Even if pilot wave theory is incorrect, it's an amazingly intuitive metaphor for what quantum physics does. It's like the stretched sheet metaphor of curved space time, and I appreciate that.
I think it's a little too strong for Matt to say Pilot is just "wrong." All of the interpretations of QM have some kernel of truth that will likely become apparent in the future. It's like we've been given four or five tantalizing perspectives of some deeper truth that hopefully will make sense once the interpretations are unified.
Try to make it relativistic and quantized, and you'll see why it's a horrible theory. Occam's razor tells any reasonable person that the most simple theory with the least assumptions is likely better - and for QM that would be the informational and many-worlds interpretations of the canonical equations. It's already solved, why insist on making things more difficult just so you can get something you can picture in your head, but not really. Complete idiocy. de Broglie was smart enough to realize that almost 100 years ago.
You see. The way you just pointed out pros and cons and gave each issue its proper importance, admitting the limitations of each argument, is amazing. We certainly need more of that in the world.
Bohm’s treatment of particles was also radical. Using that oil glycerin drop analogy (he acknowledged as analogy) particles emerge in sequence like movie frames not necessarily as the identical explicate form but constrained by what could emerge at that moment by the implicate wave conditions.
And one day one of you young guys will complete the pilot wave theory reconciling it with relativity, and at the Nobel ceremony you will thank mr O'Dowdd for inspiring you to undertake physics studies... Go for it boys!!!
Also I'd like to point out that the old host was really awesome... his awesomeness was of such an extent that he even could find a successor that was just as awesome (not an easy thing to do) :D
I think the great discovery of the oil-experiment is, that the droplet is actually a part of the liquid that the wave is in. An oil-droplet jumping in and out of existence in a vibrating oil-field is a lot more intuitive and easy to grasp than matter jumping in and out of existence in classic QT. So basically all that separates a particle from the universe, is a wave giving it enough energy to separate from the underlying ocean, at least for a short time.
"This is why science is so important!" His Quote is just another Reason why this is one of, if not the, greatest science show ever!!! Thanks for that, I just love you guys.
You guys are the best explanation of science without serious oversimplification. Thank you! Quick note - around 5:25 you highlight the faces of Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie, and Pauli rather than Heisenberg.
Excellent. I find the open-mindedness of this presentation most refreshing - the thoughtful considerations of a philosopher / scientist rather than the pitch of a salesman.
>Heres all the reasons why de broglie bhome theory makes sense >"Wow, I've never thought about it like that! That does make sense." >By the way de broglie brome theory is certainly wrong Why must you do this to me PBS?
Nicholas Coffin True, and while science is the closest thing we have to fact, the whole point of science is that while we can be sure that something is 99.99999% correct or incorrect, you always have to put *probably in there.
This is an excellent point you make, Transylvanian. It seems like PWT is an excuse to explain QFT in a way to preserve the familiar. Science is about questioning the familiar to further understand the unfamiliar, not make excuses to accept a perceived truths. Without any proof of PWT's non-local hidden variables it's a philosophical-mental game without mathematical significance or consequence.
Nicholas Coffin, It's not that it doesn't it's that it hasn't and we've only just begun to understand gravitational waves so lets not get ahead of ourselves.
transylvanian they are non local to the wave system because they are inherent to the particles. the wave bounces the particles, the particles impart their kinetic signature back into the wave, simple as cake, gravity is king.
This is probably my favorite episode, first because I am really rooting for Pilot Wave Theory to restore sanity to the universe, and second for the explanation of why Wolverine shouldn't trade the adamantium in his skeleton for neutronium.
@@fish963 It's true that the universe has no obligation to make sense. But there is enough evidence to assume that there is logical cause/effect and laws that can't be broken.
What you must learn is that these rules are no different than the rules of a computer system...some of them can can be bent. Others...can be broken. Understand? ;)
I'll admit first I did not read through all of the comments on this video (so if I'm saying something someone already did, I apologize) and this may not get any replies because the video is an older one, but this actually makes perfect sense in a number of ways. The pilot wave created by a moving quantum particle propagates through the fabric of space-time as a gravitational wave in the same way that a gravitational wave created by any object with mass moving through the fabric does or like an EM wave propagates, both traveling at the speed of light. The pilot g-wave reaches the double slit and creates the interference paths described by the equations presented in the video and the particle than follows the curvature in the fabric of space-time created by the pilot g-wave. One simply has to accept (which I think would be reasonable) that there is a fabric of space-time and we move through it. The existence of this fabric of space time as a medium through which g-waves created by quantum particles can propagate has already been observed by black holes orbiting a common center of mass. I believe it can be seen also on a general relativity scale in the grandest sense if you look at how a rotating galaxy creates a whirlpool effect on the objects within its curvature, creating the illusion of additional mass creating a gravitational field which we have called 'dark matter'. It is not some mysterious matter that we can't see, it is just the fabric of space-time creating the whirlpool effect much the same as if you were to throw a bunch of marbles onto a towel and rotate the towel. It really seems simple.
I've come back to this video and the Veritasium video multiple times now. Pilot wave theory seems to tug at my mind far more than any of the other interpretations. I am not really clear why using the Dirac equation instead of Schrodinger's, would not lead to a relativistic version of BM. I would love to revisit this topic at some point. I am sure you would be able to help me more clearly understand the issues that arise when trying to make BM relativistic. I found this quote from John Bell regarding BM quite interesting: “This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.”
I think it was ignored because on some level, we want to *prove* that the universe is *not* deterministic; that our fates are not absolutely sealed from the very moment of our conception. It gives us some illusion of “choice” or “free will.” However, I am a firm believer that the winning interpretation of quantum mechanics will be deterministic. I don’t care that my entire life is set in stone. It still *feels* to me like I’m making choices and acting of my own volition, which is what ultimately matters, relative to each person.
@@Eli-yu1by I like that as well. It just doesn't feel like it is deterministic, even if it actually is on a universal level. We've lived our whole lives just fine already, maybe it doesn't matter. I'm still holding my judgement though. Also, If I recall correctly I don't think that the probabilistic theories necessarily prove free will anyway.
@@Eli-yu1by Even if the universe weren't deterministic, you still wouldn't be making choices since you do not control the randomness. Even when you put physics aside and analyze us as a black box from the perspective of signals and systems... Who/what is making choices? The nature of the machine (which may or may not include some uncontrollable randomness) in combination with accrued information. When you look at choices as such, it's obvious that any choice that is not the best choice is the wrong choice so there really is no choice after all. If you make all the wrong choices, you will die and so will your effect on reality except in the sense of your "sacrifice" thanks to which others will see which paths are not to be taken. Through countless lives, good choices get filtered and so the ensuing civilization will be built only of good choices and the harrowing examples of the fallen. It doesn't matter how many times we make all the wrong choices since only good choices survive the filter. Whichever path of reasoning is taken, 'I' seems to be an illusion. Maybe the best thing is to accept that we're "just" complex apparatuses doing calculations, reject the notion of self, selflessly (ehehehe) focus the apparatus outward and make calculations that correlate highly with "the best", let "your" body dance its place in the symphony of creation to see this egg that is our universe come to fruition. If you sacrifice "self", you will gain the world. This symphonious knowable unknown beckoning for your soul? You have met God.
As much as I like the Standard Model and Copenhagen. I too find myself being Tugged back to this Theory. I believe in the Scientific Method, and do my best to keep my personal values aside. I do hope that some of these questions will be answered before the end of my life time.
Science fiction oftentimes serves as a fairly accurate precursor to scientific advancement in reality. At the beginning of the last century many, respected and well-established physicists and scientists balked at the idea of putting men on the moon.
I love this theory! I had a hard time accepting some aspects of the Copenhagen theory and so I made my own theory and it turns out my fuzzy idea had been thought out and made into an actual theory. It feels so good knowing others out there came to similar conclusions :D
I did something similar a while back, actually it was a few things.. I wasn't anywhere near the mathematical representations, but it's cool when you realize someone else has gone down the rabbit hole too lol
Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a pilotwave, No escape from reality - Bohmian Rhapsody This is a remarkably good presentation. The history is very important in all this stuff. Glad you folks have covered the history quite well. I like the Bohmian mechanics as an explanation. Less hoo hah! We don't need no stinkin' hoo hah.
This theory of a conscious being breaking the waves when observing is the one I like it the most but it would have to explain consciousness' origin to be complete but we all know that no theory has come to a good idea with arguments yet and not even close. We all must stay tuned xD
@O P This video was about quantum mechanics, not Christian theology. While brief, passing references to God are not out of place, the kind of detailed analysis of Christian scriptures you have presented certainly are.
Finally ... for years I've heard Copenhagen and Many-World interpretations, and they just didn't feel right. Until I saw the Verisatum video mentioned, and then this video today. This Pilot Wave theory just sounds "right" while the other interpretations just feel like "we don't know so 'probability' must be reality." And it could turn out that a century or so later, once we have the remaining missing pieces, Einstein will turn out to be right!
Unfortunately "feeling right" doesn't mean anything in science. Music maybe; science no. I agree with you about Copenhagen and Many Worlds - however, it's more than just a feeling.
Nature does not care about our feelings. I absolutely favour the many worlds just because it would fit for nature to run things in the most ridiculous way possible...bending spacetime, Horizontal Gene transfer, mitochondria, Hot Jupiter's, extremophiles, hubble constant...its always the most ridiculous ideas that end up being the contenders for what we consider true.
I've wanted to be a physicist ever since I was old enough to want, I've recently chosen to study Economics and Mathematics as a joint subject, Despite my love for mathematics, pilot wave theory is so irresistibly intuitive it makes me wish I choose otherwise.
You can still work on it in part time and I don't think that regretting about you career over 1 theory is wise. There are certain aspects of quantum mechanics which may not be explained by Pilot wave.
Regarding relativity in dBB -- may I suggest reading of "On the description of subsystems in relativistic hypersurface Bohmian mechanics" by Detlef Dürr and Matthias Lienert? Thanks.
Meanwhile, strange matter has an excellent application in cosmic horror stories. Just one particle of it hits the Earth, and the whole planet begins to transform, swallowing rocks, houses, plants and animals alike into a uniform mass… It's the new scariest thing in physics!
No my friend, I think you'll find the scariest thing is vacuum decay, an unseen and unseeable destruction spreading across space itself at light speed, all it consumes is not only destroyed in a blaze of energy but the very laws of physics holding it together are altered on a fundamental level.
I love that pilot wave theory has a macroscopic analogue, it makes it so easy to understand. Although it is still a bit difficult for me to understand how quantum eraser works in pilot wave function. Does the measurement of one particle create a fluctuation in the wave that affect the other entangled particle? I also don't have any philosophical problems with determinism mainly because you can argue that in both deterministic and indeterministic quantum theories free will can be just an illusion. Randomness does not equal free will.
Determinism and free will are not necessarily related. As you say, you can have either determinism or non-determinism without free will. I think there are problems right from the start with the idea itself of free will - what is it? It's not well defined. More importantly, "we" agents and actors are not well defined. I can't imagine any universe with the kind of free will that most people instinctively believe in. I suspect the problem has more to do with our understanding of "self" and of "will" than any mysteries of quantum reality. Our sense of self is a specialized adaptation, and not our actual self. We aren't what we think we are. I think the quandary of free will would go away if we knew ourselves better. Fwiw, I think we can decide and do either one thing or the other, or something else. It's not preordained, not random. But it's not quite what people call free will, either. Or, maybe more accurately, it is free will, but we aren't quite what we call persons.
If you are correct in thinking that perception is illusory then everything else you said is meaningless: Just a description of an illusion. Seems like a wishfull thinking to me. Except this bit: "(...) you can find all of the modern scientific knowledge in the ancient Egyptian, Sumerian and Vedic texts" - plain bollocks.
Perception is subjective but reality is objective, so it's an illusory perception only, existence is as real as we can get even if it's holographic, fractal and cyclic in nature, with probably only two basic states as in a binary system, I'm just guessing, it's wishful thinking indeed until someone proofs it with science. Don't forget Mandelbrot was laughed at until his perception turned out to be really useful because it was right, maybe that's the same reason why Einstein is so famous and few people know about Minkowski or why Kepler and Galileo are so admired but nobody remembers Tyco Brahe. About ancient knowledge, I've studied many cultures and languages, religions, lots of history, anthropology and archeology and everything points to civilisations that had knowledge that we are just beginning to rediscover now, such as the heliocentric model, the outer planets in the solar system, amazing knowledge of proportion, pi, phi, geometrics, astronomy, precession of Earth's axis and so on. Just to give an example of how little we really know about our past, we think homo sapiens has been around for at least 200.000 or so and we barely know anything about cultures and civilisations from 20.000 years backs, so less than 10% of human history is "kinda" known, the rest is just wishful thinking and genetic memory :D and don't forget the fact that the observable energy that science deals with is just a small fraction of the whole we call Universe.
N1CO VJ Can you please point out some source materials that show that ancient civilisations (which ones?) knew about outer planets, or indeed had an idea of what planet is.
The more I learn about quantum mechanics, the more I find that a lot of the things taught as "certain truths" are actually assumptions imagined to explain the weirdness without requiring any extra math. As if to say "We don't know how or why because there isn't anything more to know. Things are fundamentally this way." Seeing this, I feel that the ideas of the universe splitting into infinite multiverses, or the idea that the "landing" location of a particle is fundamentally random, to be absolute bogus made up by lazy or fearful scientists who don't want to ask "Why?" or "How?" because it'd take too much work. Logic only dictates that everything is deterministic in this single, unsplitting universe. The idea of non-local, or "instant", causality makes a whole heck of a lot more sense than NO causality at all. Supporting the idea of fundamental randomness is like looking at the incomplete equation "... = 4" and saying that the "..." means nothing and really isn't there at all, when in reality the "..." is standing in for something like "2+2" or "3+1" or even "-i*sqrt(-4)", even though we can't see it. In the end, we know that something must be on the left side of the equation that results in "4", we just gotta figure out what it is.
There is still causality in the Copenhagen and many-worlds interpretation. The word I think you may have been looking for is determinism. Remember, even with the pilot wave theory, you still have the question of how the guiding wave-function changes when a measurement is made. All that pilot wave theory does is substitute non-local hidden variables for determinism, and personally, I don't see any scientific reason to think this substitution is a good one. On top of that, the mathematics of the pilot wave theory is crazy difficult, *and* there's no relativistic form of it yet.
***** - Determinism means that something is causing something else. If there is no determinism, there is no cause, and therefore no causality. I'm not saying that pilot wave theory is the answer, but determinism definitely is.
DaneGraphics There is still cause in the Copenhagen interpretation - the act of measurement is the cause, but the result is indeterminate. And why is determinism definitely the answer? We already know that just because we're used to something being true doesn't mean that it is always true.
***** - I'm not sure you're understanding. If in the double slit experiment, a particle lands in the center strip instead of one of the other fringe strips, why did it land there instead of somewhere else? The Copenhagen interpretation ignores that question completely and simply says "because it did". Something caused the particle to land where it did as opposed to somewhere else. It didn't "just happen", and saying it did is unscientific and lazy.
Yes. If you consider the idea that beamsplitters don't actually act probabilistically but instead act as filters where a property that determines how the particle follows the pilot wave also determines whether it gets reflected or goes through, then it works really well with no back-in-time information transfer required.
Yes but it requires non locality. Many worlds, for example, doesn't require that, as it can just claim that the two branches were always there to begin with
One thing I like about this alternative pilot wave theory is that while classical quantum mechanics hasn't been able to reconcile gravity after more than a century, perhaps pilot wave theory will reconcile gravity and relativity together at once (if / when the physics community can give pilot wave theory development the time and attention it deserves).
@@pamir8232 THE CLEAR, TOP DOWN, SIMPLE, AND BALANCED MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA: E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! INSTANTANEITY is thus fundamental to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. THE SUN AND what is THE EARTH/ground are E=MC2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE. TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. (The sky is blue, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. CAREFULLY consider what is THE EYE.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! (THEREFORE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution.) "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. E=MC2 IS F=ma. Carefully consider what is THE EYE.) Objects (AND what is the FALLING MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Again, carefully consider that the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. SO, carefully consider what are the ORANGE SUN AND the fully illuminated and setting MOON ! Both are the size of THE EYE. Think LAVA !!! The Moon is ALSO BLUE on balance. Therefore, E=MC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE !! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense !!! Carefully consider THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground !!! Great !!! E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE !!!! By Frank DiMeglio
@@ricomajestic It's telling that not even the supporters are using it. What do you find intuitive about a ghost field, anyway? Are you into the occult? ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 I'm not lonely. I have my Lord of the Rings action figures to keep me company. What's going on is very scientifically complicated. I don't want to bore you with all the technical jargon.
@@schmetterling4477 It's not as good as the attention that I get from my toys, but it's pretty good. If you need any tips on how to be cool I'd be happy to help. I know that most people don't possess the gift of smoothness that I enjoy.
At 5:23, when the picture of the Solvay Conference is shown with some physicists names along with their faces, Werner Heisenberg's name is wrongly attributed to Wolfgang Pauli's face!!! Heinsenberg was so pissed off about this that his only comment was: "Say my name...".
Hold up a sec, lemme just go dust off the 20 years-old high school physics textbook that is hidden somewhere in my garage and I'll get right around to cracking this whole pilot wave thingy.
Small error at 4 55: you don't need to know particle positions *and* velocities at every point, because the equation that guides the little particle is first order. So knowing the positions is sufficient, and then the velocity is determined by the equation.
By the way, this is the reason why Bohmian mechanics is *not* actually right. It disagrees with quantum mechanics and with experiment! The reason is that, if knowing the position of the particle specifies where it will be forever, particle trajectories can *never cross*. But we know that, for instance, a particle could go through the right slit and end up on the left side of the screen. For more details, see Chen and Kleinert (2016). There are other problems with Bohmian mechanics as well, such as the fact that it does not (and in principle it cannot) incorporate relativity, or the clunkiness with which it handles simple concepts such as spin. But the fact that it's _wrong_ should suffice to remove it from consideration as a possible underlying theory for quantum mechanics. Copenhagen is the preferred interpretation for a reason. :) It is agnostic as to whatever's happening underneath. All attempts to remove this "agnosticism" and put quantum mechanics in a "realist" framework, be it pilot wave theory or the many worlds interpretation, have failed.
You have forgotten Heisenberg there. If you know the exact position, the velocity cannot be determined, nor will the equation give you useful information about it.
Im not a quantum physicist, but let me ask some questions: How does copenhagen interpretation handle quantum entaglement other than a spooky action? I guess more mathemathics should be applied and less phylosophies would be desired. We dont know anything about the underlying structure of the particle system in pilot wave aspects, yet alone to state that these particles can never cross, what if they can?! Bohmian mechanics is not complete as newtonian was and that doesnt mean anything. There is actually nothing Im aware off that doesnt allow Bohmian mechanics to work.
Mp57navy This would be true in the standard quantum interpretation, but in pilot wave theory particles have definite positions and velocities at all times. However, the velocities can be determined from the positions and the guiding equation so they're not independent quantities as they are in classical physics.
***** The Copenhagen interpretation doesn't interpret that. In fact, the Copenhagen interpretation should be called the "agnostic" interpretation, because it doesn't care what underlying dynamics may be causing the weirdness. It's a recipe for computing the results of experiments, and that's that. It doesn't imply spooky action for this reason: all you can say is that you observed a correlation, but as we know, correlation does not equal causality. "We dont know anything about the underlying structure of the particle system in pilot wave aspects, yet alone to state that these particles can never cross, what if they can?! " It's conceivable that a pilot wave-like interpretation could be constructed where they can. But in Bohm's version of the theory, they can't. "There is actually nothing Im aware off that doesnt allow Bohmian mechanics to work." There are actually several known examples of falsified experimental predictions of Bohmian mechanics, such as the failure to predict the correct intensity ratio between the central peak and adjacent ones in the two slit experiment. Inconsistency with the third law of thermodynamics is another.
@5:28 the Solvay Conference -> the zooming in on "Heisenberg" is not on Heisenberg, that fellow is Wolfgang Pauli. Heisenberg is the one on his left (we see on the right of Pauli).
Easily. Being nonlocal and deterministic the particles aren't taking multiple paths at once, the results are predetermined as soon as you start the experiment. Measurement doesn't change anything or send some sort of signal, the entire wavefunction simply alters all at once.
It doesn't. If "everything is predetermined" from the emission source, then D0 results would not correlate with D1-D4 results at a rate greater than chance.
+Musky Elon personally i find with some of the physics like the quantum eraser you are looking as something where you need to understand the equations in order to make sense of the results. i am a layman when it comes to the equations. i have certainly forgotten more differential equation knowledge than i have retained since university. so, even though the interference and noninterference results make sense the numerical results don't.
+Gareth Dean "Everything is predetermined as soon as you start the experiment"? I don't think so. I understood that when a measurement is made on an entangled particle the other is simply instantaneously affected through the non-local wave, but that outcome is not "predicted" by the wave at the start of the experiment.
I'm thinking that quantum mechanics is just weird enough that all of these theories are at least partially true. Reminds me of the fable about the 7 blind men and the elephant where the 7 blind men try to describe an elephant by touching various parts of one.
This fable applies ot every case in science (or at least physics). We can never know what there actually is. Hence, saying 'This is how it works!' is wrong, rather we should just say 'This perspective gives results which are matching with experiment.' and should never talk about its working.
For some reason I ended up in an argument with quantum woo fanatics. The fervor with which they defend their bullshit is astounding. It's like you insult them personally when you tell them "no, focusing your mind really hard does not affect the result of the double slit experiment". They would probably interpret this video as evidence that even the most out there interpretation of quantum physics is reasonable to believe in. Especially those with really few scientists supporting them.
Jim Groth I do believe in most "woo" interpretations of qm, however, that has nothing to do with having mental powers or focusing on whatever the hell they believe.
Jim Groth They would probably be discussing the same thing about how you defend the "wrong version" of the theory with so much passion. Everybody feels their version is the right one. I believe that beyond a limit, there is no point in trying to convince others of something. If they don't want to believe it, there is no amount of proof or data you can present to them which would convince them.
In a way you ARE insulting them personally. A lot of them believe their own basic goodness and focus can alter reality. Denying that is like telling a lot of them that what they've achieved in life just happened without any input from them. It attacks the foundations of their beliefs.
Physics is like a endless hole of complexity, I don't think we'll ever understand it much however the advances that we have made have really made much of our modern world possible. I love physics and all of science really, this channel is better than watching any NOVA documentary.
I have a question.. if the pilot wave theory is correct, then wouldn't the results of double slit experiments ALWAYS produce interference patterns independently of whether we observe it or not?
Maybe, if pilot wave is correct, when you measure the posotion maybe the thing that colapses completely ia the wave and so a new wave is created with no interfernce with itself, making the results that we get if we measure the particle
Well we don't quite understand how wavefunction collapses work. All we know is that it's related to observing, and that by observing we must interact with the system. So perhaps by observing a particle going through a slit in the pilot wave theory, we might just be interacting with it in such a way that it stops interacting with itself and therefore no longer makes an interference pattern
I have to say that I've been thinking about bell's theorem and quatnum field theory since I was a kid and always was slowly constructing my vision of how the universe worked but my vision was never so fully validated until you explained how bell's theorem helped bring back bohmian mechanics. This pilot wave theory seems so intuitive that it must be true. I wonder if there is some way to track how the scientific community may slowly switch over to this interpretation of quantum mechanics.
I agree but forget about converting theoretical physicists because they mistake mathematical modelling for a description of physical reality. We are not data in a computer simulation. This is not the Matrix. Someone needs to remind them of this in math class. Cheers.
Copenhagen and Many-worlds are promoted by big universities as Oxford, Caltech & MIT. The defensers of Bohmian Mechanics are in Rutgers university, New York university and Universität der Tübingen -Small Universities.
@@Starkl3t No. It is simply quantum mechanics. Only someone who doesn't understand quantum mechanics or MWI will claim that. The universe is described by a state vector evolving in time. MWI simply says that is true. Everything else adds extra structure onto the theory that violates causality, reversibility, and information conservation, without which you cannot even do quantum mechanics. Other "interpretations" on top of quantum mechanics are logically incoherent. If MWI is merely "fantastical and ridiculous", I would take it any day
@@Starkl3t It's the most straightforward. Copenhagen is literally nonsense. And spontaneous collapse is really reaching hard to avoid many worlds. Relational explanations are just many worlds coupled with solipsism.
Unless Matt is a string theorist myself, that may be tricky. I was literally talking to a string theorist yesterday morning (Andre Lukas) and he said that even he struggles to explain it :P
To test this, maybe you could have a cloud chamber in the double slit experiment, once the electrons pass through the slit, you can check and see if it has a trajectory or if it has particle-wave duality. Or it might ruin the interference patterns.
This theory of Quantum Mechanics is the one I buy the most. I think history will show all particles, whether photons, molecules, sand, H2O, etc, all have nothing but classical wave properties.
how does the pilot wave function explain the results of the quantum eraser? how come knowing the trajectory of the particle, without interfering with its guiding wave changes the result of the experiment?
If the pilot wave exist, we don't know what it is and all the properties it has. Perhaps it has something to do with its non-locality that was mentioned in the video
Pilot wave theory is inconsistent with relativity because its non local behavior states that all of the wave function knows changes in the state of the particle at the same time. But, there is no 'same time' in relativity. How you would define 'same time' as an observer depends on your reference frame.
I've always believed randomness doesn't exist. Randomness is defined as the absence of a disernable pattern and what we see as randomness is an infantessimal part of an infinately large and dynamic pattern, with an infinate number of possible smaller emergent nested patterns within (ie dynamic attractors). Choas is the order of the universe, but chaos is not random, it is highly deterministic...the antithesis of entropy (which is true randomness).
Could science answer a philosophical question? Is the universe deterministic? Is my destiny already written somewhere? Is the universe non-deterministic? Are we responsible for our actions? And the consequences. I think it's a win-win either way . If it's deterministic, sit back enjoy, nothing's in our hands. If it's not, all power to us!
“Is the universe non-deterministic? Are we responsible for our actions?” Basic logic can answer that question. The only possibility other than determinism is a fundamentally random process. Why would we be any more or less responsible for an action governed by chance than we would be for an action governed by cause and effect? We wouldn't. Hence, the question of determinism in the universe does not need to be resolved to see that personal responsibility is not affected by the answer.
Although I may say that the Universe is non-deterministic, however there's one thing that really makes me think a lot. I'm not sure if the "infinite multiverse" quite explains it as well as I would like it to, you can call me bonkers but hear me out on this one. Ignore the Dejavu factor as much as you can, but I'm trying to make it relate-able or at least understandable in my point of view. BTW if you don't know or at least never experienced it for yourself imagine this. You're at school doing a daily routine. Something changes in that routine, but however doing that said "change" doesn't feel all so unfamiliar to you. In-fact it feels strangely scary(well at first for me at least) like you KNOW what is coming next, but can't pin point the exact actions or words that do. It's like having that word stuck on the tip of your tongue except it being your tongue it's your mind. I think 1 of 2 things, even though that Dejavu is merely a psychological effect I think it has to do with the multiverse. At our point in time in which we are born we have 1 set timeline that is laid in flat, but as soon as we as a baby, make 1 of many decisions that specific timeline branches out to a lot of different ones. At any point in time whether we made a specific choice in life to where more than 1 version of the universe lines up with another(or even skips ahead of an event that we are now just experiencing) we feel as if "we have been here before". More often than not you actually have and maybe even currently are. You'd assume that well maybe if there are SOOO many possibilities of the multiverse wouldn't we be actually experiencing dejavu all the time? That may be the case, but also not. You have to realize any action that you do or even the whole universe experiences can be totally different. It not only cuts down on the "infinite" multiverse(yes infinite means literally to no end and even half of infinity is still infinity. it still is a big portion of the possibilities gone.) but it cuts off a lot of possible scenarios from anything happening. ASIDE from the DEJAVU factor(That's why I said bonkers, but like I said I needed something to tether the explanation). That was just my personal belief of it and honestly I have no idea where I came up with that or if I heard it from somewhere else, but I figured I might as well get that out of my chest. I explained it to a couple people I know and as crazy as it did sound to them some of them thought that could be the case. Regardless of that, even if you don't include the "dejavu" factor of life and just ignore it all together, my point still stands of being it possible deterministic. Even though you may think you are making your own decisions saying "f you to the universe" in reality every single decision, sneeze, comment, thing you buy, the way you think, etc... is technically written down somewhere. WHICH BRINGS ME TO MY SECOND POINT. I feel like there is not necessarily an "equation" well maybe an equation, yea probably an equation who am I thinking. It's based on of the way you think, how you operate on a daily basis, what is the probability of you doing x at a certain time. I remember seeing this somewhere, sorry I would tell you but I mostly retain things without remembering where they actually came from, I probably should get better at that(Yes it was a TV show, but I mean depending on the sci-fi it actually can become a reality, hell look at Black Mirror). How basically every single human individual actually has a pattern of thought. Even though the human mind is complex if you gather every single piece of information about said person and had some sort of equation to put all the factors of your daily life and every single minute detail that you can find out about the person and put it in said equation. You will know essentially what that person will do for the rest of their life. Sure there are people who do "change", but even an equation so complex and so intertwined with the inner-workings of the universe and human life even something along the words "change" is completely thrown out the window because that doesn't even stop the equation. This also doesn't account for us Humans as a race as well, but also everything else in general, whether is Plant life, Animal life, Sea life. Anything that has something that can deter it away from one specific point in time to create conflict with essentially the "inevitable" unless if you're a piece of dirt. Hell even dirt can make a big impact on life depending on where it is. Don't get me started on the Chaos Theory now. TL;DR. Infinite Multiverse and "Life Equation"(What I'll call it in the mean time) makes it possible that our lives are actually deterministic. I do believe that it is non-deterministic, but I have a pretty "creative" mind to keep me thinking 100% so that it's fully non-deterministic. Sorry for the long read, but I'm pretty tired and I thought I would just throw my comment out there and waste about 30 mins of my time just typing this out. Also maybe entertaining someone who maybe would like an interesting read into my mind. I got nothing better to do at this time of night anyways. HOPE YOU ENJOY READING IT IF YOU DO.
The universe being governed by chance gives no more freedom than the universe being purely deterministic. Either way, your actions are beyond your control.
One should realize that especially the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't try to explain the observed phenomena. It just names them using quite vage definitions (wave function, collapse, measurement etc.) and tells you that it is not possible to look for a deeper reality. Not sure why people would prefer that.
BUT.. they watch the particle where it will go, and somehow, acted as particles again and not as waves. it seems that by the act of watching them, makes the particle decide how it will act - as a particle or as a wave.
Here's my stupid question : is there an interpretation of the measurement problem in the double slit experiment in pilot wave theory? As in, what's the equivalent to Copenhagen's "collapse of the wave function"? If the pilot wave is considered a physical entity, why does measurement/decoherence suppress the interference pattern?
According to Bohmian Mechanics, each time a measurement is made, the wave function of the measuring device becomes entangled with the wave function of the measured particle. That mutual entanglement is what Copenhagen refers to as the "collapse" of the measured particle's wave function. (But note how Copenhagen excludes the measuring device, thus creating its notorious self-inflicted "measurement problem".) The Pilot Wave is NOT a "physical entity" manifested in 4D spacetime, it propagates non-locally in complex-valued Configuration Space (the domain where the quantum wave function is defined). If it manifested in 4D spacetime, the Pilot Wave would become a local phenomenon subject to relativistic propagation effects, contradicting the non-local nature of Bohmian Mechanics.
Arguments showing the drawbacks and flaws in the pilot wave theory, while at the same time comparing it to the Copenhagen model are what was missing in the Veritasium's video on the pilot wave theory. Although, I loved his video he did not state the problems that come with the theory and it was for that reason a bit misleading. Your video perfectly fills those missing parts, but also vice versa as Veritasium actually shows the oil bubbles and the pilot wave theory on the macro scale. Thanks to both of you! :)
No you'd suffocate. Suffocation or Asphyxia is being deprived of oxygen, which you are in space. This causes you to fall unconscious quite quickly. You don't explode any more than boiling vegetables makes them explode, the water in your body will try to boil away but that takes time. It'll rupture your lungs and mucous membranes but by the time it starts to do serious damage your brain has already died. You end up nicely freeze-dried.
Copenhagen interpretation is a misnomer, it's actually the lack of interpretation. It's says the wave function can be used to determine the probability of finding a particle in a certain place or with a given momentum. Notice it says absolutely nothing about "what" the wavefunction is or if it is "real" or not. Those questions are either to be clarified by some other theory or maybe they are just an ontological questions for philosophers to debate.
I tend to think that we do live in a deterministic universe when all the layers are stripped away. So I have no problem accepting this as an incomplete theory. Either way it doesn't change our perceived reality. One thing that does confuses me is people have a hard time with this theory which requires a little extra math when something like String theory requires heaps of unknowns and extra math. We have an unprecedented amount of people working on String Theory and it's derivatives today and it's just getting more complex.
I don't believe the universe is truly deterministic. However, if it is, that will be great fuel for all those shitty pop-sci news sites that write the weekly "Life is a computer simulation!!!!" clickbait. 6
How does quantum tunneling work in the context of Pilot Wave theory? According to the theory, a particle has a definite location at all times. How does it get past the potential barrier?
Jumps over? As in passing thru? Lets say for an electron passing thru a silicon junction, would not successive passing "thru" cause an observable structure failure?
In Bohmian mechanics there is a new extra nonlocal potential energy named "quantum potential" that is the reason of quantum tunneling and other quantum effect.
@@mortezarezaei9066 Just curious -- does this "quantum potential" have the same probabilistic outcome as is measured in practical quantum tunneling devices? The current interpretation seems to explain the phenomenon well.
Thanks for this video. For example non linear equations are deterministic but might lead to chaotic behaviour, practically solved with probabilistic tools. This theory is very interesting
Could the vibrating oil analogy also describe how Pilot Wave Theory works with Quantum Field Theory? The surface of the oil is the quantum field, and the droplets bouncing on top of it are the particles that emerge from the field. Or am I misunderstanding something?
i wouldn't try to stretch the analogy. you will get into trouble sooner or later, at the very least you will be hard pressed to find a cute pictorial oil-droplet analogy for the mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking that generates particle masses.
No. Te issue isn't that Pilot Wave theory can't handle particles and waves, that's what it's built from. The issue is how Quantum Field Theory's waves deal with relativity. Pilot Theory's waves do unruly things like change all at once without sending a slower-than-light signal. (More specifically things get a bit odd such as when you take he Scrodinger equation and restrict it to shorter and shorter periods of time so that it tends to 'pile up' on its light cone; for regular Copenhagen and suchlike this is an important result but Pilot Waves skip it and need some way to bring it back.)
No. Quantum field theory has pretty much declared any pilot wave interpretation dead. Photons, for instance, don't even have a wavefunction, and cannot be talked about as having any definite position at all (this also kills many worlds interpretations, by the way). The correct picture is one where particles can be created and destroyed all the time -- but when I say "particle" I should really say "wave". Quantum field theoretical particles are wavelike in all aspects except for the fact that they come in discrete units. So one unit of light of wavelength 530 nm, two units of light of wavelength 435 nm... these "units", though they look and behave in all aspects just like plane waves, we call "photons". The situation is analogous for other particles. There are also a number of interesting effects that depend deeply on the wave nature of particles that pilot wave theories couldn't begin to predict.
The photon *always* goes through one slit, but when you have two slits available the WAVE can go through both and affect the photon accordingly. Closing a slit blocks off the wave and changes how the photon is affected.
Yes, but what i mean is, when a detector is placed to definitively determine which slit a photon passes through, the interference pattern disappears. And further, if a scrambler is placed down the line to prevent that measurement, the interference pattern emerges, even though no modification was made where the photon travels. I'm not talking about closing a slit.
if you are not familiar with waves there is quite a lot of literature or you can do the same setup as derek and others (with oil) and observe the "particles" and the behavior on macro scale. For all intents and purposes it's pretty accurate representation of what is going on on subatomic scale but it's incredibly slowed down and scaled up. if you do enough runs you can even compare that it really corresponds with the odds you get with the classical "quantum" statistical equations but you can see how each particle arrives and what influences the movement and how. The double slit experiment is great way how to spend afternoon (or a week)
PERFORMER: Your upper body movements are well-orchestrated to the point of genius. Amazingly consistent, hypnotic. Your acting is not upstaged by your accent. DARN good mode of learning. A+ Please mention your name somehow in each stream: we want to be proud of you! Doesn't have to be self-indulgent, no, just a blip perhaps. Whatever! : )
1:08 - I don't think the universe is splitting at EVERY choice, infinitely splitting in to alternate galaxies... It's like the double slit experiments, some galaxies will cancel each other out.
I find all theories that give particles a reality fishy; I think "particles" are just emergent properties of interactions of excited fields, but what do I know...
I think particles are just temporary measurements of wave probability. They are not real, but create a comprehensible "defined" concept of being separate from any ongoing continuum. In reality we know everything is connected, there are no real separations since everything has a cause and event, thus making isolated entities or particles with absolute identity non-existent. Maybe if space would be completely discrete at the most fundamental level, you could call those values absolute entities, but since theories say those fundamental properties get forced into a state or "the wave function collapses" they are always entangled with an observer and therefor share linked definition with the observer and cannot be absolute on their own. My conclusion, particles are just concepts created in the mind but don't exist in reality. Reality is just one big probability wave, defining itself by using observers that arise from itself to give itself a relativistic identity and exists for that only reason. I hope you guys can follow me :D
I believe that's a view that you and I share, Dennis. A lot of the strange things about reality and the universe make a bunch more sense when looked at from the perspective of quantum field theory. Viewing a particle as the property of an excitation in a corresponding field causes things like the double slit experiment and matter being a form of energy to appear perfectly simple and logical.
What do you guys think of non-duality? Science in general is always in the pursuit of finding the best suiting model by comparing measurements/concepts/properties of absolutes, but if the fundamental nature of reality is unity throughout the universe, then non-duality would be the best description. It would be the total embodiment of everything in itself without separation of itself, otherwise it wouldn't be all at the highest level?
I have one question. How Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory explains the behaviour of a photon during double-slit experiment, when the measurement is taken before it passes the slit. According to Copenhagen interpretation wave function collapses at the measurement and photon starts to behave like a particle. In this situation we can't see interference pattern any more and experiments proves this is the case. If I understand it correctly, in Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory wave and particle are inseparable from each other. Therefore we should be able to see interference pattern even if the mesaurement was taken before photon passed the slit. Am I wrong in my thinking about this problem?
I agree, and I wish there was more discussion about this in all the videos that explain the Broglie-Bohm theory. It also leapt out at me as I was watching the video
In Bohmian mechanics, the wavefunction of a particle do represent a real wave having all of information of particle's properties and this wave drive's the particle by the non-local hidden variables to choose a well definite path. For your doubt, from Bohmian mechanics, when you measure a photon you are disturbing the non-local hidden variables and because of that the photon will take a different path. If you continue with it for every photons, the same will happen to all the photons and interference pattern will therefore disappeare.
But how does that account for the restoration of a defraction pattern in the quantum eraser experiment, when particles have been measured by the instrument but the information inaccessible to a conscious observer?
To understand whether pilot wave can account for quantum eraser, first understand quantum eraser "completely". for help th-cam.com/video/8ORLN_KwAgs/w-d-xo.html note that intrumental measurement is equivalent to any conscious observer measurement. QM does't depend on "type" of measurement.
I'm surprised he didn't talk about the supposed EM drive being worked on by NASA. Isn't there a theory about the EM drive being possible if Pilot Wave theory is true?
No, there isn't such a theory. In the recent paper on the EM drive there was a section trying to explain it in terms of pilot wave theory. In terms of progress through the scientific process, the notion of a working EM drive being explained by or proving pilot wave theory is as close to the bottom as you can get. i.e. It's one guy's idea.
The prevailing suggestion seems to be that some of the photo are escaping containment chamber. The article I read gave some high level ways they might test for it.
The theory put forth describes how Unruh radiation pressure accounts for the thrust. Arxiv paper here: arxiv.org/abs/1604.03449 Leaking the microwaves themselves is not sufficient to explain the thrust, but the measurements are tricky as the thrust is small and the power levels relatively high. The most interesting thing about this experiment is how much can be learned from its investigation.
Pilot Wave Theory (de Broglie-Bohm theory) and Quantum Realism both aim to provide a more tangible understanding of quantum mechanics. Pilot Wave Theory suggests that particles always have definite positions and velocities, guided by a pilot wave, making the theory deterministic and non-local. This contrasts with the probabilistic Copenhagen interpretation and provides a clearer view of wave-particle duality. Quantum Realism, on the other hand, posits that quantum mechanics represents an objective reality, where the wavefunction is not just a predictive tool but a real entity reflecting the true state of a system. Both perspectives challenge traditional views by suggesting that quantum objects have definite properties even if not directly observable, with Pilot Wave Theory offering a deterministic model and Quantum Realism emphasizing the existence of an objective quantum reality.
That's cool and all, except for the fact that there are no particles in nature, so what you are trying to explain doesn't exist. You are looking for the science equivalent of fairies here. :-)
I think pilot wave theory or a variant of it is going to lead to new revelations in physics. Sure, some stuff needs to be sorted out, but that’s science.
Even if pilot wave theory is incorrect, it's an amazingly intuitive metaphor for what quantum physics does. It's like the stretched sheet metaphor of curved space time, and I appreciate that.
When he says "some stuff" surely thats timespace .
Why would time space not have ripples of carrier waves ?🤔
It is more logical than the alternatives
I reckon it's unjustly shelved because it reintroduces the controversial ether
Never liked the stretched sheet metaphor though.
Explaining gravity by using gravity...
I think it's a little too strong for Matt to say Pilot is just "wrong." All of the interpretations of QM have some kernel of truth that will likely become apparent in the future. It's like we've been given four or five tantalizing perspectives of some deeper truth that hopefully will make sense once the interpretations are unified.
@@erawanpencil I think you are right, it will start to make sense the more perspectives we can gather, and then unify.
Reconcile particle-wave duality with deterministic reality with this one weird trick! Orthodox quantum physicists HATE this!
😂😂😂 click bait
Best comment award!!! :)
HaloInverse 🤣
"I See What You Did There"
Try to make it relativistic and quantized, and you'll see why it's a horrible theory. Occam's razor tells any reasonable person that the most simple theory with the least assumptions is likely better - and for QM that would be the informational and many-worlds interpretations of the canonical equations. It's already solved, why insist on making things more difficult just so you can get something you can picture in your head, but not really. Complete idiocy. de Broglie was smart enough to realize that almost 100 years ago.
You see. The way you just pointed out pros and cons and gave each issue its proper importance, admitting the limitations of each argument, is amazing. We certainly need more of that in the world.
Agreed Lucas, it's only logical.
Well said
We need a solution. It exists.look out for my book, 5 month or so. on Kindle.
No we blame the mexicans :))
Just like the theories themselves. Quantum erase this if it doesn't mesh well.
Bohm’s treatment of particles was also radical. Using that oil glycerin drop analogy (he acknowledged as analogy) particles emerge in sequence like movie frames not necessarily as the identical explicate form but constrained by what could emerge at that moment by the implicate wave conditions.
I am a 13 year old kid from London and I just wanted to say how much this channel has inspired me to have a career in science.
Sam N-S I’m a 13 year old as well, and I find this channel fascinating.
lets see how much u all become physicists , real physicists like dirac
Go for it guys!
Good for you little skipper just be careful on the net, yeah. Cheers.
And one day one of you young guys will complete the pilot wave theory reconciling it with relativity, and at the Nobel ceremony you will thank mr O'Dowdd for inspiring you to undertake physics studies... Go for it boys!!!
This channel HAS to be the best thing that happened to science on youtube.
Ciroluiro , I agree. Huge fan over here.
Also I'd like to point out that the old host was really awesome... his awesomeness was of such an extent that he even could find a successor that was just as awesome (not an easy thing to do) :D
Thulyblu Sometimes I feel nostalgic for the previous hosts constant shouting.
I agree, although being Australian I am slightly biased toward the current host.
+1 agree
I think the great discovery of the oil-experiment is, that the droplet is actually a part of the liquid that the wave is in.
An oil-droplet jumping in and out of existence in a vibrating oil-field is a lot more intuitive and easy to grasp than matter jumping in and out of existence in classic QT. So basically all that separates a particle from the universe, is a wave giving it enough energy to separate from the underlying ocean, at least for a short time.
What a nice metaphor!
mind = blown
The droplet in the oil experiment is not part of the liquid. It is separate at all times, and just bounces off the surface.
@@davidwuhrer6704 yes but the droplet is made from the same stuff as the liquid
@@baraapudding
It still isn't jumping in and out of existence.
"This is why science is so important!" His Quote is just another Reason why this is one of, if not the, greatest science show ever!!! Thanks for that, I just love you guys.
To the editor: latex formulas can easily be exported to SVG, which (simply put) allows for unpixelled images. Fantastic job otherwise :D
This isn’t a condom commercial!!
@@bigaschwing2296 Hey just me following up on this. What?
You guys are the best explanation of science without serious oversimplification. Thank you! Quick note - around 5:25 you highlight the faces of Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie, and Pauli rather than Heisenberg.
You may be onto something, or maybe not.
4:11 Gotta love these Ultra HD formulas.
It'd be nice if they upped the resolution :P
didn't notice, i'm literally watching in 144p
The background music at 10:35 is awesome. Can somebody tell me where can i find it ?
I thought I was watching in 144p until I turned it up to 1080 xd
Excellent. I find the open-mindedness of this presentation most refreshing - the thoughtful considerations of a philosopher / scientist rather than the pitch of a salesman.
Agreed 🙂
>Heres all the reasons why de broglie bhome theory makes sense
>"Wow, I've never thought about it like that! That does make sense."
>By the way de broglie brome theory is certainly wrong
Why must you do this to me PBS?
Nicholas Coffin True, and while science is the closest thing we have to fact, the whole point of science is that while we can be sure that something is 99.99999% correct or incorrect, you always have to put *probably in there.
This is an excellent point you make, Transylvanian. It seems like PWT is an excuse to explain QFT in a way to preserve the familiar. Science is about questioning the familiar to further understand the unfamiliar, not make excuses to accept a perceived truths. Without any proof of PWT's non-local hidden variables it's a philosophical-mental game without mathematical significance or consequence.
Nicholas Coffin,
It's not that it doesn't it's that it hasn't and we've only just begun to understand gravitational waves so lets not get ahead of ourselves.
transylvanian they are non local to the wave system because they are inherent to the particles. the wave bounces the particles, the particles impart their kinetic signature back into the wave, simple as cake, gravity is king.
All theories are certainly wrong.
There's a lot less thinky pain with pilot wave than any of the other theories.
It's like a nice brain massage.
I like it.
Hahaha yes
Thinky pain, yeah, relatable! 😅
This is probably my favorite episode, first because I am really rooting for Pilot Wave Theory to restore sanity to the universe, and second for the explanation of why Wolverine shouldn't trade the adamantium in his skeleton for neutronium.
E^4=P^4c^10
P is matter.
Nicholas Sterling The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. Just because something is comfortable doesn't mean it's correct
@@Projectmusick E squared and P squared. P= momentum. From Einstein's relating energy and relativistic mass.
@@fish963 It's true that the universe has no obligation to make sense. But there is enough evidence to assume that there is logical cause/effect and laws that can't be broken.
What you must learn is that these rules are no
different than the rules of a computer system...some of them can can be bent. Others...can be broken. Understand? ;)
“by the way this is why science is so important”. That’s beautiful man. I had to subscribe after that one.
"BTW: This is why science is so important."
Classic.
BECAUSE SCIENCE!
The background music at 10:35 is awesome. Can somebody tell me where can i find it ?
Science doesn't exist in a vacuum, though. Humans interfere and science ends up no more pure than politics
I would like to commend everyone involved in making these videos, they are top notch! Thank you for sharing the knowledge.
You guys deserves a TV show, 2 hours of space time, it would be much better than 24 hours of "Ancients astronauts" haha
I'll admit first I did not read through all of the comments on this video (so if I'm saying something someone already did, I apologize) and this may not get any replies because the video is an older one, but this actually makes perfect sense in a number of ways. The pilot wave created by a moving quantum particle propagates through the fabric of space-time as a gravitational wave in the same way that a gravitational wave created by any object with mass moving through the fabric does or like an EM wave propagates, both traveling at the speed of light. The pilot g-wave reaches the double slit and creates the interference paths described by the equations presented in the video and the particle than follows the curvature in the fabric of space-time created by the pilot g-wave. One simply has to accept (which I think would be reasonable) that there is a fabric of space-time and we move through it. The existence of this fabric of space time as a medium through which g-waves created by quantum particles can propagate has already been observed by black holes orbiting a common center of mass. I believe it can be seen also on a general relativity scale in the grandest sense if you look at how a rotating galaxy creates a whirlpool effect on the objects within its curvature, creating the illusion of additional mass creating a gravitational field which we have called 'dark matter'. It is not some mysterious matter that we can't see, it is just the fabric of space-time creating the whirlpool effect much the same as if you were to throw a bunch of marbles onto a towel and rotate the towel. It really seems simple.
I've come back to this video and the Veritasium video multiple times now. Pilot wave theory seems to tug at my mind far more than any of the other interpretations. I am not really clear why using the Dirac equation instead of Schrodinger's, would not lead to a relativistic version of BM. I would love to revisit this topic at some point. I am sure you would be able to help me more clearly understand the issues that arise when trying to make BM relativistic.
I found this quote from John Bell regarding BM quite interesting: “This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.”
I think it was ignored because on some level, we want to *prove* that the universe is *not* deterministic; that our fates are not absolutely sealed from the very moment of our conception. It gives us some illusion of “choice” or “free will.”
However, I am a firm believer that the winning interpretation of quantum mechanics will be deterministic. I don’t care that my entire life is set in stone. It still *feels* to me like I’m making choices and acting of my own volition, which is what ultimately matters, relative to each person.
@@Eli-yu1by I like that as well. It just doesn't feel like it is deterministic, even if it actually is on a universal level. We've lived our whole lives just fine already, maybe it doesn't matter. I'm still holding my judgement though. Also, If I recall correctly I don't think that the probabilistic theories necessarily prove free will anyway.
There's researchers working in relativistic BM as Roderich Tumulka & Detlef Dürr.
@@Eli-yu1by Even if the universe weren't deterministic, you still wouldn't be making choices since you do not control the randomness.
Even when you put physics aside and analyze us as a black box from the perspective of signals and systems... Who/what is making choices? The nature of the machine (which may or may not include some uncontrollable randomness) in combination with accrued information.
When you look at choices as such, it's obvious that any choice that is not the best choice is the wrong choice so there really is no choice after all.
If you make all the wrong choices, you will die and so will your effect on reality except in the sense of your "sacrifice" thanks to which others will see which paths are not to be taken. Through countless lives, good choices get filtered and so the ensuing civilization will be built only of good choices and the harrowing examples of the fallen. It doesn't matter how many times we make all the wrong choices since only good choices survive the filter.
Whichever path of reasoning is taken, 'I' seems to be an illusion. Maybe the best thing is to accept that we're "just" complex apparatuses doing calculations, reject the notion of self, selflessly (ehehehe) focus the apparatus outward and make calculations that correlate highly with "the best", let "your" body dance its place in the symphony of creation to see this egg that is our universe come to fruition. If you sacrifice "self", you will gain the world.
This symphonious knowable unknown beckoning for your soul? You have met God.
As much as I like the Standard Model and Copenhagen. I too find myself being Tugged back to this Theory.
I believe in the Scientific Method, and do my best to keep my personal values aside.
I do hope that some of these questions will be answered before the end of my life time.
This IS why science is so important!
😂😂😂😂😂😂 this
15:27
***** I think it was a joke...
Science fiction oftentimes serves as a fairly accurate precursor to scientific advancement in reality. At the beginning of the last century many, respected and well-established physicists and scientists balked at the idea of putting men on the moon.
I love this theory! I had a hard time accepting some aspects of the Copenhagen theory and so I made my own theory and it turns out my fuzzy idea had been thought out and made into an actual theory. It feels so good knowing others out there came to similar conclusions :D
Not to mention the mental gymnastics you put yourself through! The brain is a muscle!
I did something similar a while back, actually it was a few things.. I wasn't anywhere near the mathematical representations, but it's cool when you realize someone else has gone down the rabbit hole too lol
Pareciera que esta simple teoria de onda piloto a alguien no le conviene porque no se habla de ella y escla mas realista
Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a pilotwave,
No escape from reality
- Bohmian Rhapsody
This is a remarkably good presentation. The history is very important in all this stuff. Glad you folks have covered the history quite well. I like the Bohmian mechanics as an explanation. Less hoo hah! We don't need no stinkin' hoo hah.
This theory of a conscious being breaking the waves when observing is the one I like it the most but it would have to explain consciousness' origin to be complete but we all know that no theory has come to a good idea with arguments yet and not even close. We all must stay tuned xD
In what way is god a logical or coherent idea? Or even a rational one?
@O P This video was about quantum mechanics, not Christian theology. While brief, passing references to God are not out of place, the kind of detailed analysis of Christian scriptures you have presented certainly are.
Open your eyes
Look into the vat and see
I'm just a drop of oil
no escape from the wave I ride
riding high riding low
@ tl;dr
Finally ... for years I've heard Copenhagen and Many-World interpretations, and they just didn't feel right. Until I saw the Verisatum video mentioned, and then this video today. This Pilot Wave theory just sounds "right" while the other interpretations just feel like "we don't know so 'probability' must be reality." And it could turn out that a century or so later, once we have the remaining missing pieces, Einstein will turn out to be right!
Same here.
Copenhagen with its mythical observer who make "wave function" to "colapse" is so lame.
Unfortunately "feeling right" doesn't mean anything in science. Music maybe; science no. I agree with you about Copenhagen and Many Worlds - however, it's more than just a feeling.
@Ψ Well of course. But it doesn't mean the subconscious is infallible. Are you always right in your hunches?
Nature does not care about our feelings. I absolutely favour the many worlds just because it would fit for nature to run things in the most ridiculous way possible...bending spacetime, Horizontal Gene transfer, mitochondria, Hot Jupiter's, extremophiles, hubble constant...its always the most ridiculous ideas that end up being the contenders for what we consider true.
Copenhagen and many worlds are cop outs. Pilot waves are a theory I’d be willing to devote a lifetime to proving over the previous 2 lmao.
The more of these episodes I watch, the more I understand of subsequent episodes. Its a snowball of awesomeness.
I've wanted to be a physicist ever since I was old enough to want,
I've recently chosen to study Economics and Mathematics as a joint subject,
Despite my love for mathematics, pilot wave theory is so irresistibly intuitive it makes me wish I choose otherwise.
You can still work on it in part time and I don't think that regretting about you career over 1 theory is wise. There are certain aspects of quantum mechanics which may not be explained by Pilot wave.
@@shivanshusiyanwal296 what aspects can't be explained by Pilot-Wave? It has desmontratred PWT is equal in results with Copenhagen.
Bohmian Mechanics isn't intuitive.
@@thomascuriel7611There isn’t yet a relativistic aspect of pilot wave theory.
There are reasons why it was rejected which are not focused on in this video
Regarding relativity in dBB -- may I suggest reading of "On the description of subsystems in relativistic hypersurface Bohmian mechanics" by Detlef Dürr and Matthias Lienert? Thanks.
you may
0:00 is where I usually start getting confused with these videos
argentina?
FINLAND
Meanwhile, strange matter has an excellent application in cosmic horror stories. Just one particle of it hits the Earth, and the whole planet begins to transform, swallowing rocks, houses, plants and animals alike into a uniform mass…
It's the new scariest thing in physics!
That would be similar to a combination of Ice IX and Grey Goo.
is strange matter something real or just theoretical like exotic matter? would be cool to see tho.
Theoretical, but solidly so.
No my friend, I think you'll find the scariest thing is vacuum decay, an unseen and unseeable destruction spreading across space itself at light speed, all it consumes is not only destroyed in a blaze of energy but the very laws of physics holding it together are altered on a fundamental level.
Gareth Dean
…Well, thanks for that. And I was just about to go to bed, too.
I LOVE THIS INTERPRETATION SO MUCH! It fits really well in my deterministic view of the universe!
I just KNEW you were going to say that!
Oh, you just HAD to write that, didn't you?
love how gently he broke my heart at the end
I love that pilot wave theory has a macroscopic analogue, it makes it so easy to understand. Although it is still a bit difficult for me to understand how quantum eraser works in pilot wave function. Does the measurement of one particle create a fluctuation in the wave that affect the other entangled particle?
I also don't have any philosophical problems with determinism mainly because you can argue that in both deterministic and indeterministic quantum theories free will can be just an illusion. Randomness does not equal free will.
Determinism and free will are not necessarily related. As you say, you can have either determinism or non-determinism without free will.
I think there are problems right from the start with the idea itself of free will - what is it? It's not well defined. More importantly, "we" agents and actors are not well defined. I can't imagine any universe with the kind of free will that most people instinctively believe in. I suspect the problem has more to do with our understanding of "self" and of "will" than any mysteries of quantum reality. Our sense of self is a specialized adaptation, and not our actual self. We aren't what we think we are. I think the quandary of free will would go away if we knew ourselves better.
Fwiw, I think we can decide and do either one thing or the other, or something else. It's not preordained, not random. But it's not quite what people call free will, either. Or, maybe more accurately, it is free will, but we aren't quite what we call persons.
GODsaveTHEcat Because of non locality, it might be just the wave that is changed, but pretty much the entirety due to hidden variables.
If you are correct in thinking that perception is illusory then everything else you said is meaningless: Just a description of an illusion.
Seems like a wishfull thinking to me.
Except this bit: "(...) you can find all of the modern scientific knowledge in the ancient Egyptian, Sumerian and Vedic texts" - plain bollocks.
Perception is subjective but reality is objective, so it's an illusory perception only, existence is as real as we can get even if it's holographic, fractal and cyclic in nature, with probably only two basic states as in a binary system, I'm just guessing, it's wishful thinking indeed until someone proofs it with science. Don't forget Mandelbrot was laughed at until his perception turned out to be really useful because it was right, maybe that's the same reason why Einstein is so famous and few people know about Minkowski or why Kepler and Galileo are so admired but nobody remembers Tyco Brahe.
About ancient knowledge, I've studied many cultures and languages, religions, lots of history, anthropology and archeology and everything points to civilisations that had knowledge that we are just beginning to rediscover now, such as the heliocentric model, the outer planets in the solar system, amazing knowledge of proportion, pi, phi, geometrics, astronomy, precession of Earth's axis and so on. Just to give an example of how little we really know about our past, we think homo sapiens has been around for at least 200.000 or so and we barely know anything about cultures and civilisations from 20.000 years backs, so less than 10% of human history is "kinda" known, the rest is just wishful thinking and genetic memory :D and don't forget the fact that the observable energy that science deals with is just a small fraction of the whole we call Universe.
N1CO VJ Can you please point out some source materials that show that ancient civilisations (which ones?) knew about outer planets, or indeed had an idea of what planet is.
The more I learn about quantum mechanics, the more I find that a lot of the things taught as "certain truths" are actually assumptions imagined to explain the weirdness without requiring any extra math. As if to say "We don't know how or why because there isn't anything more to know. Things are fundamentally this way." Seeing this, I feel that the ideas of the universe splitting into infinite multiverses, or the idea that the "landing" location of a particle is fundamentally random, to be absolute bogus made up by lazy or fearful scientists who don't want to ask "Why?" or "How?" because it'd take too much work.
Logic only dictates that everything is deterministic in this single, unsplitting universe. The idea of non-local, or "instant", causality makes a whole heck of a lot more sense than NO causality at all.
Supporting the idea of fundamental randomness is like looking at the incomplete equation "... = 4" and saying that the "..." means nothing and really isn't there at all, when in reality the "..." is standing in for something like "2+2" or "3+1" or even "-i*sqrt(-4)", even though we can't see it. In the end, we know that something must be on the left side of the equation that results in "4", we just gotta figure out what it is.
Correction: "-i*sqrt(-16)"
TH-cam isn't letting me edit.
There is still causality in the Copenhagen and many-worlds interpretation. The word I think you may have been looking for is determinism.
Remember, even with the pilot wave theory, you still have the question of how the guiding wave-function changes when a measurement is made.
All that pilot wave theory does is substitute non-local hidden variables for determinism, and personally, I don't see any scientific reason to think this substitution is a good one. On top of that, the mathematics of the pilot wave theory is crazy difficult, *and* there's no relativistic form of it yet.
***** - Determinism means that something is causing something else. If there is no determinism, there is no cause, and therefore no causality.
I'm not saying that pilot wave theory is the answer, but determinism definitely is.
DaneGraphics There is still cause in the Copenhagen interpretation - the act of measurement is the cause, but the result is indeterminate.
And why is determinism definitely the answer? We already know that just because we're used to something being true doesn't mean that it is always true.
***** - I'm not sure you're understanding. If in the double slit experiment, a particle lands in the center strip instead of one of the other fringe strips, why did it land there instead of somewhere else?
The Copenhagen interpretation ignores that question completely and simply says "because it did".
Something caused the particle to land where it did as opposed to somewhere else. It didn't "just happen", and saying it did is unscientific and lazy.
Can the pilot wave theory describe the quantum eraser described in a previous episode?
O have the same question
Yes. If you consider the idea that beamsplitters don't actually act probabilistically but instead act as filters where a property that determines how the particle follows the pilot wave also determines whether it gets reflected or goes through, then it works really well with no back-in-time information transfer required.
It's a self-consistent quantum theory, so probably yes.
Yes but it requires non locality. Many worlds, for example, doesn't require that, as it can just claim that the two branches were always there to begin with
Guilherme C. - No it doesn't. There are hypothetical theories that can explain it completely deterministically. See my above comment for one of them.
One thing I like about this alternative pilot wave theory is that while classical quantum mechanics hasn't been able to reconcile gravity after more than a century, perhaps pilot wave theory will reconcile gravity and relativity together at once (if / when the physics community can give pilot wave theory development the time and attention it deserves).
Weeeell about that, bell's theorem completely rules out these kinds of quantum theories with realism and hidden variables.
@@pamir8232 Hasn't Bell's Theorem been refuted?
@@pamir8232 John Bell was a huge fan of this very theory. Boem’s Theory.
@@pamir8232 Bells theorem rules out LOCAL hidden variables, not global such as in pilot wave theory.
@@pamir8232 THE CLEAR, TOP DOWN, SIMPLE, AND BALANCED MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA:
E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! INSTANTANEITY is thus fundamental to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. THE SUN AND what is THE EARTH/ground are E=MC2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE. TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. (The sky is blue, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. CAREFULLY consider what is THE EYE.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! (THEREFORE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution.) "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. E=MC2 IS F=ma. Carefully consider what is THE EYE.) Objects (AND what is the FALLING MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Again, carefully consider that the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. SO, carefully consider what are the ORANGE SUN AND the fully illuminated and setting MOON ! Both are the size of THE EYE. Think LAVA !!! The Moon is ALSO BLUE on balance. Therefore, E=MC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE !! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense !!! Carefully consider THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground !!! Great !!! E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE !!!!
By Frank DiMeglio
I watched that Veritasium video hoping you'd cover the topic. I'm feeling quite pleased right now.
True or not, this is certainly the most intuitive of the interpretations.
Except for the facts that it is useless and that nobody uses it. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 That's irrelevant!
@@ricomajestic It's telling that not even the supporters are using it. What do you find intuitive about a ghost field, anyway? Are you into the occult? ;-)
@@schmetterling4477Well, a ghost field is certainly more intuitive than ghost worlds or ghost trajectories.
@@Guizambaldi Copenhagen has neither. Problem solved. ;-)
It's so fun to watch physicists argue with each other about things that none of them understand while I understand completely what's really going on.
@@schmetterling4477 I'm not lonely. I have my Lord of the Rings action figures to keep me company. What's going on is very scientifically complicated. I don't want to bore you with all the technical jargon.
@@schmetterling4477 Am not. I also have my stuffed animal collection and about a hundred Transformers.
@@schmetterling4477 I told you that I'm not lonely. I have children's toys to keep me company. Not everyone can be as cool as me.
@@schmetterling4477 I appreciate that. But do you think someone who's surrounded by Star Wars figurines needs attention? I think not.
@@schmetterling4477 It's not as good as the attention that I get from my toys, but it's pretty good. If you need any tips on how to be cool I'd be happy to help. I know that most people don't possess the gift of smoothness that I enjoy.
I'm so glad I found PBS Space Time, Veritasium and Tech Ingredients... I just can't express the joy of watching stuff like this! keep 'em comming!!!
At 5:23, when the picture of the Solvay Conference is shown with some physicists names along with their faces, Werner Heisenberg's name is wrongly attributed to Wolfgang Pauli's face!!! Heinsenberg was so pissed off about this that his only comment was: "Say my name...".
Notification squad incoming
Here's another notification for 'ya!
Avery McChessney replied to your comment
All caught up!
Brace110 Morty what are you doing watching a science show Morty!!!!!
Hold up a sec, lemme just go dust off the 20 years-old high school physics textbook that is hidden somewhere in my garage and I'll get right around to cracking this whole pilot wave thingy.
The best channel about science in youtube
my confusion on this was deterministic before I got here.
Underrated coment lol
Lol
xDDDDDD
Unfortunately, quantum mechanics does allow this
Small error at 4 55: you don't need to know particle positions *and* velocities at every point, because the equation that guides the little particle is first order. So knowing the positions is sufficient, and then the velocity is determined by the equation.
By the way, this is the reason why Bohmian mechanics is *not* actually right. It disagrees with quantum mechanics and with experiment! The reason is that, if knowing the position of the particle specifies where it will be forever, particle trajectories can *never cross*. But we know that, for instance, a particle could go through the right slit and end up on the left side of the screen. For more details, see Chen and Kleinert (2016).
There are other problems with Bohmian mechanics as well, such as the fact that it does not (and in principle it cannot) incorporate relativity, or the clunkiness with which it handles simple concepts such as spin. But the fact that it's _wrong_ should suffice to remove it from consideration as a possible underlying theory for quantum mechanics.
Copenhagen is the preferred interpretation for a reason. :) It is agnostic as to whatever's happening underneath. All attempts to remove this "agnosticism" and put quantum mechanics in a "realist" framework, be it pilot wave theory or the many worlds interpretation, have failed.
You have forgotten Heisenberg there. If you know the exact position, the velocity cannot be determined, nor will the equation give you useful information about it.
Im not a quantum physicist, but let me ask some questions:
How does copenhagen interpretation handle quantum entaglement other than a spooky action?
I guess more mathemathics should be applied and less phylosophies would be desired. We dont know anything about the underlying structure of the particle system in pilot wave aspects, yet alone to state that these particles can never cross, what if they can?! Bohmian mechanics is not complete as newtonian was and that doesnt mean anything. There is actually nothing Im aware off that doesnt allow Bohmian mechanics to work.
Mp57navy This would be true in the standard quantum interpretation, but in pilot wave theory particles have definite positions and velocities at all times. However, the velocities can be determined from the positions and the guiding equation so they're not independent quantities as they are in classical physics.
***** The Copenhagen interpretation doesn't interpret that. In fact, the Copenhagen interpretation should be called the "agnostic" interpretation, because it doesn't care what underlying dynamics may be causing the weirdness. It's a recipe for computing the results of experiments, and that's that. It doesn't imply spooky action for this reason: all you can say is that you observed a correlation, but as we know, correlation does not equal causality.
"We dont know anything about the underlying structure of the particle system in pilot wave aspects, yet alone to state that these particles can never cross, what if they can?! "
It's conceivable that a pilot wave-like interpretation could be constructed where they can. But in Bohm's version of the theory, they can't.
"There is actually nothing Im aware off that doesnt allow Bohmian mechanics to work."
There are actually several known examples of falsified experimental predictions of Bohmian mechanics, such as the failure to predict the correct intensity ratio between the central peak and adjacent ones in the two slit experiment. Inconsistency with the third law of thermodynamics is another.
@5:28 the Solvay Conference -> the zooming in on "Heisenberg" is not on Heisenberg, that fellow is Wolfgang Pauli. Heisenberg is the one on his left (we see on the right of Pauli).
this is the most fantastic and informative channel online, thank you Matt,
How does the pilot wave theory explain the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments?
Easily. Being nonlocal and deterministic the particles aren't taking multiple paths at once, the results are predetermined as soon as you start the experiment. Measurement doesn't change anything or send some sort of signal, the entire wavefunction simply alters all at once.
It doesn't. If "everything is predetermined" from the emission source, then D0 results would not correlate with D1-D4 results at a rate greater than chance.
I have thought about the quantum eraser a lot. I doesn't "make sense" to me. It's just the way it is.
+Musky Elon personally i find with some of the physics like the quantum eraser you are looking as something where you need to understand the equations in order to make sense of the results. i am a layman when it comes to the equations. i have certainly forgotten more differential equation knowledge than i have retained since university. so, even though the interference and noninterference results make sense the numerical results don't.
+Gareth Dean "Everything is predetermined as soon as you start the experiment"? I don't think so. I understood that when a measurement is made on an entangled particle the other is simply instantaneously affected through the non-local wave, but that outcome is not "predicted" by the wave at the start of the experiment.
I'm thinking that quantum mechanics is just weird enough that all of these theories are at least partially true. Reminds me of the fable about the 7 blind men and the elephant where the 7 blind men try to describe an elephant by touching various parts of one.
@friend request I think I'm safe in saying... there is nothing (Mr. Captain?) obvious about quantum theory...
Search for M-theory
This fable applies ot every case in science (or at least physics). We can never know what there actually is. Hence, saying 'This is how it works!' is wrong, rather we should just say 'This perspective gives results which are matching with experiment.' and should never talk about its working.
That sounds really unsafe.
For some reason I ended up in an argument with quantum woo fanatics. The fervor with which they defend their bullshit is astounding. It's like you insult them personally when you tell them "no, focusing your mind really hard does not affect the result of the double slit experiment".
They would probably interpret this video as evidence that even the most out there interpretation of quantum physics is reasonable to believe in. Especially those with really few scientists supporting them.
Jim Groth I do believe in most "woo" interpretations of qm, however, that has nothing to do with having mental powers or focusing on whatever the hell they believe.
Jim Groth They would probably be discussing the same thing about how you defend the "wrong version" of the theory with so much passion. Everybody feels their version is the right one. I believe that beyond a limit, there is no point in trying to convince others of something. If they don't want to believe it, there is no amount of proof or data you can present to them which would convince them.
In a way you ARE insulting them personally. A lot of them believe their own basic goodness and focus can alter reality. Denying that is like telling a lot of them that what they've achieved in life just happened without any input from them. It attacks the foundations of their beliefs.
Karthik Naicker The important difference is me having the science on my side...
Gareth Dean Maybe so, but religious thinking that replaces reason must be fought.
Physics is like a endless hole of complexity, I don't think we'll ever understand it much however the advances that we have made have really made much of our modern world possible. I love physics and all of science really, this channel is better than watching any NOVA documentary.
I have a question.. if the pilot wave theory is correct, then wouldn't the results of double slit experiments ALWAYS produce interference patterns independently of whether we observe it or not?
This was my thinking exactly! I really want someone to answer this... Or at least give the modern explanation.
Maybe, if pilot wave is correct, when you measure the posotion maybe the thing that colapses completely ia the wave and so a new wave is created with no interfernce with itself, making the results that we get if we measure the particle
Well we don't quite understand how wavefunction collapses work. All we know is that it's related to observing, and that by observing we must interact with the system. So perhaps by observing a particle going through a slit in the pilot wave theory, we might just be interacting with it in such a way that it stops interacting with itself and therefore no longer makes an interference pattern
I have to say that I've been thinking about bell's theorem and quatnum field theory since I was a kid and always was slowly constructing my vision of how the universe worked but my vision was never so fully validated until you explained how bell's theorem helped bring back bohmian mechanics. This pilot wave theory seems so intuitive that it must be true. I wonder if there is some way to track how the scientific community may slowly switch over to this interpretation of quantum mechanics.
🤦♂️
I agree but forget about converting theoretical physicists because they mistake mathematical modelling for a description of physical reality. We are not data in a computer simulation. This is not the Matrix. Someone needs to remind them of this in math class. Cheers.
@@DanielL143 the majority of theoretical physicists are pitagorean - they doesn't know it.
Copenhagen and Many-worlds are promoted by big universities as Oxford, Caltech & MIT. The defensers of Bohmian Mechanics are in Rutgers university, New York university and Universität der Tübingen -Small Universities.
Any interpretation that isn't the many worlds interpretation is fine by me.
Also not abandoning physical realism is great.
MWI doesn't abandon physical realism. Copenhagen does. MWI simply says the wavefunction is what is real.
Vampyricon MWI is the most fantastical and ridiculous interpretation of QM ever
@@Starkl3t No. It is simply quantum mechanics. Only someone who doesn't understand quantum mechanics or MWI will claim that. The universe is described by a state vector evolving in time. MWI simply says that is true. Everything else adds extra structure onto the theory that violates causality, reversibility, and information conservation, without which you cannot even do quantum mechanics. Other "interpretations" on top of quantum mechanics are logically incoherent. If MWI is merely "fantastical and ridiculous", I would take it any day
@@Starkl3t It's the most straightforward. Copenhagen is literally nonsense. And spontaneous collapse is really reaching hard to avoid many worlds. Relational explanations are just many worlds coupled with solipsism.
*I can't stop watching this channel.*
Can you PLEASE make a video on string theory/m-theory??!!
Unless Matt is a string theorist myself, that may be tricky. I was literally talking to a string theorist yesterday morning (Andre Lukas) and he said that even he struggles to explain it :P
I suggest a String Theory vs Loop Quantum Gravity Theory
Its hard because both theories fell apart in the math department.
To test this, maybe you could have a cloud chamber in the double slit experiment, once the electrons pass through the slit, you can check and see if it has a trajectory or if it has particle-wave duality. Or it might ruin the interference patterns.
So how can the Pilot-Wave theory be completed and developed further if nobody's working on it?
This theory of Quantum Mechanics is the one I buy the most. I think history will show all particles, whether photons, molecules, sand, H2O, etc, all have nothing but classical wave properties.
how does the pilot wave function explain the results of the quantum eraser?
how come knowing the trajectory of the particle, without interfering with its guiding wave changes the result of the experiment?
joseaca yeah, this was my thought too...I'm interested to know if anyone can explain this!
oreo2123 - same here
If the pilot wave exist, we don't know what it is and all the properties it has. Perhaps it has something to do with its non-locality that was mentioned in the video
same here joseaca ! But some explanation should exist since it's supposed to be a coherent and complete interpretation of QM..
fcopibe it was never stated to be complete, dont rely on impressions
nice episode
Pilot wave theory is inconsistent with relativity because its non local behavior states that all of the wave function knows changes in the state of the particle at the same time. But, there is no 'same time' in relativity. How you would define 'same time' as an observer depends on your reference frame.
Johan 't Hart Because speed of light.
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Even information.
Quantum entanglement is instantaneous (faster than the speed of light).
+EndYxz _ If you point a giant laser at the moon and cross the moon let's say vertically. The beam on the moon surface will be moving ftl.
But no usible information is communicated faster than the speed of causality so no violation.
sparkindustry1 That's why quantum entanglement still baffles scientists
I've always believed randomness doesn't exist. Randomness is defined as the absence of a disernable pattern and what we see as randomness is an infantessimal part of an infinately large and dynamic pattern, with an infinate number of possible smaller emergent nested patterns within (ie dynamic attractors). Choas is the order of the universe, but chaos is not random, it is highly deterministic...the antithesis of entropy (which is true randomness).
Could science answer a philosophical question?
Is the universe deterministic? Is my destiny already written somewhere?
Is the universe non-deterministic? Are we responsible for our actions? And the consequences.
I think it's a win-win either way . If it's deterministic, sit back enjoy, nothing's in our hands. If it's not, all power to us!
Non-deterministic, according to "orthodox" beliefs.
“Is the universe non-deterministic? Are we responsible for our actions?”
Basic logic can answer that question. The only possibility other than determinism is a fundamentally random process. Why would we be any more or less responsible for an action governed by chance than we would be for an action governed by cause and effect? We wouldn't. Hence, the question of determinism in the universe does not need to be resolved to see that personal responsibility is not affected by the answer.
What do you mean "Orthodox"
Classical mechanics or religion?
or both?
Although I may say that the Universe is non-deterministic, however there's one thing that really makes me think a lot.
I'm not sure if the "infinite multiverse" quite explains it as well as I would like it to, you can call me bonkers but hear me out on this one. Ignore the Dejavu factor as much as you can, but I'm trying to make it relate-able or at least understandable in my point of view.
BTW if you don't know or at least never experienced it for yourself imagine this. You're at school doing a daily routine. Something changes in that routine, but however doing that said "change" doesn't feel all so unfamiliar to you. In-fact it feels strangely scary(well at first for me at least) like you KNOW what is coming next, but can't pin point the exact actions or words that do. It's like having that word stuck on the tip of your tongue except it being your tongue it's your mind.
I think 1 of 2 things, even though that Dejavu is merely a psychological effect I think it has to do with the multiverse. At our point in time in which we are born we have 1 set timeline that is laid in flat, but as soon as we as a baby, make 1 of many decisions that specific timeline branches out to a lot of different ones. At any point in time whether we made a specific choice in life to where more than 1 version of the universe lines up with another(or even skips ahead of an event that we are now just experiencing) we feel as if "we have been here before". More often than not you actually have and maybe even currently are.
You'd assume that well maybe if there are SOOO many possibilities of the multiverse wouldn't we be actually experiencing dejavu all the time? That may be the case, but also not. You have to realize any action that you do or even the whole universe experiences can be totally different. It not only cuts down on the "infinite" multiverse(yes infinite means literally to no end and even half of infinity is still infinity. it still is a big portion of the possibilities gone.) but it cuts off a lot of possible scenarios from anything happening.
ASIDE from the DEJAVU factor(That's why I said bonkers, but like I said I needed something to tether the explanation). That was just my personal belief of it and honestly I have no idea where I came up with that or if I heard it from somewhere else, but I figured I might as well get that out of my chest. I explained it to a couple people I know and as crazy as it did sound to them some of them thought that could be the case.
Regardless of that, even if you don't include the "dejavu" factor of life and just ignore it all together, my point still stands of being it possible deterministic. Even though you may think you are making your own decisions saying "f you to the universe" in reality every single decision, sneeze, comment, thing you buy, the way you think, etc... is technically written down somewhere.
WHICH BRINGS ME TO MY SECOND POINT. I feel like there is not necessarily an "equation" well maybe an equation, yea probably an equation who am I thinking. It's based on of the way you think, how you operate on a daily basis, what is the probability of you doing x at a certain time.
I remember seeing this somewhere, sorry I would tell you but I mostly retain things without remembering where they actually came from, I probably should get better at that(Yes it was a TV show, but I mean depending on the sci-fi it actually can become a reality, hell look at Black Mirror). How basically every single human individual actually has a pattern of thought.
Even though the human mind is complex if you gather every single piece of information about said person and had some sort of equation to put all the factors of your daily life and every single minute detail that you can find out about the person and put it in said equation. You will know essentially what that person will do for the rest of their life. Sure there are people who do "change", but even an equation so complex and so intertwined with the inner-workings of the universe and human life even something along the words "change" is completely thrown out the window because that doesn't even stop the equation.
This also doesn't account for us Humans as a race as well, but also everything else in general, whether is Plant life, Animal life, Sea life. Anything that has something that can deter it away from one specific point in time to create conflict with essentially the "inevitable" unless if you're a piece of dirt. Hell even dirt can make a big impact on life depending on where it is. Don't get me started on the Chaos Theory now.
TL;DR. Infinite Multiverse and "Life Equation"(What I'll call it in the mean time) makes it possible that our lives are actually deterministic. I do believe that it is non-deterministic, but I have a pretty "creative" mind to keep me thinking 100% so that it's fully non-deterministic.
Sorry for the long read, but I'm pretty tired and I thought I would just throw my comment out there and waste about 30 mins of my time just typing this out. Also maybe entertaining someone who maybe would like an interesting read into my mind. I got nothing better to do at this time of night anyways. HOPE YOU ENJOY READING IT IF YOU DO.
The universe being governed by chance gives no more freedom than the universe being purely deterministic. Either way, your actions are beyond your control.
One should realize that especially the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't try to explain the observed phenomena. It just names them using quite vage definitions (wave function, collapse, measurement etc.) and tells you that it is not possible to look for a deeper reality. Not sure why people would prefer that.
BUT.. they watch the particle where it will go, and somehow, acted as particles again and not as waves. it seems that by the act of watching them, makes the particle decide how it will act - as a particle or as a wave.
Here's my stupid question : is there an interpretation of the measurement problem in the double slit experiment in pilot wave theory? As in, what's the equivalent to Copenhagen's "collapse of the wave function"? If the pilot wave is considered a physical entity, why does measurement/decoherence suppress the interference pattern?
According to Bohmian Mechanics, each time a measurement is made, the wave function of the measuring device becomes entangled with the wave function of the measured particle. That mutual entanglement is what Copenhagen refers to as the "collapse" of the measured particle's wave function. (But note how Copenhagen excludes the measuring device, thus creating its notorious self-inflicted "measurement problem".)
The Pilot Wave is NOT a "physical entity" manifested in 4D spacetime, it propagates non-locally in complex-valued Configuration Space (the domain where the quantum wave function is defined). If it manifested in 4D spacetime, the Pilot Wave would become a local phenomenon subject to relativistic propagation effects, contradicting the non-local nature of Bohmian Mechanics.
So it's an abandonment of the concept of physical matter vs nonlocality.. :(
Arguments showing the drawbacks and flaws in the pilot wave theory, while at the same time comparing it to the Copenhagen model are what was missing in the Veritasium's video on the pilot wave theory. Although, I loved his video he did not state the problems that come with the theory and it was for that reason a bit misleading. Your video perfectly fills those missing parts, but also vice versa as Veritasium actually shows the oil bubbles and the pilot wave theory on the macro scale. Thanks to both of you! :)
Quick question: In which books I can find concepts like these? Every one I see only deals with the usual most know concepts...
There's an excellent reading list on this site dedicated to Bohmian mechanics: www.bohmian-mechanics.net/readings_books.html
Appreciate the link! :)
J.J Jameson In my opinion, that question could have been much quicker.
J.J Jameson
Books on differential equations and complex variables. If you want to understand concepts you need to understand math.
9:47 - Nice to verbal cite Veritasium, but a link it the description would of been nice. :)
How come you are in space and don't suffocate ?
deadal nix magic ;)
Ken Oakleaf it's not magic, it's just quantum peculiarities.
($¶Π~X [D-2.16^N]) = ¥/2Q)
see? I proved it with math.
Max: prove to me you just made a proof!
You would not explode.
No you'd suffocate. Suffocation or Asphyxia is being deprived of oxygen, which you are in space. This causes you to fall unconscious quite quickly. You don't explode any more than boiling vegetables makes them explode, the water in your body will try to boil away but that takes time. It'll rupture your lungs and mucous membranes but by the time it starts to do serious damage your brain has already died. You end up nicely freeze-dried.
Copenhagen interpretation is a misnomer, it's actually the lack of interpretation. It's says the wave function can be used to determine the probability of finding a particle in a certain place or with a given momentum. Notice it says absolutely nothing about "what" the wavefunction is or if it is "real" or not. Those questions are either to be clarified by some other theory or maybe they are just an ontological questions for philosophers to debate.
So god _doesn't_ play dice? I like it.
Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded.
The Brony Notion stop telling god what to do. What's the point of being god if you can't do whatever you want?
Loaded dice are anti-dice.
Yeah but nobody cares about your characters.
So God hides what His playing with? =)
4:19 your wave function equation needs more jpeg
"Niels", please, not "Neils" ;) otherwise - fascinating. What a fantastic channel!
the respect between these channels is amazing
I tend to think that we do live in a deterministic universe when all the layers are stripped away. So I have no problem accepting this as an incomplete theory. Either way it doesn't change our perceived reality.
One thing that does confuses me is people have a hard time with this theory which requires a little extra math when something like String theory requires heaps of unknowns and extra math. We have an unprecedented amount of people working on String Theory and it's derivatives today and it's just getting more complex.
GlassTopRX7 it's a shame pwt doesn't explain gravity or relativity at all. I guess if it did, then it would raise more eyebrows.
I don't believe the universe is truly deterministic.
However, if it is, that will be great fuel for all those shitty pop-sci news sites that write the weekly "Life is a computer simulation!!!!" clickbait. 6
How does quantum tunneling work in the context of Pilot Wave theory? According to the theory, a particle has a definite location at all times. How does it get past the potential barrier?
It just jumps "over" the wall because it's too thin (or low).
Jumps over? As in passing thru? Lets say for an electron passing thru a silicon junction, would not successive passing "thru" cause an observable structure failure?
@@nikolayrayanov2895 Ha Ha..that is funny!
In Bohmian mechanics there is a new extra nonlocal potential energy named "quantum potential" that is the reason of quantum tunneling and other quantum effect.
@@mortezarezaei9066 Just curious -- does this "quantum potential" have the same probabilistic outcome as is measured in practical quantum tunneling devices? The current interpretation seems to explain the phenomenon well.
finally a quantum theory I don't hate.
Thanks for this video. For example non linear equations are deterministic but might lead to chaotic behaviour, practically solved with probabilistic tools. This theory is very interesting
Could the vibrating oil analogy also describe how Pilot Wave Theory works with Quantum Field Theory? The surface of the oil is the quantum field, and the droplets bouncing on top of it are the particles that emerge from the field. Or am I misunderstanding something?
Yes, I believe the analogy works with gauge bosons.
A gauge boson would be a droplet of oil in this analogy though, right?
i wouldn't try to stretch the analogy. you will get into trouble sooner or later, at the very least you will be hard pressed to find a cute pictorial oil-droplet analogy for the mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking that generates particle masses.
No. Te issue isn't that Pilot Wave theory can't handle particles and waves, that's what it's built from. The issue is how Quantum Field Theory's waves deal with relativity. Pilot Theory's waves do unruly things like change all at once without sending a slower-than-light signal. (More specifically things get a bit odd such as when you take he Scrodinger equation and restrict it to shorter and shorter periods of time so that it tends to 'pile up' on its light cone; for regular Copenhagen and suchlike this is an important result but Pilot Waves skip it and need some way to bring it back.)
No. Quantum field theory has pretty much declared any pilot wave interpretation dead. Photons, for instance, don't even have a wavefunction, and cannot be talked about as having any definite position at all (this also kills many worlds interpretations, by the way). The correct picture is one where particles can be created and destroyed all the time -- but when I say "particle" I should really say "wave". Quantum field theoretical particles are wavelike in all aspects except for the fact that they come in discrete units. So one unit of light of wavelength 530 nm, two units of light of wavelength 435 nm... these "units", though they look and behave in all aspects just like plane waves, we call "photons".
The situation is analogous for other particles. There are also a number of interesting effects that depend deeply on the wave nature of particles that pilot wave theories couldn't begin to predict.
How does this interpretation account for the disappearance of the interference pattern when the slit the photon went through is detected?
The photon *always* goes through one slit, but when you have two slits available the WAVE can go through both and affect the photon accordingly. Closing a slit blocks off the wave and changes how the photon is affected.
Yes, but what i mean is, when a detector is placed to definitively determine which slit a photon passes through, the interference pattern disappears. And further, if a scrambler is placed down the line to prevent that measurement, the interference pattern emerges, even though no modification was made where the photon travels.
I'm not talking about closing a slit.
Hidden variables is the answer at your dilema....for the Pilot wave theory.
The action of measuring still affect the pilot wave, maybe?
if you are not familiar with waves there is quite a lot of literature or you can do the same setup as derek and others (with oil) and observe the "particles" and the behavior on macro scale. For all intents and purposes it's pretty accurate representation of what is going on on subatomic scale but it's incredibly slowed down and scaled up. if you do enough runs you can even compare that it really corresponds with the odds you get with the classical "quantum" statistical equations but you can see how each particle arrives and what influences the movement and how. The double slit experiment is great way how to spend afternoon (or a week)
At first I thought it said bohemian mechanics.
Robert Smith, me too :) but I am from Bohemia, so patriotism blindness/deafness in my case, I guess
Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Michael Melgaard both
Easy come
Easy go
No, that theory was put forward by Galileo on three separate occasions, and then later, by Figaro.
PERFORMER: Your upper body movements are well-orchestrated to the point of genius. Amazingly consistent, hypnotic. Your acting is not upstaged by your accent. DARN good mode of learning. A+
Please mention your name somehow in each stream: we want to be proud of you! Doesn't have to be self-indulgent, no, just a blip perhaps. Whatever! : )
His name is in the video description, boomer
5:24. You guys circled Wolfgang Pauli instead of Heisenberg who is actually to the right of Pauli. Just letting you know
NOpe
1:08 - I don't think the universe is splitting at EVERY choice, infinitely splitting in to alternate galaxies... It's like the double slit experiments, some galaxies will cancel each other out.
Rather it sounds better to describe it as it splits on every possible outcomes instead of choices
@@kaitokobayashi6394 Yes indeed, poor choice of word there. :)
The theoretical physics of Wolverine is why I got into science
how far did it take you? was he the subject of your thesis ? :)
still an undergrad studying maths and chemistry but hope to do a masters and PhD in theoretical physics
jedaaa gotcha ,bitch
Dude. I understood about ten percent of this and I'm blown away. This episode is rad!
I’m loving pilot wave theory! Makes more sense to me than Copenhagen or Many Worlds, I love doing away with the hoo-hah!
Of course PWT make sense much more than Copenhagen or many-worlds, no one which is consistent unlike PWT
It sounds like we're trying to measure the salt content of the ocean by counting the waves that hit the beach
None of those "gotchas" are a big deal to me; I (as a layperson) think this Bohm guy is onto something.
THE VIDEO BY VERITASIUM IS A MUST SEE!!!
I find all theories that give particles a reality fishy; I think "particles" are just emergent properties of interactions of excited fields, but what do I know...
Better said: what does anyone 'know'? *The only thing we know is we know nothing.*
Socore Alaite I wasn't sure if anyone else exists, so...
I think particles are just temporary measurements of wave probability. They are not real, but create a comprehensible "defined" concept of being separate from any ongoing continuum. In reality we know everything is connected, there are no real separations since everything has a cause and event, thus making isolated entities or particles with absolute identity non-existent. Maybe if space would be completely discrete at the most fundamental level, you could call those values absolute entities, but since theories say those fundamental properties get forced into a state or "the wave function collapses" they are always entangled with an observer and therefor share linked definition with the observer and cannot be absolute on their own.
My conclusion, particles are just concepts created in the mind but don't exist in reality. Reality is just one big probability wave, defining itself by using observers that arise from itself to give itself a relativistic identity and exists for that only reason. I hope you guys can follow me :D
I believe that's a view that you and I share, Dennis. A lot of the strange things about reality and the universe make a bunch more sense when looked at from the perspective of quantum field theory. Viewing a particle as the property of an excitation in a corresponding field causes things like the double slit experiment and matter being a form of energy to appear perfectly simple and logical.
What do you guys think of non-duality? Science in general is always in the pursuit of finding the best suiting model by comparing measurements/concepts/properties of absolutes, but if the fundamental nature of reality is unity throughout the universe, then non-duality would be the best description.
It would be the total embodiment of everything in itself without separation of itself, otherwise it wouldn't be all at the highest level?
I have one question. How Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory explains the behaviour of a photon during double-slit experiment, when the measurement is taken before it passes the slit. According to Copenhagen interpretation wave function collapses at the measurement and photon starts to behave like a particle. In this situation we can't see interference pattern any more and experiments proves this is the case. If I understand it correctly, in Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory wave and particle are inseparable from each other. Therefore we should be able to see interference pattern even if the mesaurement was taken before photon passed the slit. Am I wrong in my thinking about this problem?
That's what leapt out at me too. It would be interesting to have an answer.
I agree, and I wish there was more discussion about this in all the videos that explain the Broglie-Bohm theory. It also leapt out at me as I was watching the video
In Bohmian mechanics, the wavefunction of a particle do represent a real wave having all of information of particle's properties and this wave drive's the particle by the non-local hidden variables to choose a well definite path.
For your doubt, from Bohmian mechanics, when you measure a photon you are disturbing the non-local hidden variables and because of that the photon will take a different path. If you continue with it for every photons, the same will happen to all the photons and interference pattern will therefore disappeare.
But how does that account for the restoration of a defraction pattern in the quantum eraser experiment, when particles have been measured by the instrument but the information inaccessible to a conscious observer?
To understand whether pilot wave can account for quantum eraser, first understand quantum eraser "completely". for help th-cam.com/video/8ORLN_KwAgs/w-d-xo.html
note that intrumental measurement is equivalent to any conscious observer measurement. QM does't depend on "type" of measurement.
I'm surprised he didn't talk about the supposed EM drive being worked on by NASA. Isn't there a theory about the EM drive being possible if Pilot Wave theory is true?
Those guys seem very biased with their experimental interpretations and are desperate to hand wave something to explain what they hope to be true.
No, there isn't such a theory. In the recent paper on the EM drive there was a section trying to explain it in terms of pilot wave theory. In terms of progress through the scientific process, the notion of a working EM drive being explained by or proving pilot wave theory is as close to the bottom as you can get. i.e. It's one guy's idea.
The prevailing suggestion seems to be that some of the photo are escaping containment chamber. The article I read gave some high level ways they might test for it.
The theory put forth describes how Unruh radiation pressure accounts for the thrust. Arxiv paper here: arxiv.org/abs/1604.03449 Leaking the microwaves themselves is not sufficient to explain the thrust, but the measurements are tricky as the thrust is small and the power levels relatively high. The most interesting thing about this experiment is how much can be learned from its investigation.
Pilot Wave Theory (de Broglie-Bohm theory) and Quantum Realism both aim to provide a more tangible understanding of quantum mechanics. Pilot Wave Theory suggests that particles always have definite positions and velocities, guided by a pilot wave, making the theory deterministic and non-local. This contrasts with the probabilistic Copenhagen interpretation and provides a clearer view of wave-particle duality. Quantum Realism, on the other hand, posits that quantum mechanics represents an objective reality, where the wavefunction is not just a predictive tool but a real entity reflecting the true state of a system. Both perspectives challenge traditional views by suggesting that quantum objects have definite properties even if not directly observable, with Pilot Wave Theory offering a deterministic model and Quantum Realism emphasizing the existence of an objective quantum reality.
That's cool and all, except for the fact that there are no particles in nature, so what you are trying to explain doesn't exist. You are looking for the science equivalent of fairies here. :-)
I think pilot wave theory or a variant of it is going to lead to new revelations in physics. Sure, some stuff needs to be sorted out, but that’s science.
8:54- "in the 960's"? John Bell went back a thousand years in time just to validate an refutation?
1960
Could you do a video on string theory?
They did, but you can only view it in higher dimensions.
this
PBS has helped me though some rough times