Weaknesses of Pilot-Wave Theory - Ask a Spaceman!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 чер 2024
- Full podcast episodes: www.askaspaceman.com
Support: / pmsutter
Follow: / paulmattsutter and / paulmattsutter
What is real in quantum mechanics, and what are mere mathematical tricks? Can the probability waves be real, and what would that mean? What is Pilot-Wave theory? I answer these questions and more in today’s Ask a Spaceman!
Follow all the show updates at www.askaspaceman.com, and help support the show at / pmsutter !
Keep those questions about space, science, astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology coming to #AskASpaceman for COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF TIME AND SPACE! Music by Jason Grady and Nick Bain. - Наука та технологія
Very well done! For a defense of Pilot Wave Theory I recommend some of the videos of Hans Scantz (on UA-cam)- especially the one addressing the subject of what physicists really know about electromagnetic theory (Schantz concludes 'not enough'). Adding the 'missing elements' of how fields propagate, interact and including the impedance of EM fields strengthens the argument for Pilot Wave theory. In fact Schantz (a physicist whose thesis advisor was John A. Wheeler at Princeton) discusses the Pilot Wave Theory in one of his videos. Highly recommended.
Can this pilot wave be a disturbance of spacetime (disturbed by the particle)? Why it is believed that the particle does not influence the pilot wave?
Pilot waves do not propagate in physical space-time, they manifest in Configuration Space, where the quantum wave function is defined. The reason particles do not influence the pilot waves that guide them is because there is no quantum mechanism comparable to Born's Rule that could project space-time particle influence into Configuration Space.
Paul I absolutely loved all these quantum theory interpretations series… you’re awesome man
In pilot wave theory, I thought the particle does act on the wave, so it is a 2 way street.
Pilot waves do not propagate in physical space-time, they manifest in Configuration Space, where the quantum wave function is defined. The reason particles do not influence the pilot waves that guide them is because there is no quantum mechanism comparable to Born's Rule that could project space-time particle influence into Configuration Space.
How about this... The particle is how the p-wave is observed ( i.e. what we interpret as a particle is what the p-wave presents to us to observe ) , In the same way that the shadows of the crest of water waves are all we see when we look at the bottom of a swimming pool ?
I pick the "I have no idea" interpretation.
Me too...
After giving the topic much thought since years ago, that's the one I've chosen too!
Enjoyed - Yes ! !
So clever and interesting - THANKS ! ! !
🙂😎👍
Doesn't the particle's position determine where the wave is?
Not that I'm defending it per-say, but the many-worlds interpretation doesn't actually say anything about universes splitting. It just says that the wave function doesn't actually collapse. Only our perception of it. But that does create another difficulty, which is defining what exactly the "arrow of time" (which defines our perception of the state of the universe) is. Whether there is just one arrow of time, or several, or many, or whatever.
Great video and cool beard!
Notice how his beard acts as both particle stream and wave without the particle influencing the wave function?
@@kricketflyd111 LOL! Awesome comment!
Great video and reasoning, thanks. By the way, since 2021 there is a new interpretation that overcomes previous questioning. It's based on the thought that the physical world is composed of "stuff in a wavy media.""Stuff" is the elementary particles of the standard model and the "wavy media" is our observable 3D space. The compact particles will be present in 3D meanwhile its quantum space is. On each new fluctuation, the particle will randomly assume one valid eigenstate. The rate of the fluctuation of the 3D space versus its 4th dimension is given by its energetic frequency (v = E/h). Since it is in the order of 10^24, the multiple eigenstates seem like in superposition but they are only one each time; the collapse or measuring problem will be understood. In the same way, this intermittent presence in 3D explains why Planck needs discreet energy in the black body radiation. With the same reasoning, having an ephemeral instance outside 3D explains the tunneling effect and how entangled particles can be "local" at the 4th dimension when its 3D separation is huge. I recommend the book "Can Relativity and quantum mechanics be together?" It explains in detail this new theory of space, regards
Me: "I don't understand quantum mechanics."
Everyone: "That's right."
It's right that humans are devoid of understanding. It's wrong to think you are right about anything
I guess there's no particle at all, its just good ol wave then and its the absorption and emission that are discrete. But then, the question comes, what makes the absorption and emission special like that? Some kind of confinement mechanism combined with conservation of energy comes to mind as solution. But can't fathom the detail.
Isn't a 'pilot wave' something like a 'hidden variable' ?
It doesn't says for every particle there is a wave, it says the particles move onto a wave.
Is it unreasonable to suspect that answering the measurement problem, would also answer QG and the associated problems. Such as Hawking’s Information Paradox, and the Big Bang and Blackhole singularity questions?
Why isit silent? Because someone has captured {a} measurement broken {a} string collapsed {a} wave in {a} process of..?
Psychiatrist couldn't explain it to me and now it's your job
I got my sutter fix for the yr
I'm no good at physics so excuse me for any misconception here...My biggest concern is why the pattern changes upon measurement if there is a hidden variable such as the pilot wave is always there? This theory implies why we see the wave going through both slits while it guides the particle which goes through only one slit. However when we take the measurement the wave disappears.
The position of the electron is information, data, a language that we have failed to see
Another great vid. I will get a good nights sleep after watching this a couple times. 😀One of the biggest things about all this that confuses me is: Where is the gravity. If a particle can be anywhere or two places at once, how does gravity know where to be. Gravity can't be in two places at the same time right?
That's the essential point behind why QM and relativity don't play nice with each other. What is the gravitational field of electrons passing through a two-slit setup? Does measuring one electron's gravitational pull, if that were possible, constitute a quantum measurement?
Could the particle create the wave?
Maybe who develop a "we don't know" interpretation" (shoulder shrugs) of QM??
Time is absolute in quantum mechanics, there is no "space-time". It is meant to define your perspective of the speed of light due to the variance of the universal constants such as the speed of electricity through your brain, which therefore effects your ability to perceive time. It was defined as relational from one object to another when it should be in relation to objects and the background energy they move through and will therefore never be completely accurate/we will never be able to synchronize clocks using Einsteins ideology or unify quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity.
E=MC squared is Poincares formula and if it wasn't for the insights of nuclear fission then it would not have been grasped by a patent clerk which thinks that reality is objective instead of non-objective. Pilot wave is the right theory, relativity can suck a D. The particle absolutely effects the wave if it is large enough and moving fast enough, that is why the detectors on the double slit theory cause a double band. You have made some assumptions in your video.
Maybe it isn't that the wave acts on the particle, but the particle _is_ a part of the wave. It's an intensification of the wave at one point. A crest of the wave. A soliton. At any other part of the wave, it's at too low an energy level to be detected or differentiated from all the other waves in the universe.
"We should be able to develop a relativistic version of any quantum theory..."
But why exactly though? Why should we expect that to be not only possible but necessary?
Of course there is a wave particle duality and it can't be separated ~ the nature of all is one and in continual resonance - but like chicken and egg it can't be determined if the wave came first or the particle. And every point of reference is entangled with every single other point of reference through an intertwinement of polarized variability in terms of rhythmic sequence and synchronized archetypal relative causality. You are THE creator of time with the most advanced technology in this universe with which to develop free creative sentience! Your imagination is the only limit and your logic is your grounding in balanced realization. The only way to truly experience the pure principle of the singularity is inward through the darkness & silence. I also recommend highly a clean vegan and intoxicant free consumer discipline to be liberated from the addictive densities. As well as deeply studying all the world spiritual traditions and sacred arts and sciences there are ! Goodluck and may love be with you ❤️ 💓
The whole shee-bang bothers me to no end. I'm in good company, apparently Einstein himself had reservations.
Even though Copenhagen is currently the most widely accepted, my intuition tells me it's something else. Don't know if it's Many Worlds or Pilot, but both sound more reasonable despite their shortcomings.
I still believe in hidden variables. But that's just because I don't understand anything...
@@VikingTeddy You are in good company; Einstein thought there must be hidden variables that we cannot “see” until we make a measurement. However the experiments that were performed for which the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded showed a violation of Bell’s Inequalty and therefore denies the existence of hidden variables.
The problem with relying on “intuition” in the “quantum world” is that it is so far removed from human every day experience upon which intuition is developed, that we really can’t intuit or guess as to what is going on. Scientifically we must also rely on predictions, observations and experimental outcomes.
Is it the first time to face the opposite in physics ?
What about the very first starting point at the big bang theory ?!!!
Why cant it be the opposite direction of our waves ?!
Can this theory explain the first biginig of the big bang theory ?
If so then i think it is very strong 😊
Something about the universe having no obligation to explain itself to us...Something about, nothing can be an absolute, 100% fact. Oh wait, I can be 100% Certain that, at this very moment, in time, I am alive.
Define "alive". You are a combination of cells that on some reason decided to work together. 5 minutes after your death you will be exactly the same combination of same cells, so what makes you alive?
05:46
This is wrong. The wave is determined by [all] the particles.
Thank you Paul. My brain is still broken. Is it inevitable that we will never be able to model the cosmos by fact of being part of the cosmos itself?
We had the same problem with finding out about the movement of the earth while standing on it. It just makes things more complicated but not neccesarily impossible.
6:27
You know it’s all boolsheet with the invocation of the word quantum
Uh the particle location is not hidden. We detect it on the detector. The pilot wave is also not hidden, we detect its effects on the detector.
The wave is a host.
1980 I went down the rabbit hole, I am retired now. And you guys pull me back. Ok. Bohr and Heisenberg “Copenhagen theory “. It’s random and we can’t determin where it goes. Einstein and Eriwin shrodenger. Physical located when you look at it. If, you look at it, you find it. It is what it is.. Life is random. I am a surfer which when I catch a wave, it can go left or right or drop out. The surfer is the particle and after wave corpses There you are. A rode the wave or your underwater . It’ll like life. Frank Martinez Downey California
Many Worlds is deterministic, not random.
Re: reaction free wave:
Here is your answer.....
Does a planet push on spacetime as spacetime dictates its path? No it does not.
That tells you that the pilot wave is a wave of curvature/ spacetime.
What forms this spacetime superfluid?
Ahaha!
More coming very soon.....a lot more...
No, the discussion re position and momentum isn't correct. The reason why PW isn't compatible (as currently depicted) with SR is because of the non-local influence required.
Call me old fashioned but I can only understand all the models as being small spheres that collide. All they need is just smaller spheres to create a medium for everything to occur.
My limited understanding cannot / refuses to accept that forces exist without a medium, that waves exist without a medium.
A wave means the Medium vibrates - in my understanding.
Just design smaller spheres with various properties :)
I cant wait to have my own Ai smart enough to ask him to simulate this for me.
How do small spheres use smaller spheres as a medium to "collide"? Is there no empty space?
@@Micheal313 I am imagining protons and electrons - as huge spheres lets say like planets - floating in a sea of smaller spheres - various dimensions. The smaller spheres behave like gasses - they collide and this is how forces are transmitted and also this is how the wave behavior exists. This is my understanding. This could also explain the max speed in the universe - you can only push the smaller spheres up to a point.
This is about E=mc^2 , the energy released in a nuclear reaction have been measured , but i have never heard of anyone measuring how much the mass decreased after a nuclear reaction . How do you know the mass derived ,is the same amount lost in the actual reaction ?
if the mass has been measure and it is exactly what is calculated ,and this is true for all test elements (not just one that is single out, if other elements can't be used then there is not enough evidence) , then E = mc^2 is valid , otherwise it's an assumption.
Is the mass measured after the reaction ?
There's no diplomatic way to characterize the content of this video, so I'll stick with the plain truth: everything said here is completely wrong! Let me clarify a bit:
1. Why don't we observe the wave function: I may ask, why don't we observe or measure a potential (such as gravitational potential)? We measure it through its effect on massive objects. It's similar in the pilot-wave theory; the wave function acts as a potential (the Bohm potential). Moreover, why don't we observe the wave function in other interpretations? In those cases, the situation is even more perplexing since there are no particles either!
2. The tension between the pilot-wave theory and relativity: This has nothing to do with the symmetry between position and momentum. It's about non-locality; reconciling relativity with non-locality, which stems from Bell's theorem. This is indeed a complex issue but not unique to the pilot-wave theory. You won't find a single chapter on the collapse of the wave function or the EPR argument in any quantum field theory book because that's where non-locality becomes apparent, and we haven't reconciled that with relativity yet.
3. Why there is no action-reaction principle? Well, the action-reaction principle is a principle of classical mechanics. The pilot-wave theory is not a classical theory. I find this last argument pretty funny because it contrasts perfectly well with another often-heard argument that "the pilot-wave theory is a return to classical mechanics." You can't argue it's both too classical and not classical enough!
No mechanism= no physics, just math.
Actually no it's not it's answers of infinity that they nornalize.
By normalize we pretend they aren't.
Many of of these show up to you and many kids it along the way in just questions
The measurement expansion crisis is also showing this in observations.
No info & math no physics to have mechanism
@@dadsonworldwide3238 That is a weak point to make, indicating you are unaware of the mathematization of physics and its divorce from actual physics and logic since relativity. An example of physics without math is to roll spherical balls of different weights down an incline to refute Aristotle.
@@2Hesiod math is just information and a form of idealism like all abstract concepts. Anything that we can't directly observe but can build lines of evidence around its secondary influencss on the environment.
4% of the universe is physical matter. Mechanism
96% is idealism. Engineering
Programmed code , blueprints whatever you want to call it, it's still a form of information and idealism.
Is there any theory in physics or science as a whole, that DOESN'T have shortcomings? Shortcomings come with the territory of the scientific enterprise. The point isn't to attain final and absolute knowledge (it doesn't exist), it's to move in the right direction and gain ever greater insight. Pilot wave theory allows for such movement, the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't.
I love how people commenting here think they know more than a theoretical cosmologist
We live in a simulator. We'll never be able to prove it, but the fact that every single fundamental law of physics breaks down at the nano scale should be a real big clue.
How ?
it probably shouldnt be called pilot wave theory. it should be called interference pattern interaction theory and the assumptions you make seem to not include actually seeing the experiments on a vibrating medium. the wave doesn't guide it as much as it is the interaction with the rest of the field.
As a hidden variable theory, pilot wave seems very unlikely to be real.
Yeah if you go by what he said here but everything stated here about it is incorrect. IDK where he got any of this from.
Your initial claim @1:30 is packed with misconceptions about Pilot Wave Theory, i.e: "For every subatomic particle there is a real existing wave associated with that particle that propagates throughout space and time, and the wave tells the particle how to behave." Virtually every detail in that statement is misleading:
1. Rather than an individual pilot wave for each particle, there is a superposition of pilot waves manifest by the quantum wave function.
2. Pilot waves do not propagate throughout space and time - they manifest in Configuration Space, not in physical spacetime.
3. Pilot waves do not dictate particle behavior, they guide a particle's trajectory via probabilistic projections of its superpositions into spacetime.
To understand how pilot waves work, it's necessary to understand the nature of the quantum wave function, the mathematical structure shared by all interpretations of quantum mechanics. This wave function is a superposition of the quantum states of all particles in a system under observation. However, it is not a direct representation of particle locations and velocites in physical spacetime. The quantum wave function is instead defined in Configuration Space, an underlying complex-valued domain of potentially limitless numbers of dimensions. In the Bohmian interpretation, it represents the superposed probabilitiy gradients of pilot waves that correspond to physically realizable particles in spacetime. The probability gradients of these pilot waves determine the likelihood of observing corresponding particles at particular locations in spacetime.
The reason we do not observe pilot waves directly is because they manifest non-locally in Configuration Space (as does the quantum wave function) rather than propagating locally in physical spacetime (e.g. as do electromagnetic waves). Pilot waves do not "replace non-determinism with hidden variables", they are no more deterministic than the quantum wave function itself (which evolves deterministically in Configuration Space). Where non-determinism enters the picture is in the probabilistic projection of wave function superpositions from Configuration Space into physical spacetime. This occurs according to Born's Rule, which applies to Bohmian Mechanics in the same way as in all interpretations consistent with Quantum Mechanics.
FYI, the "hidden variables" in Bohmian Mechanics are simply the actual locations of the particles, which recent Nobel Prize-winning experiments have shown to be consistent with Bell's Theorem. And the reason Bohmian Mechanics is not compatible with the Theory of Relativity is because BM is strictly an interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which itself is incompatible with Special Relativity (as are likewise Copenhagen and Multiple Worlds interpretations).
Thanks for this
No offense, but you made a tons of mistakes here. "Hidden" is misnomer, the particle positions are not hidden, they are measured all the time. And the original pilot-wave theory can be expanded to a relativistic version, and you can work with momentum too. etc, etc, etc.
He didnt claim it cant
He mentioned why it is considered week nowadays .
Pilot wave can be reconciled with a relativity theory that differs from SR. That is a mental leap too big for almost all trained monkeys.
I find pilot wave theory kind of annoying because it doubles the entities without any evidence.
I see a particle not as a "thing" but as a "ripple" in some field, a bit like the vibration of a string.
so you just introduce a ripple or a string, without any evidence. you can only measure PARTICLES, not waves. so really PARTICLES should be assumed, which is what pilot wave does.
@@lukeno4143
The only thing which is measurable is eigenvalues of the operators linked to observables. If you manage measure the position of an electron to some higher precision than the size of the orbital, you get a localized particle but this will no longer have a certain energy.
@@jensphiliphohmann1876 hi, your operators describe physical properties of a.... particle! not a wave. so can you please give me further hint or link to what you are getting at above? are you just saying the position accuracy is limited to an orbital or something? what does that matter? the wave function has collapsed at this time. no wave. unless you define a particle as still a wave of n width, even after collapse
@@lukeno4143
It's particles but I think a particle is basically an elementary excitation rather than a body, just smaller (NEWTON spoke of corpusles in the case of like). This is why like particles are inherently indistinguishable.
The collapse of the wave function - if it really occurs at all, many worlds is not disproven - doesn't turn a wave into a corpuscle but it puts the particle into a single eigenstate for that very moment which looks a bit like a localized corpuscle iff you measure position. If you measure energy instead, e.g. in an electron within an atom, you render the particle in an energy eigenstate which has the form of an orbital.
why? howcum? because everything we think we know about quantum mechanics is wrong.....we know as much about 'particles' and their behavior as ancient egyptians knew about astronomy.....we think we're so smart but really we are so primitive, just a few iterations above a lemur ..... when a smart carbon based organism finally appears then an entirely different and more appropriate explanation will arise for the physical nature of the universe
Woohh stop chief Everything you just said is incorrect. That particle directly influences the Wave, The wave Directly influences the particle... It CREATES the wave and the sum of all wavefunctions dictates the particles next move. It turns uncertainty from an issue of Position and Momentum to one of Time and Area. The size of the area we have directly measured and the further back in time we have measured this area the more accurate our future positions can be predicted falling off the further in the future we go by some function. The particle excites the wave field and the wave field moves the particle. In more modern works the particle IS the excitation in the wave field making the wave and the particle a single unit as the movement of the excitation is determined via the area and time around the particle you can measure. IDK, its more complex with about 5 main rather complicated equations. Some no different than Phi and are your basic wave equation and others are your Memory equation which integrates past behavior and the behavior of the area under measure into a coherent formula for predicting the future position of the particle in question.
I really don't buy the idea that a new universe is created when interacting with a particle.
Where does this universe get created?
How can a universe, billions or even trillions of light years across get created in a tiny tiny fraction of a second?
It's not logical.
If the main weakness of pilot wave theory is its lack of compatibility with special relativity, then I count that as a plus to pilot wave theory and another minus for special relativity.
pilot wave theory takes the least "magical" approach in my opinion. To have a particle be both a particle and a wave at the same time is not realistic and violates basic logical constraints. It returns to being just a particle when we get more information... seems like the most reasonable explanation is it was always a particle and we just were misunderstanding the nature of its movement, and pilot wave does explains this. (that does not mean there might be some better explanation later)
Liked and shared and I'm subscribed my friend.
What do you think of this Mudfossil University youtube channel video by physicist Roger Spurrs?:
‘’Light Duality Solved and Seen’’, Sep 29, 2022
I think you are wrong, its very clear that bohemian mechanics is the real answer