos. Quarks can be observed in pairs just fine. They are quanta, anyway, i.e. they don't have "objective existence" to begin with and you can "see" them clearly in certain types of scattering plots as a three-fold symmetry of protons, if you want. There is very little difference between that and seeing scattering of light on small objects under the microscope, you just need a much bigger microscope. What has never been observed is the BM guardian angel pilot wave. It is magically simply not there.

...he was heard when someone was listening, no-one listened to his crazy ideas, this is so full of Ron's ire.

My mother in law is real.