|
|
|
|
|
|
by andrewla
2801 days ago
|
|
|
> Wait, what? From what I've always understood, the math behind de Broglie-Bohm interpretation results in the same exact results as the Copenhagen interpretation. The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation is not the same as the pilot-wave theory, which was never fully fleshed out. de Broglie-Bohm is valid and makes the same predictions as the standard interpretation, but as I understood it, has never been generalized to the relativistic versions of the standard theory. That is, there is no de Broglie-Bohm version of quantum field theory. This is discussed in the article; the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation relies on a global pilot wave, which has non-locality issues that pilot wave theory hoped to avoid. > It shouldn't be possible for any "computer simulation" to disprove it, by definition. Here I believe they are disproving the idea that the oil droplets riding the pilot waves cannot result in the double-slit interference pattern, using standard fluid mechanics (which appears to be Tomas Bohr's area of expertise). |
|
|
Most contexts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory) define pilot-wave theory and the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation as the same. de Broglie himself also proposed a specific pilot-wave theory that is not valid (see article). When referring to a "pilot-wave" theory it is helpful to state specifically who the author is in order to resolve any likely confusion, which this topic usually seems to involve.
> has never been generalized to the relativistic versions of the standard theory
Quantum field theory generalizations( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory...) do exist.