What is De-Broglie's interpretation and how does it relate to DBB theory?

[microsansfil]

In de Broglie's double solution theory the ##v## is always a real wave and the ##\psi## wave is never a physical wave, it is always a fictitious wave.

Yes, there is a probability amplitude used to build probabilist prediction and a physical wave, calls "wave phase", which has an objective status (dixit De Broglie.).

So why not use the objective physical wave to do deterministic prediction ?

Patrick

 

[bhobba]

I am correctly explaining entanglement. I am explain why Bell's theory does not apply to downconverted photons. I'm explaining why de Broglie's double solution theory is realistic and local.

Bell's theorem does not apply in de Broglie's double solution theory as it can be considered to be a non-local hidden variable theory.

Non local and local - now that's some theory.

Its non local since the particle is associated with a real physical wave.

Thanks
Bill

 

[liquidspacetime]

Mind detailing how he did it?

Thanks
Bill

NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS
A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION
by
LOUIS DE BROGLIE

"Chapter IV. The Wave Mechanics of Systems of Particles
1. The Classical Dynamics of point-mass systems....... 40
2. The Wave Mechanics of systems of particles.......V 42
3. The probabilistic interpretation of the Wave Mechanics of systems of particles ............. 44
4. Systems of particles having the same physical nature...... 46
5. Remarks on the Wave Mechanics of systems of particles ... 48

CONTENTS
4. A comparison of the relative motion of two interacting particles with the
representation of that system’s motion in configuration space...
6. The case of particles of the same nature......"

 

[liquidspacetime]

Is there a hydrodynamic analog of entanglement that explains experiments showing that photons could be entangled that never existed at the same time:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.4191v1.pdf

Since I understand entanglement to be each of the pair's ability to know the position and momentum of the other, I am not in complete agreement with the following, however, it looks like the type of explanation you are looking for.

http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140624-fluid-tests-hint-at-concrete-quantum-reality/

"If space and time behave like a superfluid, or a fluid that experiences no dissipation at all, then path memory could conceivably give rise to the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement — what Einstein referred to as “spooky action at a distance.” When two particles become entangled, a measurement of the state of one instantly affects that of the other. The entanglement holds even if the two particles are light-years apart.

In standard quantum mechanics, the effect is rationalized as the instantaneous collapse of the particles’ joint probability wave. But in the pilot-wave version of events, an interaction between two particles in a superfluid universe sets them on paths that stay correlated forever because the interaction permanently affects the contours of the superfluid. “As the particles move along, they feel the wave field generated by them in the past and all other particles in the past,” Bush explained. In other words, the ubiquity of the pilot wave “provides a mechanism for accounting for these nonlocal correlations.” Yet an experimental test of droplet entanglement remains a distant goal."

What is described as "path memory" in the above I think is more correctly described as propagation of the particles with opposite angular momenta due to conservation of momentum.

 

[liquidspacetime]

What have photons got to do with Bells theorem which applies to any quantum objects in a Bell state?

You keep mentioning this parametric down-converted stuff. Its a concept from quantum optics that has zero bearing on entanglement in general.

Thanks
Bill

See https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/de-broglies-interpretation.775636/page-8#post-4879794

 

[atyy]

Since I understand entanglement to be each of the pair's ability to know the position and momentum of the other, I am not in complete agreement with the following, however, it looks like the type of explanation you are looking for.

http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140624-fluid-tests-hint-at-concrete-quantum-reality/

"If space and time behave like a superfluid, or a fluid that experiences no dissipation at all, then path memory could conceivably give rise to the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement — what Einstein referred to as “spooky action at a distance.” When two particles become entangled, a measurement of the state of one instantly affects that of the other. The entanglement holds even if the two particles are light-years apart.

In standard quantum mechanics, the effect is rationalized as the instantaneous collapse of the particles’ joint probability wave. But in the pilot-wave version of events, an interaction between two particles in a superfluid universe sets them on paths that stay correlated forever because the interaction permanently affects the contours of the superfluid. “As the particles move along, they feel the wave field generated by them in the past and all other particles in the past,” Bush explained. In other words, the ubiquity of the pilot wave “provides a mechanism for accounting for these nonlocal correlations.” Yet an experimental test of droplet entanglement remains a distant goal."

What is described as "path memory" in the above I think is more correctly described as propagation of the particles with opposite angular momenta due to conservation of momentum.

Walchover's article is yet another well-known crackpot article!

 

[liquidspacetime]

Bells theorem must apply to it.

It says, since its non local, it can be real.

Thanks
Bill

Please make an attempt to understand the difference between non-local in terms of the particles themselves and a non-local hidden variable theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

"Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variables as a viable explanation of quantum mechanics (though it still leaves the door open for non-local hidden variables)"

Bell's theorem does not apply to non-local hidden variables.

 

[liquidspacetime]

Yes, there is a probability amplitude used to build probabilist prediction and a physical wave, calls "wave phase", which has an objective status (dixit De Broglie.).

So [why] not use the objective physical wave to do deterministic prediction ?

Patrick

That's what he was trying to do.

 

[liquidspacetime]

Non local and local - now that's some theory.

Its non local since the particle is associated with a real physical wave.

Thanks
Bill

It's local as it is a non-local hidden (to us, not to the particles themselves) variable theory.

 

[liquidspacetime]

Rubbish, rubbish and rubbish! AS you said, they HAVE NOT extended it to multiple particles.

It's just a matter of time until they will get the math correct. de Broglie had the correct understanding 60 years ago.

"Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of ##\psi##, arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space"."

 

[liquidspacetime]

Walchover's article is yet another well-known crackpot article!

You keep doing whatever it takes not to understand the following correct understanding of what occurs physically in nature.

"Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of ψ, arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space"."

A correct understanding of what occurs physically in nature in terms of wave-particle duality put forward by a Nobel laureate in 1954 ignored in order for mainstream physicists not to understand the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit.

 

[atyy]

It's just a matter of time until they will get the math correct. de Broglie had the correct understanding 60 years ago.

"Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of ##\psi##, arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space"."

But until that is done, I think these pop science articles are misleading. The Wolchover article is especially misleading because she considers de Broglie-Bohm theory, which needs no help from these experiments. The experiments can never produce de Broglie-Bohm theory, because for mutiple particles, the wave is in configuration space.

 

[atyy]

You keep doing whatever it takes not to understand the following correct understanding of what occurs physically in nature.

"Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of ψ, arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space"."

A correct understanding of what occurs physically in nature in terms of wave-particle duality put forward by a Nobel laureate in 1954 ignored in order for mainstream physicists not to understand the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit.

No. We already agreed it works for single particles. Show me the formulation for multiple particles. Wolchover's article is rubbish.

 

[Nugatory]

Closed pending moderation.

All: remember the PF rules on acceptable sources. Don't post them, and if you see someone else posting them, don't argue, report the post.