[adocracy]

Liquid dynamics sounds like an interesting hypothesis, but I agree with the critics that entanglement presents a tough analogy. If Pilot Wave theory suggests that the particle-wave duality is actually two distinct actors - a wave and a particle riding the wave - then 1) each particle has an independently generated wave? and 2) it's difficult to see how that wave could be exactly preserved for both particles over the long distances of entanglement experiments. That's like envisioning a ripple on the far side of a large lake exactly mimicking a ripple here. Granted, the entanglement result of simultaneous collapse of probabilities is also tough to rationally understand. But Pilot Waves maintaining their effect, regardless of various asynchronous interactions encountered between the distances of entanglement experiments, seems naive. Then again, I'm not a particle physicist.

[trhway]

In interpretation of dual slit experiment people do the main mistake of mixing up the 2 waves - one is wave like quantization of position and another is de Broglie wave-equivalent of the particle. The mix up is caused by photon where both have the same wavelength. They are different in the case of all other particles. Hitachi experiment shows its the best - it clearly shows interference of the positional waves of different particles, not the de Brogile wave (ie. not the particles themselves). It thus also lends very credible support to statistical ensemble interpretation (which, as far as i know, Einstein favored)

People frequently bring up single-particle self-interference as explanation for Hitachi too. Well, in case of photon the self-interference pattern looks the same as positional interference because of the same wavelength. In case of electron and especially neutron the self-interference pattern would be much more dense than observed one because of the much higher de Brogile frequency than the frequency of the positional quantization.

The wave-like quantization of position is the Pivot Wave. The really important thing here is to understand that Pivot Wave isn't a real wave/object. It is just a description of possible positions of the particle at specific times. Like a trajectory of a bullet isn't a real thing, it is just description of possible positions of the bullet at specific times. It is just in QM the trajectories are wave-like quantized and probabilistically spread - that the non-smooth at small scales structure of our Universe shows its "ugly" face :)

Again, taking the quantized wave-like trajectory description of a particle for a real thing, the particle itself, is the main misinterpretation that has been going for years, especially in Copenghagen interpretation.

[phkahler]

>>The really important thing here is to understand that Pilot Wave isn't a real wave/object. It is just a description of possible positions of the particle at specific times.

Is it possible that pilot waves are ripples in space-time? We should not make strong assertions especially when a theory is young. You make it sound like nothing more than the a regular QM wave function.

[danbruc]

Ripples in space-time are gravitational waves. It could be a real wave but the danger is that one introduces a preferred references frame. Not that it would be the end of physics but it would surely be a big surprise.

[Ono-Sendai]

Do you have any more information or references about this, in particular your claim that there are two different wavelengths in play?

[trhway]

it is actually doesn't matter. The de Brogile wavelength can be excluded from consideration completely - imagine an electron as just a very small metal speck whose position function is wave-like quantized - you'd still get the same interference pattern in the double-slit experiment. [The position function is wave-like quantized because it is QM, and thus all the interactions of the particle with environment - ie. electron with the EM field sending it to the screen in this experiment - happens in "quanta"s. ]

Don't get me wrong - i'm not denying de Brogile, i'm just saying that wave-like nature of a particle isn't necessary (and thus isn't proven by ) the double-slit experiment. The single-particle double-slits are never really "single" particle - they always show statistical aggregate of many single particles and thus they are explainable by positional quantization alone (of small specks as described above).

[gohrt]

What is a "Pivot Wave"? Do you mean "Pilot Wave"?

[trhway]

thanks, it was a mistype, i guess i see "pivot" much frequently than "pilot"

[conexions]

As an answer to the question on entanglement, the FAQ posted above had this to say:

In contrast, Bell’s Theorem can be formulated without even speaking about hidden variable theories: the theorem states that some predictions of QM, well confirmed by several experiments, can not be explained by any local theory. And BM is nonlocal, as well as QM is. In fact BM inspired Bell to investigate non-locality, finally leading himto discover his famous inequalities. Bell was one of the most prominent proponents of BM and wrote many articles explaining it in great detail.

Also here's a wikipedia article that talks about Bohmian Mechanics and entanglement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#...