Thanks! I really enjoyed hearing a defense of pilot wave theory. Physicists hated his spiritual turn as well. The “secret government” seemed to think he was on the right track. I think he was involved in a lot more top secret work than we will ever know.
Thank you so much - I really appreciate it! If you liked this, I also recommend the episode with Tim Maudlin where we dive deep into Bell's Inequality and set the foundations for Pilot Wave Theory 😀
Fundamental randomness is just a pattern of observables, that doesn't have any selection mechanism. It's not more mysterious than saying newtons laws of gravity are the end of the line, and there is no further mechanism, it just is. That problem we have with every single theory that bottoms out in unexplained mathematics. So yeah sure, but given a bottiming out in a classical probability distribution, whether the probability is always 1 or not, there is always room for removing uncertainty by mechanisms that can go many ways and be summed over. So i dont think removing randomness is the essential bit or a necessary bit, but it is for sure always a possibility. Every time you land on a theory that predicts a classical probability distribution of the kinds of things you can do, there is always room for further structure and less uncertainty. So idk i think removing all uncertainty is a feature sometimes, but then again Newtonian gravity does that, and has the same issue, its just a pattern by fiat not by mechanism, which is okey, but there is always room for further explanation. But now look, it is much easier to see the room to be filled if the laws are probabilistic, because if you were to derive newtonian gravity from some mechanism, lets use a pollen grain in a glass of water as an example, you could not allow for any mechanism that has multiple mucristates so to speak to sum over, to get the law in the average, it must have some non unity distribution for substructure to be derived from many microstates, or you just get into weird trouble, you go from one form of the theory to another with no difference in observables. That doesn't quite make sense, the only natural way to get determinism is ti sum over almost classical histories, ti get a new theory with uncertainty in it, a better approximation, and then itterating that infinite times to remove all the uncertainty for any particular variable in the 0th order theory you are trying to explain.
Yeah what the wavefunction is, gicen the born rule, is just a generating function for a classical probability distribution over observables, which are just results of experiments. So quantum mechanics really just predicts classical probabilities in an ordinary way. I don't really see what else there is to it in its textbook form. Any other scheme to get the same classical probability distribution of outco es or arbitrary experiments is equivalent. I never understood this bs about quantum probability being different than classical probability, its a bit like saying adding 2+2 and getting 4 is different when done on an abacus vs a digital computer, no its just a different way to generate the same kind of result. People are just way to sucked in by the complex functions, it is just a kind of square root of a normal classical probability distribution, nobody can ever come up with a quantum theory that produces probability distributions that are not just classical probability distributions over experimental results because it is incoherent. That is really the only valuable aspec or insight from bohr on the philosophy side, complimentarity and all This junk is just unnecessary baggage, results of measurements are classical because every possible result imaginable of experiments would be some outcome that has a classical probability of happening between 0 and 1. Thats it, thats the entire value of the Copenhagen picture. But then we should as shelly says, be able to think about that sensibly, whatever generates the distribution could be anything as ling as the statistics come out right. Von Neumann got it wrong, each individual classical history to sum over in a deterministic version doesn't need to share properties with the wavefunction, just the average over histories needs to do that, appart from some properties they share, like not landing where there is no destructive interference.
Ye, what pilot wave theory adds is trajectories in position space. A particle with a position, and derivatives. The most basic map from wavefunction to trajectories. Not all that mysterious. Same thing with superdeterminism and quantum mechanics, normal quantum mechanics just is a superdeteministic theory in terms lf describing the out comes of experiments. The wavefunction does do this conspiring to pick out the correlation at spacelike separations, that is all what is in the text book, it is kind of funny when people who are big into quantum lingo call it mutual variables or something like that, when its just a built in causation of sorts that is causation free.
Yes, shut up and calculate is nice when you are talking about making predictions based on mathematical assumptions in the context of a theory. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the world, or even the set of observables, the exact same aet of observables can be gained from theories formulated in all sorts of ways, including ways where the embarrassing questions are answered, whether they are answered in a satisfactory way is something else, but still, it has no business being applied to nature, it just exists as a mantra to look at observables and what they turn out to be in a theory, but that isn't really a way to do physics, its a way to see what a theory or formulation predicts. When it is used to stop questions that are hard, and about what is really going on, or what the observables mean, then its just useless, you can say if from the context of any theory, it just doesn't habe anything to do with the questions its usually used to point at being bad or something like that. Its just oure nonsense, that kind of attitude has its place only in deriving observables once you define a theory.
Mathematics may be as beautiful as the flower garden. Are you the flower garden. Only if you in like spirit share the it Know the poetry of the human heart
Is Pilot Wave Theory or Bohmian Mechanics a more suitable alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Pop Sheldon, thank you for attending unto our own!
Thanks for the excellent interview.
Thank you - glad you liked it!
No other tables like this TABLE!
I'll wait right here!
Hosts Meeks will say, this Table will visit all Tables of men resting upon HIS FOOTSTOOL!
Thanks! I really enjoyed hearing a defense of pilot wave theory. Physicists hated his spiritual turn as well. The “secret government” seemed to think he was on the right track. I think he was involved in a lot more top secret work than we will ever know.
Thank you so much - I really appreciate it! If you liked this, I also recommend the episode with Tim Maudlin where we dive deep into Bell's Inequality and set the foundations for Pilot Wave Theory 😀
Fundamental randomness is just a pattern of observables, that doesn't have any selection mechanism. It's not more mysterious than saying newtons laws of gravity are the end of the line, and there is no further mechanism, it just is. That problem we have with every single theory that bottoms out in unexplained mathematics. So yeah sure, but given a bottiming out in a classical probability distribution, whether the probability is always 1 or not, there is always room for removing uncertainty by mechanisms that can go many ways and be summed over. So i dont think removing randomness is the essential bit or a necessary bit, but it is for sure always a possibility. Every time you land on a theory that predicts a classical probability distribution of the kinds of things you can do, there is always room for further structure and less uncertainty. So idk i think removing all uncertainty is a feature sometimes, but then again Newtonian gravity does that, and has the same issue, its just a pattern by fiat not by mechanism, which is okey, but there is always room for further explanation. But now look, it is much easier to see the room to be filled if the laws are probabilistic, because if you were to derive newtonian gravity from some mechanism, lets use a pollen grain in a glass of water as an example, you could not allow for any mechanism that has multiple mucristates so to speak to sum over, to get the law in the average, it must have some non unity distribution for substructure to be derived from many microstates, or you just get into weird trouble, you go from one form of the theory to another with no difference in observables. That doesn't quite make sense, the only natural way to get determinism is ti sum over almost classical histories, ti get a new theory with uncertainty in it, a better approximation, and then itterating that infinite times to remove all the uncertainty for any particular variable in the 0th order theory you are trying to explain.
Yeah what the wavefunction is, gicen the born rule, is just a generating function for a classical probability distribution over observables, which are just results of experiments. So quantum mechanics really just predicts classical probabilities in an ordinary way. I don't really see what else there is to it in its textbook form. Any other scheme to get the same classical probability distribution of outco es or arbitrary experiments is equivalent. I never understood this bs about quantum probability being different than classical probability, its a bit like saying adding 2+2 and getting 4 is different when done on an abacus vs a digital computer, no its just a different way to generate the same kind of result. People are just way to sucked in by the complex functions, it is just a kind of square root of a normal classical probability distribution, nobody can ever come up with a quantum theory that produces probability distributions that are not just classical probability distributions over experimental results because it is incoherent. That is really the only valuable aspec or insight from bohr on the philosophy side, complimentarity and all This junk is just unnecessary baggage, results of measurements are classical because every possible result imaginable of experiments would be some outcome that has a classical probability of happening between 0 and 1. Thats it, thats the entire value of the Copenhagen picture. But then we should as shelly says, be able to think about that sensibly, whatever generates the distribution could be anything as ling as the statistics come out right. Von Neumann got it wrong, each individual classical history to sum over in a deterministic version doesn't need to share properties with the wavefunction, just the average over histories needs to do that, appart from some properties they share, like not landing where there is no destructive interference.
Great interview. Wish you went more in depth on pilot wave theory itself and asked more follow-ups. But overall a great convo
Thank you! We ran out of time, would've loved to - hopefully will do another episode on pilot wave soon!
Offsprings preserve will say, HOW'S HIS VINEYARDS?
CIG Theory explains the reality behind the wavefunction Psi
What is measurement? Measurement will say, so precise!
Ye, what pilot wave theory adds is trajectories in position space. A particle with a position, and derivatives. The most basic map from wavefunction to trajectories. Not all that mysterious. Same thing with superdeterminism and quantum mechanics, normal quantum mechanics just is a superdeteministic theory in terms lf describing the out comes of experiments. The wavefunction does do this conspiring to pick out the correlation at spacelike separations, that is all what is in the text book, it is kind of funny when people who are big into quantum lingo call it mutual variables or something like that, when its just a built in causation of sorts that is causation free.
From the New Table made from a hand without blood stains upon HIS HANDS.
Shared "i" Am come forth!
Lord, what is alive yet dead in front of thee? Can dead have sincere conversations in front of thee?
What is experiment unto the Who am I? Time given in front of all the shared "i" Am!
Hosts Meeks will say, TABLES OF MEN! Remember!
A little child born "i" Am holding a basket of bread and a fish!
Truth what is the shared "i" Am in front?
Yes, shut up and calculate is nice when you are talking about making predictions based on mathematical assumptions in the context of a theory. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the world, or even the set of observables, the exact same aet of observables can be gained from theories formulated in all sorts of ways, including ways where the embarrassing questions are answered, whether they are answered in a satisfactory way is something else, but still, it has no business being applied to nature, it just exists as a mantra to look at observables and what they turn out to be in a theory, but that isn't really a way to do physics, its a way to see what a theory or formulation predicts. When it is used to stop questions that are hard, and about what is really going on, or what the observables mean, then its just useless, you can say if from the context of any theory, it just doesn't habe anything to do with the questions its usually used to point at being bad or something like that. Its just oure nonsense, that kind of attitude has its place only in deriving observables once you define a theory.
Truth will say, where else sincere conversations and relationships can take place in front of HIM?
For many aims came in front of thee!
Yes,
Beloved for such visited! Darkness upon the deep without form and void in front! Shared "i" Am come forth!
Pop keep thy sincere conversations came with thy shared "i" Am. Let Noone take away from thee!
Shared "i" Am go remind and comes with comfort unto these who am I in front?
Now surrounding HIM About!
Now shared "i" Am students will say, why there's something rather than nothing in front of HIM?
Remembering who said, if ye Love me! Love you too!
Nor for Whom?
Imagine separated!
Offsprings preserve will say, what is a rebellious house unto our LORD?
Name nor names come here in front and remind!
Seats come here in front! Lord in front! Now go find thy rightful place upon all my shared "i" Am upon all dry grounds!
What is the Sea of glass my HOSTS Meeks and my beautiful molded and form for HIS FEET to walk upon!
Hosts Meeks will say unto all the RENOWNED in front of our LORD!
Many playing Gods in front of HIM!
Yes, bring who exalted self the evil one to come forth in front!
Knows Who?
Why say measurement? Lord thy Aim resting upon Noone can pluck away!
Evil one even know? Where time came from?
Lord nought in front of thee! Why?
Many aims came in front! Ye have awaken from deep sleep in front!
Gods of men come here in front and remind! Lord nought in front of thee! Why Gods of men?
Keep watch!
Are ye all in front of HIM?
A
Mathematics may be as beautiful as the flower garden. Are you the flower garden. Only if you in like spirit share the it Know the poetry of the human heart