Does the phenomenon of vision depend on it? The principe data-set appearing within the phenomenon of vision has sod all to do with the fundamentals of optics!

The absurdity is the same: both chapels believe in corpuscles.

Louis de Broglie believed that his wave was not the electron.

The Göttingen-Københavnists believe that the de-Broglie-Schrödinger wave has no physical existence, but when squared, gives the probability of apparition of the magic corpuscle.

If you postulate the existence of the aether, as a medium of unknown characteristics, you can do away with the stupid idea of massless photons being hurled across the galaxy at light speed.

A sound wave doesn't have to accelerate the air molecules to Mach 1, in order to propagate, so it's not that much of a leap of faith to postulate that electromagnetic waves can propagate using a similar mechanism, through a medium conveniently called an 'aether'.

No it is not gaining ground, but is not giving up either. Social media allows a minority opinion to appear larger than it really is.

Louis de Broglie did three authentic discoveries :

First, the intrinsic frequency, \nu = mc2/h.

Next: the theorem of the harmony of phases. Hence the phase celerity and the wavelength according to the group speed.

Third: the identity of the Hamiltonian formalism for optics and mechanics. A path of minimum action or extremum action is a path in phase with its close neighbours.

Consequence : outside of the Fermat spindle, no power is transferred.

Still no direct measurement of the Broglian frequency was performed, but the other intrinsic frequency, 2mc2/h, the Dirac-Schrödinger one, has been measured in relativistic conditions.

http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-331/aflb331m625.pdf

Who cares, beyond philosophers and social scientists? That's sociology, not physics. It doesn't matter which interpretation is used, since the same results can be obtained whatever the interpretation. So for physics it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is obtaining the answer to a calculation as fast as possible and being able to do an experiment that has the least systematic and statistical errors.

Incidentally, aether doesn't have anything to do with quantum mechanics, so it doesn't make sense mentioning it when discussing the formulations of quantum mechanics. Aether is a classical notion and refers to how spacetime is described; quantum mechanics refers to how phase space gets modified, not spacetime.

The vocabulary itself is a tricky instrument for the controversy. Saying "interpretation" is a trick for discarding all the non-believers, who ceased to believe in the mythology of the hegemonic chapel.

The hegemonic Göttingen-København sect restricts the experimental corpus to the extreme. So their results are also extremely restricted.

Though we share the same evolution equations, we do not do anymore the same physics.

It doesn't matter what it's called, because that can't affect anything that can be calculated or any experimental setup.

So it's simply meaningless to state that any calculation or any experiment can distinguish between interpretations (or whatever word's used). There's always a correspondence between any two ``formulations''.

If the correspondence can't be established, the formulations aren't alternatives-they can be distinguished. And then what matters isn't in what way they're similar-it's where they differ, in real, not philosophical, ways. So to propose an experiment at all, it's necessary to show where the two formulations really differ quantitatively-what is the quantity that computed in one formulation takes some value and in the other takes a completely different value; so an experiment that can measure it can distinguish between the two.

But, if the only way the formulations differ is in the words employed, they don't describe different physics, but different metaphysics. It's like arguing over whether the Schrödinger, Heisenberg or path integral formulations are better or worse one from the other. It doesn't make sense.

That's why it doesn't make any sense complaining about any hegemony-when there are so many journals and possibilities for making available to the public any result one wishes.

The statements made in the pictures about the particle and its pilot wave are, however, wrong.

The reason is that the pilot wave doesn't propagate in spacetime; but in phase space. Quantum interference effects take place in phase space and describe how states evolve in phase space.

Stam Nicolis. The yield of the teaching is not at all the same. Moreover, the absurdity of the taught doctrine heavily hinders the fertility of the young researchers.

Over three generations, the selection on the tolerance to absurdity involves heavy consequences.

@ Igael Azoulay . Just look at the way Claude Cohen-Tannoudji rose the war-ax against Shau-Yu Lan, Pei-Chen Kuan, Brian Estey, Damon English, Justin M. Brown, Michael A. Hohensee, and Holger Müller (A Clock Directly Linking Time to a Particle’s Mass). Science-2013-Lan-554-7, because they dared to use these de Broglie frequencies, so forbidden by the community.

Once more-there isn't any doctrine. Personal opinions, however, aren't relevant for physics. It doesn't matter if someone regards a concept as ``absurd''; what matters is the result of the calculation obtained using concepts that particular person considers ``reasonable''. If the results are the same, as with some other formalism, then there isn't any difference. If the results are different, then it suffices to do an experiment to measure the difference. There are experiments being done all the time, so it's not even necessary to do the exact experiment; it suffices to check the differences that would appear, already, in known experiments.

There aren't any other consequences-unless one insists on including the attention paid to certain papers and not to others; but that's just sociology.

And just how has the ``fertility of young researchers'' been affected?

There's too much sociology and too little physics involved.

In RG, there are reports on the low yield of the teaching of the QM, in the standard Göttingen-København orthodoxy.

``Low yield'' is meaningless. And the interpretation is, too. Whatever interpretation is used, the only thing that matters are the corresponding invariant quantities. Any formulation defines such quantities; anyone can use the words they want, that doesn't matter.

If one is interested in sociology, in how many people work on some subject, that's too bad. Physics isn't a group event-though too many people appear to think so. It's about what any individual person can understand and express in an impersonal way.

The first sentence of the paper by Lan et al. is misleading, since a particle isn't represented by a wave in any sense (or vice versa). More precisely, the evolution of states doesn't take place in spacetime, but in phase space.

That matter can have wave-like properties was de Broglie's great insight; but when an electron has wave-like properties, e.g. as is observed in crystal diffraction, the particle properties aren't guided in any way, by the wave, or vice versa-the sentence can't be given any meaning, since there's no guiding mechanism. The reason is that the wave doesn't propagate in spacetime, but in phase space-that took some time to be understood. The diffraction of electrons-that are quantum objects in this experiment-through a crystal is completely different from the diffraction of electromagnetic waves-that are classical objects-through a crystal. In the former case the effect depends on Planck's constant; in the latter it doesn't.

And there's no way to relate this confusion to any interpretational issues, since the rest of the paper doesn't rely on this statement. What it does rely on is the possibility of measuring phase shifts, of states-and these are in phase space.

Such a phase space has never existed in the real physical world. It is a mathematic artefact used for some mathematic phenomenology.

You are not near to explain why representing an individual wave by some mathematical wave could be incorrect, by principle.

I may occur as you every waking moment. Actually even when you dream. It forms that basis of perceptual structure. I think that's fired up in response to the onset of light. So it's something that we don't understand about the physical world that we have a relationship with.

The tenets and doctrine of the De-Broglie-Bohm version of Pilot Wave theory has logically led to a number of contradictory and sometimes foolish conclusions as others have pointed out, but its far closer to validity than the obviously ridiculous Copenhagen Interpretation in light of all the experiments and evidence since that time. Quantum Mechanics aside, there is no version of quantum theory that I am aware of that IMO has logical ballast.

Try Transactional Microphysics.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/jacques-lavau/transactional-quantum-microphysics-principles-and-applications/paperback/product-23668513.html

Unfortunately, anytime I try to discuss alternatives to the Neil's Bohr explanation I am told it is a waste of time; most ardently by those who least understand the Bohr interpretation. Votes taken at conferences confirm its stature. I just posted a rough draft "Anomalous Photon Interference with Theoretical Implications" [if it is taboo to mention your own work, I apologize]. That draft discusses experiments which seem to indicate that the photon generates a broader field or wave similar to that described by Bohm. However, the experiment results seem to indicate that the interference process is much more complicated than a simple steering pilot wave. These experiments are tertiary and probably released prematurely. I decided they were important enough to be posted now and possibly get timely confirmation or rejection.

Dear Barry,

Of course the fields are more complicated than resembling a single drop in a pond.

The key for deciphering the problem I submit, is what is the mechanism in which a single electron becomes a "tiny magnet".? This question also shows our current state of ignorance of what magnetism really is. And without deciphering magnetism first no other related phenomena can be fully understood, I submit.

Emmanouil

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327681093_ANOMALOUS_PHOTON_INTERFERENCE

two other papers that are relevant:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/investigation-of-near-field-photon-interference-and-implications-for-Quantum-Theory

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32772886_POLARITY_AND_PHOTON_INTERFERENCE

These experiments don't have anything to do with the ``Copenhagen interpretation'''. What they rely on is photon number statistics. So what does need to be quantified is the statement about the photon number fluctuations.

Bohm's description is equivalent to Bohr's-it leads to the same results, only the words differ.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Markoulakis & readers,

So far as I know, the short answer is "No."

The pilot wave idea is chiefly of historical interest in physics. But I do not believe that many hold to a pure Copenhagen interpretation, either.

H.G. Callaway

---you asked---

Is De-Broglie Bohm (pilot wave) Theory gaining ground today over the Copenhagen Interpretation?

Similarities are no coincidence?

How to save a deterministic universe because it corresponds the best with language and the "order of things" as we know it, as we represent the world, and are able to communicate?

I don't know, but I can understand it must be hard for scientists to be probabilistic rather than determinist.

It's could be something like a car dealer becoming a second hand salesman giving discounts just to do business...

What is empirical observation?

How could this be defined?

Theories - hypothesis- are enlightening in so far as they are represented in a measurable observational form - that's the problem with analogies, they help our representation to things, but do they match reality?

Right.

Reality: photo 1(drop of water bouncing on water surface)

Representation: photo 2 (twisted cable with a marble)

Based on a misleading representation of an actual physical phenomena you don't really can see and don't know its actual geometrical form given to mathematicians and physicists to work on can lead to all sorts of BS produced.

Emmanouil

The issue is that we have to get back to basics. We 'observe' where our instrumentation 'records' what it was designed to record. It does not observe. The assumption the eye/brain records like a camera is rather silly. If we look into the data structures and processes of information exchange that take place within the phenomenon of vision we run directly into situations analogous with the issues confronting science. Should we be surprised at this? Not at all given the factors involved. So we need to study perceptual structure to understand how to approach matter in a more meaningful way. This involves us binning concepts and models analogous with the current situation and to stop making huge efforts to trying to find ways of making them fit.

As far as the new paradigm appears to pan out, it would appear that as Emmanouil suggests, we should look at the nature of magnetism and what that suggests for the magnetic component of EMR.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Rehder,

Please proceed with your line of thought. I do not regard my own skepticism as any sort of veto, of course.

I suspect that some of the related questions continue under discussion chiefly due to confusions centered on "the measurement problem," and just because of that, I think that related discussions may turn out useful.

In the end, it is the physicists who are chiefly responsible for related questions. Doing philosophy of physics, I simply attempt to stay centered in generally accepted physics --where I do not see much enthusiasm for Bohmian mechanics or hidden variable theories and related themes.

I offer an informed opinion only at this time, for what its worth. I see that you have many interesting sources. Keep up the good work.

H.G. Callaway

@ Emmanouil Markoulakis.

Your image of propagation of a gravity wave under a drop is as inappropriate as possible for an electron. In the frame of the electron, no propagation exists: it is synchronous with itself. The symmetries we are familiar with, in our macroscopic world, do not more have pertinence at the microphysical scale of an electron.

Just stick to the properties of the solutions of the Dirac wave equation for the electron.

Bohm's model states that a wave is guiding a particle. Perhaps a better causality would be to state that a moving particle causes a wave in the ether, in the same way as a boat in water. So, the wave function is a real behavior of the ether.

I have just uploaded another paper to Research Gate, Experimental Determination of Photon Interference Point. In these experiments the light path is split and then the two paths are brought back through different slits of a double slit at different angles. If the paths cross in the near field there is a double slit pattern at each of the separate target screens for the light from each of the separate slits. This appears to be contradictory to both the Bohr and Bohm interpretations. The presence of double slit spacing for photons which have only passed through one known slit seems to be contrary to the Bohr interpretation in which the convergence of paths from both slits at the target are responsible for the interference pattern. The crossing of paths in different directions would seem to disrupt any pilot waves.

There are many conditions were the Bohm interpretation and the Bohr interpretation produce opposite results and there are many experiments that support one or the other. In one of the papers I mentioned, Polarity and Photon Interference, I followed the introduction of my two new experiments with a discussion of a historic experiment that favored the Bohm interpretation, Raymond Chiao's less reported follow up to his more famous quantum eraser experiment. I added it to my paper, not in support of any theory, but because it was in agreement with my results.

I think what is really at stake is two seemingly opposite concepts. Light as an un-actualized abstract set of multiple probabilities until finally interacting with matter, or as initially actualized photons with substructure that generate an actual surrounding wave. It may also be the difference between probability and determinism. Like the fable of the blind mind encountering an elephant and coming up with different desscriptions depending on where they touched it. I suspect that both theories are correct in some aspects. I have a hunch that the concept of abstract probabilities is valid at the most basic nature of the universe but that photons are at a level of complication that allows them to be treated as deterministic intities. Of course hunches are not science. But the one take away that I have from my experiments is that a new theory or advanced theory is needed.

John-Erik Persson

That's the problem with analogies, they are easy to understand but do they fit?

- Copernicus changed the point of view in respect to the solar system.

- Einstein introduced mass as energy and observation in relation to time.

So - if quantum physics goes boldly where no man has gone before, the representation of things have to be revolutionary changed also.

- If deterministic representation of reality at the quantum level, does not work anymore why persist in sticking to it? - Because it's comfortable?

best greetings

Willy

Interpretations and analogies don't matter. What does matter are the quantitative results obtained and the experiments they lead to.

It doesn't make sense arguing over what words to use to describe something.

Dear All,

All ordinary matter and radiation are vibrations of specific frequencies in the inert scalar omnipresent dark energy field or vacuum energy.

I never said the the drop in the photo is the electron. Electron could be the ripples or the stable torus shown in the photo. The drop could be the nuclei.

The fact that everything is our reality can be expressed as vibrations and frequencies is a strong indication that this could be the true physical mechanism responsible for all matter and radiation creation.

De Broglie combined with an inert omnipresent scalar energy field or medium can potentially explain everything. The only this which remains a mystery is what is the source of vibrations in our cosmos?

Example: Stable torus formed when water surface is vibrated at a frequency correlated with the "fine structure constant". This can not be a coincidance since we are talking about hydrogen,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMK3OVBjx2Q&t=762s

John-Erik Persson

Couldn't agree more with you.

Hans van Leunen

Very Interesting.

Emmanouil

The only quantities of any model, that it makes any sense to focus on, are those that remain invariant under the symmetries of the model itself. That's why it doesn't matter what ``interpretation'' one uses, as long as the invariant quantities turn out to be equivalent.

The probability density function is such an invariant quantity. So that's the only quantity that matters-how it can be calculated isn't that important-there are many ways to do so.

Water waves are collective excitations of the water molecules, that are bound by electric forces. Nothing strange about them. And they can be perfectly well described as solutions of classical equations of motion, expressing Newton's second law, so it is off topic to bring them up in a discussion about quantum mechanics.

They don't have anything to do with any dark energy field, because at the scale in which they occur, spacetime can be taken as flat (and, in fact, non-relativistic), which means the dark energy, that drives the expansion of spacetime at cosmological scales, can be neglected: the distortions of spacetime, due to water waves, are negligible.

The fine structure constant is dimensionless, so it doesn't make sense relating its value to any dimensionful quantity (such as a frequency).

The label about ``dark energy'' is nonsense.

Interpretations make as much sense as choices of coordinate systems. It's when people try to claim they imply something more, that the statements lose any meaning.

There's nothing about cosmology that can't be expressed using any ``interpretation'' one wishes, since, once more, only the calculation of invariant quantities is meaningful, not how they're obtained.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLs7iMPDSLw

The point is that we need to understand what the data-set is that this phenomenon presets us with in terms of vision and perceptual structure in general. This data-set is not going to present to our current instrumentation - it may be able to be organised it to 'present' the wave formations/patterning or noise that delivers the data-potential.

Through our current instrumentations we are not 'functional observers' of this data-potential. We remain as 3rd party recorders of the disturbance it causes.

We as sentient beings/complex bio systems are in the flow of this data-potential which is why the data 'presents' to us.

Vision Space and dark matter http://youtu.be/MGZFpKDMOak

In the case of vision the data-formation 'presents' as implicit spatial awareness. THERE IS NO RE-PRESENTATION INVOLVED! No so-called 'hard problem'.

Manifesting dark light and setting out a Vision-Space painting 
http://youtu.be/RJj7OdCzifM

This data-set is foundational with respect to who we are but having achieved that foundational 'presence' we open ourselves up to another data-potential. That delivered by the particle form of light. There has to be a 'something' for that data potential to occur too. The implicit came before the explicit in evolutionary terms - way before. It's a/the accomplishment of the old brain structures. The explicit data-set massively increases the scope of our relationship with the real and our ability to interact and affect our environment. Cortical activity. It's not as clear cut of this of course but we need to start to understand our relationship with the real on these terms.

The endless debate between particle/wave as to which is more 'real' is pointless. They both contain vital information and our relationship with the real depends on the inference we take from both. This is essentially the differential between 'record' and 'observation' our current instrumentation simply records what it was designed too. It's 'blind' to the implicit data-potential. We are working with 1/2 the story. Building models out from that position will establish a significant deficit that can't be accessed.

The foundational structure that's reliant on the factors that Emmanouil is referring to is the bit that 3rd party observation will not find unless it changes its ontology and starts once again from the subjective awareness? The very thing its been declaring 'off limits' and 'invalid' for so long. Event art critics with reference to the 'deformations' in vision art. Those things recorded at the encounter that don't fit with the arbitrary geometry on central perspective or optical projection.

You need to get down to a serious art gallery (Chardin, Degas, Cezanne, Monnet, Van Gogh, Modigliani, Bonnard, Picasso, Bacon and ask serious questions about what you are encountering! You won't find what you discover occurring to our current instrumentation. This is not because the artist has a visual impairment or has 'forgotten' the rudiments of perspective. It's because these individuals are the great observers and have broken into their visual percept. Physics has abandoned this territory or 'observation' in favour of the accuracy of its instrumentation.

This is not a bad thing - loads of good stuff has been discovered but the approach won't encounter what that exercise in explicit record making has establishes to be 'missing' or 'dark'.

Appreciation of art doesn't have anything to do with impersonal calculations and experiments in general nor with quantum mechanics in particular.

The statement about ``sentient beings'' is, also, irrelevant, because that property doesn't affect the status of any calculation or measurement, in particular, regarding quantum effects.

Dark matter has very specific properties that, for the moment, involve classical physics.

Dark energy, likewise. So the discussion of neither has anything to do with how to interpret results in quantum physics.

That's s precisely the problem. You are not observing. That's not physics.

Physics is impersonal calculations and experiments, nothing more or less and it is independent of what any particular person is doing. And it doesn't have anything to do with art appreciation, either.

Vision and perception don't have anything particular to do with how to perform computations and experiments in quantum physics.

Do you think vision has anything to do with EMR? Your answer is absurd. The state physics is in is absurd.

Proofs of what statements? That water waves don't affect spacetime? Just write down Einstein's equations and check that the energy of any water wave provides a ridiculously negligible contribution to the RHS.

That water waves are irrelevant for describing quantum phenomena? They're perfectly well described as the unique solutions of classical equations-no Planck constant appears anywhere.

That appreciating art is completely irrelevant for deciding which description of quantum phenomena is correct? The former is personal opinion, the latter isn't.

Stam Nicolis

Some can not deny that everything in nature can be described as vibrations and frequency of an inert field.

This combined with that nature is fractal and holographic is enough to sustain as valid the scalar field energy modulation water surface vibration analogy metaphor I have presented.

After all isn't the goal of modern physics to find the one fundamental particle which constitutes everything?

Emmanouil

Math is psycholoy. A 'no nonsense approach' can't be a 'no sense approach' unless you want to suppress influences in order to chase down something in particular/explicit. That' 'result' will be devoid of the context to which it belongs. Doing more and more of the same and stringing it all together does not replace the requirement for keeping in touch with the context.

"All knowledge has its origins in perception" L da Vinci

We discover the requirement and create the math. We develop our relationship with the real and math is at the coalface. As actually is fine art..... well it use to be! The discipline (experiential/perceptual) has all but ceased and is now largly conceptual, so not at the coalface at all. So math is critical. It must not 'forget' that it's foundational status derives from a relationship we form with the real. We need the math that delivers visual awareness. We then need to apply that so we can 'observe' (as opposed to record) at remote scales.

There's no such notion as a ``scientific canon'', first of all. And, indeed, science is boring, most of the time, particularly for any spectator-it's not a spectator sport. It's, also, boring, a lot of the time, for the people that are doing it and anyone who believes that it's possible every day to discover new things is deluded. Unfortunately social media promote the highlights and lead people, that aren't scientists, to believing that the results can be obtained without any prior knowledge-by divine illumination, strokes of genius. They have been misinformed. If people want excitement, they'll have to do something else; or learn what the excitement in doing science is about.

It's pointless to engage in discussing technical issues without technical knowledge, because such discussion, by construction, can't lead to understanding them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

So any claim relating classical waves to quantum phenomena (or water waves to general relativity, in the way put forward), or with the aether, can be immediately understood as meaningless by anyone that has studied both subjects; and can be the subject of endless discussions on textual analysis by people that haven't, simply because for the latter it's the grammar and syntax that matter, not the meaning. What does matter is that anyone can learn the technical concepts-they're not reserved to any person in particular.

Similarly, any arguments over the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation and the Copenhagen interpretation can, now, be immediately understood as textual analysis rather than anything substantive. They're different ways of talking about the same thing (the non-locality of quantum effects, in particular) that's why it's pointless discussing them, rather than the mathematics and the experiments. The problems arise when focusing on the non-invariant quantities-that don't make sense by themselves-instead of on the invariant quantities. That's why it doesn't make sense to talk of any pilot wave-there's no pilot and nothing to pilot.

While there was a time when people did tend to argue a lot over words, regarding quantum phenomena, because they didn't understand the mathematics-and couldn't do experiments to test their proposals-that was almost a century ago. Now the mathematics is understood (in fact it was understood quite quickly, but many people insisted on words) the quantities that do make sense have been identified, so there's no excuse pretending to live in ignorance. In addition, many ``thought experiments'' have now become ``real experiments''-that's what's new.

That's why the question about whether some interpretation is gaining ground may make sense in sociology-but not in physics.

Copenhagen interpretation

...every loss is accompanied by a grieving process

- there can be no loss without - even in science -

The enlightened deterministic physics at the base of empirical observation in Newton's formula's - The rational universe of Blaise Pascal, Laplace, d'Holbach, even Spinoza! -

Now scattered to percentages, is a hard to swallow indeed,

But at the other side - a great worldview gained for poetics!

- There is an aesthetic beauty in a probabilistic world.

That contains creativity in every moment, even within the materiality nature.

Let every moment in this world be a wave collapse with an open future!

-and the again ...

- It's not because poets could like it, that it should be true...

Science needs facts. But what are facts?

Well Emmanouil, there's no doubt about what's at state when you ask the question!

Ha ha ha! Right, you know physics but you can not explain why electrons are "tiny magnets"! ... Obviously there is something wrong with this indoctrination process, I submit.

Dante Alighieri wrote the “Divine Comedy” a scientific and mathematical structured poem about Paradise, Purgatorio and Hell as a coherent univers

- But is it true?

Dear Emmanouil

Quantum particles don’t go along with trajectories (predictable paths) by the simple fact that the continuity equation (in true, diffusion equation), derived from the Schrödinger equation, is explicitly time dependent, i.e., IN THIS EQUATION the probability density (P) is an explicit function of time (over trajectories P depends only on the spatial coordinates). This change of probability at a given position happens because the Planck’s vacuum induces “initial conditions for a new trajectory” everywhere (vacuum induced fluctuations), and then such particles continuously jumps to unpredictable trajectories (but don’t follows along anyone). So, the de Broglie-Bohm theory (as a causal theory) is only a historical misinterpretation of the mathematics emerging from the Schrödinger equation. The stochastic Hamilton-Jacobi equation (derived from the Schrödinger equation) represents the substratum of virtual trajectories, which may have only one of their positions occupied along the actual (random) path of the particle. So, the Copenhagen interpretation survive even existing trajectories, as it could not be otherwise, because in quantum mechanics we have randomness mixed with concepts defined on trajectories.

Dear Fernando,

Dear All,

I think it is worth the time reading this paper:

http://math.mit.edu/~bush/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Bush-AnnRev2015.pdf

And specially fig 4.

And interesting hydrodynamic pilot-wave application and research. They succeeded to generate the same probability trajectory graph for the electron around a nuclei by a chaotic movement bouncing droplet presenting therefore a quantum hydrodynamic analogue which may be a experimental confirmation of the pilot wave theory.

And not only that they succeeded to replicate the one-slit and double slit experiment with this pilot-wave hydrodyamics method.

More on Professor's John W M Bush (MIT) research:

http://math.mit.edu/~bush/?page_id=154

Emmanouil

If particles follow along trajectories, explain to me why the complex action function inherent in the Schrödinger equation, i.e.

A = S (x, t) + i (\hbar/2) ln P (x, t)

accounts - at all positions - for a trajectory (real part) and a trajectory change (imaginary part).

Oh I get it Hans!!

Landau & Lifshitz also have taught this legend of an erratic electron-corpuscle, moving as a young mad dog. But nobody has ever shown any experimental evidence.

This whole church confuses the pre-handshake phase, in the de-Broglie-Dirac ground noise, with the transfer phase, where no randomness plays any more role.

No hope so!

Stam Nicolis

you wrote "The reason is that the pilot wave doesn't propagate in spacetime; but in phase space."

That's wrong, in the Schroedinger picture it propagates in configuration space. You can alternatively use the momentum space (often done in QFT). But not phase space (there is one, the holomorphic picture, but it is essentially unknown).

Then, it is one thing to say interpretations do not matter if your only aim is to compute something in existing theory. (Even in this case, read Bell, How to teach special relativity, for disagreement). But the situation is completely different if you want to go beyond existing theory. In this case, you have to make guesswork anyway, and the major question is which properties of the existing theory survive, and which have to be replaced, rejected as approximations. Here different interpretations make different suggestions.

Note also that having different interpretations are useful to distinguish the physical, observable things from the metaphysical aspects, which are present in every interpretation. This is one of the applications of de Broglie-Bohm today. Whenever somebody makes metaphysical claims about something quantum, you can prove him wrong by showing that in the de Broglie-Bohm picture his claim is wrong, thus, it can be only a metaphysical claim beyond what experiment tells us. GR has, unfortunately, only one well-known interpretation, the spacetime interpretation. So, people talk a lot metaphysical nonsense and present this as proven by observation. The good old Lorentz ether, which distinguishes space and time from what is measured by possibly distorted rulers and clocks would be helpful to stop this nonsense. How to extend it to GR see http://ilja-schmelzer.de/ether

John-Erik Persson

you wrote "Perhaps a better causality would be to state that a moving particle causes a wave in the ether"

To identify the wave function with a wave of an ether makes no sense, because that ether have to exist in a configuration space, not usual space. The fields considered in quantum field theory (gauge fields, fermion fields) are functions in usual space, they could be reasonably interpreted as waves of an ether, as I have done, see http://ilja-schmelzer.de/matter/ for details and links to published papers.

Emmanouil Markoulakis

I have seen a picture of statistics of citations of Bohm's original paper which shows a clear growth during the last time. (That was around ten years ago, so not really actual, and may be, in part, influenced by the overall increasing amount of publications in our publish every nonsense or perish time.) An increasing interest in interpretations of quantum theory is clearly observable in the quantum information community. They propose there various sets of axioms which would allow to derive the rules of quantum theory. The interpretation I actually favor is Caticha's entropic dynamics, also quite new.

The Schrödinger equation describes ``propagation'' in phase space-which is the space of configurations of a physical system. They're two names of the same thing.

This isn't spacetime, which is something completely different.

The relation of all these notions to each other is, by now, well known. It doesn't make much sense going all metaphysical about guesswork and whatnot. The results only matter, how they're obtained much less so.

And, once more, all the ``interpretations'' and ``formulations'' of quantum mechanics are a matter of personal taste, since they all lead to the same results for quantities that are invariant under the transformations of phase space (or configuration space) that leave it invariant. That's why it makes as much sense discussing them as it does discussing the choice of a coordinate system.

While it is interesting, for sociology, to measure citations counts, for physics it's mot that relevant. That's the difference between knowing how to count and knowing how to understand the meaning of something.

Stam Nicolis

no, the space of all configurations of a physical system is the configuration space. It is not the same thing as the phase space, which is the product of configuration space Q and momentum space P. Which is a different thing, namely the space where the Hamilton formalism lives, so that the Hamilton equations define trajectories q(t) and p(t) together. Instead, the Schroedinger equation lives only on the configuration space Q, and gives as a solution psi(q,t), and not psi(p,q,t).

I agree with you that citation counts are not really relevant. Tell this the string theorists, who like to argue about the high number of citations they fabricate themselves.

Just an example where interpretation matters: The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation interprets one part of the Schroedinger equation as a continuity equation with a probability flow. So, it gives the velocity as defined by the guiding equation a physical meaning. That means, singularities of this velocity are unphysical and have to be regularized in a correct theory. So, dBB guides us toward a modification of quantum theory, and indicates a place where quantum theory may fail. Namely, near the zeros of the wave function in configuration space. Quantum theory in other interpretations avoids to give this probability flow a physical interpretation, thus, according to them that infinities at zeros of the wave function do not matter at all. So, different interpretations define different directions for theory development.

The funny thing with people who argue that interpretations don't matter is, in my experience up to now, that they start to argue heavily in favor of the mainstream interpretation (minimal Copenhagen/spacetime) against every other interpretation (dBB/Lorentz ether) if somebody succeeds starting a discussion. Quite inconsistent - the natural reaction would be neutrality, once interpretations don't matter. But it makes sense as an argumentation strategy: Once one prevents any discussion of interpretations, the mainstream interpretation one favors cannot be attacked.

It doesn't matter what interpretation is used. What matters are the quantities one ends up calculating. The zeros of the wavefunction aren't significant, because the wavefunction isn't a physical quantity-the probability density constructed from it is. So the problem isn't the de Broglie Bohm interpretation (or the Copenhagen interpretation); it's insisting that non-invariant quantities have any meaning, beyond defining the invariant quantities. Similarly, it's meaningless to talk of singularities in the velocity. There's no point in ``regularizing'' non-existent singularities.

These are technical errors, not a matter of interpretation.

It doesn't make any sense ``defending'' or ``attacking'' any interpretation, since this is a matter of personal taste.

The continuity equation, both in classical and quantum mechanics, is defined in terms of the probability density and the current, that are, both, invariant quantities. This is well known, since Liouville, for classical mechanics and since Dirac for quantum mechanics and there aren't any singularities, due to conservation laws.

The probability flow, in phase space, is that of an incompressible fluid, so it preserves the volume in phase space.

The space of configurations is the phase space, in classical and quantum mechanics, because to define any configuration, both position and momentum are required; one of them isn't enough. That it is possible to work with a wavefunction, defined only in position space or only in momentum space, is another issue, that is completely irrelevant for the discussion. It does have as a consequence, for quantum mechanics, that the current is a non-local function of the density. The classical counterpart, indeed, is that Liouville's equation can't be written as a diffusion equation, either, since there isn't any diffusion in phase space in classical mechanics, for integrable systems-which are the only systems that can be obtained as classical limits of quantum systems. It's not known what the quantum systems are, whose classical limits aren't integrable.

Stam Nicolis

that the configuration space and the phase space are different things is, sorry, elementary, Wiki-level basic knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Configuration_space_(physics)

The probability current in quantum theory is local in the configuration space. But the configuration is, beyond 1 point particle theory, a global object.

You wrote "The continuity equation, both in classical and quantum mechanics, is defined in terms of the probability density and the current, that are, both, invariant quantities". The probability current in the Schroedinger equation (which is an equation in configuration space, for psi(q,t), not on phase space for some psi(p,q,t)) defines, of course, a velocity, simply by dividing the current by the probability. Dividing to "invariant quantities" does not give an "invariant quantity"? Not really plausible. But it is this velocity which becomes singular at the zeros of the wave function, that means, becomes arbitrary large near the zeros.

You wrote "to define any configuration, both position and momentum are required; one of them isn't enough. That it is possible to work with a wavefunction, defined only in position space or only in momentum space, is another issue, that is completely irrelevant for the discussion." Sorry, that makes no sense. Schroedinger's theory works fine with defining only psi(q,t), and the momentum is, then, simply a strange name for the operator -i\hbar \partial_i, you don't need any momentum at all, the wave function on configuration space psi(q,t_0) defines the quantum state completely.

No " probability current " exists.

Before any successful transaction, admittances exist. But you cannot monitor the ground noise, and you will never do.

When a transaction proceeds, no more probabilities are involved, but the current, the transfer occurs. The formalism is strictly undulatory and strictly deterministic; it is applicable both to the admittances and to the transfer.

Nor the ground noise, nor the admittances, nor the transactions do not dwell in the Newtonian macro-time you are accustomed to.

Quantum dynamics the same as fluid dynamics? :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY-PBkxAE0Y

The thing is there is such a thing as contingent and non-contingent observation in this universe of ours! Photons bring us (via vision) both data-potentials a situation where both are 'valid' but neither holds the measure. It's not a case of either/or - the two records are not relative and can't fit within its remit. This tells us that the foundational state in the universe does not conform to relativity. This situation takes us beyond relativity but back to what's actually involved in us being objective. When we apply this understanding we should be able to better account for what is currently 'dark'.

@Emmanouil Markoulakis

Quantum dynamics can be at best have some weak analogy in fluid dynamics. The wave function is defined on the configuration space, not in the physical space. Both are the same only for a single point particle, where the configuration is the position of the particle. In all other cases, the configuration space is much larger, for n point particles it is a 3n dimensional space.

Macroscopic waves in condensed matter have very little in common with individual waves of the microphysics.

An individual wave (a photon, an electron, a proton, etc.) has only one emitter and only one absorber.

The next thing you will be saying is that Farther Christmas doesn't exist?

Well, around Christmas there are several down every high street in the western world (and in the east now I gather) giving presents to kids!

It's just a matter of approach?

Indeed Bohm had a better approach to QM. see:

.Bohmian Double Slit Interpretation by Dual Entangled Universes, and the Benjamin Libet experiment.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0047v1.pdf

see also: http://vixra.org/author/leo_vuyk

"The next thing you will be saying is that Farther Christmas doesn't exist?"

LOL! :)

Hi Leo,

Have a look/read of The Painter Reality and the Real. You may want to start with pt 2 first!

Vision-Space: The painter, reality and the real – Part 2 https://youtu.be/hbFtIIHOQ9Y

Vision-Space: The painter, reality and the real https://youtu.be/gzzBYOs6mc8

Vision-Space: Follow-up: The painter, reality and the real https://youtu.be/JMGhI7hfDhE

I think the duality is within us for sure. It's there because its required to be there due to the relationship we have had to form with EMR. A relationship that our current instrumentation does not enjoy! It has not been designed to interface with both the data potentials that can be 'extracted' from light but us a complex bio systems.

The question then becomes why and how does EMR have two records of where its been? I think that this is related to its structure, with both a magnetic and electrical component, with the magnetic component being the data potential that's 'dark' to our existing instrumentation. This suggests that DM and DE are linked to magnetism as Emmanouil is suggesting. Our universe is a form of duality?

It's this unsubstantiated link that 'trick's us into the suggestion of entangled multiverses in order to 'explain' the current conceptual model that has been developed due to us failing to engage with a data-set embedded within the light array. To get beyond the impasse we need to subjectively investigate the structure of the phenomenon to establish the science behind it, then develop some replacement technology so we can 'see' correctly - ie. make more meaningful observations. We need to correct the oversight and then re-engage?

Thanks Emmanuil, No our single ( non symmetric) universe can not exist. There should be at least one second anti-copy ( Charge Parity symmetric) anti matter based universe, entangled down to each stringy quantum.

Hi John,

Thank you for these presentations. Indeed the crux of the queeste is related to left and right exchange in your eyes and in pictures.

Just as you can imagine what happens if you would be made of Charge parity symmetric anti matter living inside a CP symmetric universe far away.

for general info of Quantum FFF Theory see: http://vixra.org/author/leo_vuyk

Standing Wave Structure of Matter in Space

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxMwQqrfe9k

Could it be possible for one existing language on one planet to depict the all the laws of the universe? - May be it could- because that is what languages do: depicting a universe (math for instance) - But the least one could say is that a languages in is need of new words new connotations, to upgrade the way of representation. All languages change by history because of nature's resistance keeps on appearing in a dirfferent way.

@ Willy LJ Van Buggenhout. Mario Bunge had written that any theory in physics must explicit its mathematical and logical axioms, its semantical axioms, and its physical axioms.

So he is hated by all the academic highnesses of the Göttingen-København hegemonic sect: they despise the semantic and the physical axioms, and use surrepticious postulates instead, for a weird mathematical phenomenology.

Dear All,

What are you talking about?

Here is the person who confirmed the de Broglie waves (modification) explaining matter!

Dr. Milo Wolff mathematical physicists.

Dr. Milo Wolff Connecting de Broglie waves with Special Relativity(The man who discovered the spherical standing wave model of mass in space. Discovery of the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM)) Milo Wolff :

Dr Milo Wolff: Sagnac Award 2010, Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA). WSM Physics.

(video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU3UUwSHp-Y

(full interview) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRv6WYWyOYA

(biography) https://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Biography.htm

https://www.amazon.com/Schroedingers-Universe-Origin-Natural-Laws/dp/1432719793

Explaining Dr. Milo's work about all matter being manifestations of standing waves:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BTcmuGdLCU

Article: https://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Wave-Structure-Matter.htm

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Institute of Crete

https://www.amazon.com/Schroedingers-Universe-Origin-Natural-Laws/dp/1432719793

Pfff !

Sure, atomic corteges are standing waves, but not at all in the way Wolff imagines. He does not use the Dirac's equation.

quote:

"He does not use the Dirac's equation."

Why? Is this mandatory?

http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Milo_M_Wolff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwYs8tTLZ24&t=3486s

Dirac Speaking about renormalization of infinite numbers...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et8-gg6XNDY

Dirac Interview

We move on not by arguing over the 'options' that inconsistancies present but by standing back and allowing the new paradigm to coalesce. Usually this results in the issues evaporating or at least the debate moving off in a different direction.

@ Emmanouil Markoulakis: "Is Dirac mandatory?". For an electron, sure !

Four components. No one less.

But Wolff sticks to his macroscopic macro-waves on water, with out and in directions, relative to a center. This is not compatible with the Dirac's equation, which implies that two components are retrochronous.