Talk:Pilot wave theory

Request for comments

I have started to create an article for this subject. I am planning further work on it in the near future, but I would welcome comments on any errors I have introduced. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadly Nut (talk • contribs) 22:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This entry's introductory material is a model Wikipedia preamble for a technical and somewhat obscure topic. Would that all articles came up to this explanatory benchmark. JohndanR (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Small tidy up of this article so far. I have upgraded the class to start, because it's no longer a stub, and the importance to Medium because that is the importance of the Bohm Interpretation. I still need to add the mathematical foundation, and to check out the references. My ultimate intention is to improve the article for the Bohm Interpretation - this theory is an obvious reference for it, and is giving me some much-needed experience in writing an article for Wikipedia. Deadly Nut (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

J(t) needs to be defined in the formula for the Bohm propagator. Randallbsmith (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not only that but X1 and X2 on LHS do not appear on RHS of the equation. This whole section needs more detail.

(X1,t1) initial point, (X2,t2) final point - along path of actual particle in the integral on RHS.

In the section on the derivation of the Schrodinger eq, for the value of Q the square root of rho is in both numerator and denominator - is this correct? If so, shouldn't the value be reduced/simplified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.210.153 (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This equation is correct, and no further simplification is needed. The numerator is the action of the Laplacian ($\nabla ^{2}$) on ${\sqrt {\rho }}$. That is, it would be equally correct to write $\nabla ^{2}({\sqrt {\rho }})$. WhiteInk (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Paper date?

This one was in 1926 ... L. de Broglie, “Sur la possibilité de relier les phénomènes d'interference et de diffraction á la théorie des quanta de luminère" (tr., On the possibility of linking the phenomena of interference and diffraction of the quantum theory of light).

What is the 1927 paper that the article references? --J. D. Redding 05:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC) [ps., is it, The identities of divergence in the new unitary theory? ... related (?) i did find this neat note by Oliver Heaviside about the identity of divergence of electromagnetism. Electrical engineer, Volume 15. Page 87.]

Did find this one. L. de Broglie, “Deux conceptions adverses sur la nature de la lumi`ere et leur synthese possible”. Scientia 42, 128–34 (1927) . --J. D. Redding 05:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC) (tr., Two opposing views on the nature of light and their possible synthesis)

Also found this one. L. de Broglie, "Une tentative d' interpretation causale et non lineaire de la mecanique ondulatoire : la theorie de la double solution". Gauthier- Villars, Paris, 1956 ; english translation : Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1960. --J. D. Redding 06:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC) [not the paper, but I think related] (tr. An attempt of interpretation and causal nonlinear mechanical wave: the theory of double solution.)

Looking at the De Broglie–Bohm theory ... lead me to L. de Broglie (1928), La nouvelle dynamique des quanta, in: Electrons et Photons, Gauthier-Villars, Paris. 5 C. (tr., The new dynamics of quantum). --J. D. Redding 06:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

New "Weak Measurement" Double-Slit Experimental Results

The experiment reported here http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110602/full/news.2011.344.html seems to support the pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics. Does this merit addition to the article? 71.218.129.139 (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Recommend adding this video demonstrating the Yves Couder experiments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9yWv5dqSKk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.139.35.250 (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. But, apparently no one has claimed Couder's macroscopic metaphor could form the basis of pilot wave quantum theory, the subject of this article. Perhaps it could, but a somewhat literal translation would have profound implications for quantum technology. In particular, quantum algorithms would have no complexity advantage over classical. The complexity advantage of quantum algorithms requires that all paths literally be taken simultaneously. Bohmian mechanics has this property, because the assumption is that the wave function exists autonomously; even empty wave functions can exist in standard pilot wave theory. If the particle itself generates the wave as it proceeds, as in the Couder metaphor, then the full wave function would not evolve until the particle had passed over all possible trajectories. Not a problem for small cases, since particles are moving in some sense "fast". For large enough problems, such as integer factorization, the system would not pass through enough trajectories to find a congruence, and thus provide a peak in the spectral analysis, in any reasonable time. It is interesting that all the work on quantum computation is predicated on the assumption that wave functions (whether pilot or Copenhagen interpretation) simple exist rather than evolve; and this assumption has never been put to the test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.117.105 (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagrees with main article

This is the merge discussion — MaxEnt 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi - I'm not a wikipedia regular, so bear with me. Why is this article separate from De_Broglie–Bohm_theory ?

Also, they disagree. That article says "Contrary to a popular legend, de Broglie actually gave the correct rebuttal that the particular technique could not be generalized for Pauli's purpose, although the audience might have been lost in the technical details and de Broglie's mild mannerism left the impression that Pauli's objection was valid." and this article says "De Broglie was not able to find a response to this objection." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.111.147.89 (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

merge I generally prefer my articles diced up along logical cleavage lines, even if the pieces are small. However, this case strikes me as extremely clear, per lumpy Wikipedia convention, that these articles should merge. It's possible that pilot wave survives as a sub-article of De_Broglie–Bohm_theory. — MaxEnt 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I read a bit more, and discovered that some points of disagreement between the two articles are severe, particularly concerning de Broglie's rebuttal/non-rebuttal of the inelastic scattering critique. — MaxEnt 17:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

merge See comment from Crazy2be on 2 November 2016. — MaxEnt 17:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

separate While some people like to lump Bohmian mechanics and de Broglie pilot-wave theory together, they are actually separate. Their surface similarities lead to big differences in the details. Thus, I recommend keeping the articles separate yet referencing each other. Still, it would be nice to resolve the disagreements between the two articles. The Pilot_waves article should also reference the Matter_wave article. Furthermore, hydrodynamic pilot waves have been investigated recently by researchers such as Prof. Yves Couder of the Université Paris-Diderot and Prof. John Bush of MIT. These hydrodynamic pilot waves certainly exist whether or not pilot waves exist within quantum mechanics, and thus the pilot wave article should stand alone with links to both Bohmian mechanics and hydrodynamic pilot wave theory. Their work is mentioned in the article on Hydrodynamic_quantum_analogs, which should be cited from the base pilot wave article. 192.80.95.230 (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested opposition and hence lack of consensus on a long-standing proposal. Klbrain (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

manifest nonlocality?

What is the "manifest nonlocality" mentioned in the consequences section? Fresheneesz (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I second this sentiment. This should either be explained more fully or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.36.26.146 (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2016‎ (UTC)

This is better explained on the article about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory.

The theory is deterministic[1] and explicitly nonlocal: the velocity of any one particle depends on the value of the guiding equation, which depends on the configuration of the system given by its wavefunction; the latter depends on the boundary conditions of the system, which in principle may be the entire universe.

As an aside, these articles really should be merged, although the correct solution might just be to delete this one (change to a redirect). It looks like the other article is much higher quality.Crazy2be (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

PBS space time video response

1. one type is of bad pixel quality, low definition, 2. In a photo you named Pauli as Heisenberg, 3. the pilot wavy theory is a moronic mistake, because if we switch a detector in front of the final screen just a little bit before the particle arrives, and afar from the now passed two slits, the particle will appear to a very different position. pilot wavers (pilot wave believers) don't understand that quantum field theory is the probabilistic merger of interactions among fields, thus if we make a sudden change before the collapse at the final destination, the interaction event (which some morons call particle) will appear "faster than causality and light" afar. Of course the morons (particle wavers) are wrong. Causality never travels faster than light, and simply the immediate wavefunctional change doesn't affect the speed of causality diffusion, because changes of the wavefunction itself are immediate, because all components of the experiment are entangled with their overall wavefunction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410A:C500:8D92:8418:8856:6CF1 (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

the wavefunction of an experiment is a particle and it's components it's viscera, (but the word particle is moronic - coherent system). A particle is self-entangled, thus it changes immediately it's wavefunction. Simple experiments are described by one wavefunction. Complex fragmented experiments might have partial or total decoherence in some of their segments. If total decoherence is forced at some part of the experiment, we can say that this section is a new uncorrelated experiment. If you don't take into account the percentage of decoherence your experiment causes at each stage, then you fuck the experiment up and you should find a different job.

one might claim that the pilot wave theory is correct, because a component of the experiment is also the system or person who opens the final detector a little bit in front of the two slit experiment final screen; but this is wrong because it distorts the notion of the particles forcing them to be ball like and not "field liaison", thus the pilot wave theory is a metaphysical mistake. A mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410A:C500:8D92:8418:8856:6CF1 (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Why are there two pages on this topic? Merger needed

This page really needs to be merged with De Broglie–Bohm theory. They are the exact same topic. I don't understand how no one has noticed this yet. Bzzzing (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The merge discussion already appears above under "Disagrees with main article". Jmonti824 (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Connection to electron trajectory may be tenuous

Additionally, the linked page (a redirect) is rather messy and may need an improved NPOV. 97.80.84.84 (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Zitterbewegung

A derivation of pilot waves has been demonstrated from purely classical Maxwell’s electrodynamics and published recently in a high impact factor journal (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-020-05928-5). I am the author of the paper, and therefore I am not the person allowed to upload the reference, since a COI is at stake. But perhaps, if someone finds it interesting, he could introduce a section entitled “Zitterbewegung” with something similar to this:

Charged extended particles can experience self-oscillatory dynamics as a result of classical electrodynamic self-interactions \cite{}. This trembling motion has a frequency that is closely related to the zitterbewegung frequency appearing in Dirac's equation. The mechanism producing these fluctuations arises because some parts of an accelerated charged corpuscle emit electromagnetic perturbations that can affect another part of the body, producing self-forces. Using the Liénard-Wiechert potential as solutions to Maxwell's equations with sources, it can be shown that these forces can be described in terms of state-dependent delay differential equations, which display limit cycle behavior. Therefore, the principle of inertia, as appearing in Newton's first law, would only hold on average, since uniform motion can become unstable through a process of symmetry breaking of the Lorentz group. Consequently, pilot waves would be necessary attached to any electrodynamic body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvaro12Lopez (talk • contribs) 12:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Merger

It seems to me that these pages need to be either merged or distinguished:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory

There is a lot of different information in each, but they seem to be the same topic. Etomology (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Experiments against Pilot wave theory

The following article claims that Pilot wave was disproven.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/famous-experiment-dooms-pilot-wave-alternative-to-quantum-weirdness-20181011/

Not sure what the verdict has been on that, but maybe this experiment is something that should be talked about in the wiki page. Ionsme2 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The two papers that the Quanta article was based on were already in the article. I reworked the paragraph as it was biased towards the original work. I added a ref to the Quanta article mainly to balance the youtube ref at the beginning of the paragraph.

I did not include the claim that pilot wave was disproven as that did no occur. Only the oil vibration experiment supported in favor of pilot wave was challenged. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)