The particle travels a well defined path. The well defined path is not known to us unless we detect the particle. The uncertainty principle is still in effect in de Broglie’s wave mechanics and double solution theory.
Incorrect. You are using a concept, ‘hidden variable theories’ to place constraints on all interpretations of quantum mechanics where the particle travels a well defined path. Hidden variable theories were an early attempt to explain quantum mechanics beyond its statistical nature. To then use this to refute all theories where the particle travels a well defined path is putting yourself into a logic loop you can’t escape from.
‘Exposed variable theories’ are not ‘hidden variable theories’. ‘Exposed variable theories’ also refer the particle traveling a well defined path. However, ‘exposed variable theories’ in terms of entanglement refer to each of the downconverted photons being able to determine the position and momentum of the pair due to their being created with opposite polarizations caused by conservation of momentum.
[/quote]
I am simply clarifying what entanglement is. It shows bad faith on your side to deny understanding this so you can incorrectly insist all theories where the particle travels a well defined path are hidden variable theories.
The quantum state does not (generally) specify a definite position for the physical system, hence no well-defined path, hence any theory in which that position/path is always definite is a hidden variable theory. That’s simply definitional; if you argue against this, then you’re just using words in a way different from their agreed-upon meaning.
They are by the definition of the term ‘hidden variable’. And even if you wish to use another definition, Bell’s inequalities—as I demonstrated—apply to any theory in which the path of a particle is well defined, and there are no nonlocal influences, whatever you wish to call them—call them ‘huizilopochtli theories’ and Bell’s inequalities still apply, exactly by virtue of the path always being definite: that, and the absence of nonlocal influences, is all that is needed.
Anyway, there’s still those questions; they should be trivial for you to answer. Four bits of information is all I want, is that asking too much?
[ol]
[li]In your theory, does each particle always have a definite position x = (some value) and a definite momentum p = (some value)?[/li][li]In your theory, does the position and/or momentum of one particle depend instantaneously on that of any other?[/li][li]Do you believe that in de Broglie’s double solution theory, every particle always has a definite position/momentum?[/li][li]Do you believe that in de Broglie’s souble solution theory, the position/momentum of a particle can be instantaneously influenced (via the nonlocal quantum potential) by those of other particles?[/li][/ol]
Actually, let me make this a little easier: from your posts so far, it seems that you would want to answer yes, no, yes, no, where I think you’ve been fairly explicit with the first two questions, and the last two follow because you consider your theory to be the same as de Broglie’s. Am I correct in presuming these answers?
If you just don’t understand something about these questions—if, say, you’re unfamiliar with the terminology or they’re too technical—and thus are hesitant in providing answers, I’d be happy to try and clarify, of course.
You are placing a false constraint on all theories where the particle travels a well defined path even if that path is not known unless you detect the particle.
You are incorrectly stating that all such theories are hidden variable theories. This is incorrect.
Hidden variable theories were an early attempt to move beyond the statistical nature of quantum mechanics.
de Broglie’s pilot-wave theory is a hidden variable theory as it only consists of the statistical wave function.
There are now theories described as exposed variable theories. In an exposed variable theory the particle also travels a well defined path. However, when a downconverted pair are created they are entangled as the variables are exposed to one another as they can determine each others position and momentum.
de Broglie’s wave mechanics and double solution theory is an exposed variable theory as it consists of both a physical wave which guides the particle and a statistical wave function.
No. I—following Bell’s method—am deriving consequences from the assumption that the particle always follows a well-defined path (and there are no nonlocal influences). Nothing else is assumed; if these two things—there’s a well defined path, and there are no nonlocal influences—are true, then Bell inequalities follow, whether you want to call that a hidden variable theory or not. I’ve given the derivation; you can just review it above.
Hidden variable theories are all theories in which there are parameters that are not defined by the quantum state, and that nevertheless have definite values; they’re not defined by their historical pedigree, but simply by what they assume about the fundamental quantities of the theory. I’ve quoted the definition by wikipedia.
If you disagree, please give me a precise definition of what you mean by a ‘hidden variable theory’.
De Broglie’s double solution theory is a hidden variable theory because the particles always have a definite position which is not fixed by the quantum state—this is the agreed upon universally used definition of ‘hidden variable’. And again, it doesn’t matter what we call the theory—what matters is that position is always definite, which, together with an absence of nonlocal influences, would mean that the theory cannot violate Bell inequalities and is thus observationally false. But of course, thanks to the nonlocal quantum potential, the double solution theory contains just the right sort of nonlocal influences.
And I’m still somewhat baffled by your unwillingness/inability to answer my very basic questions. If there’s any sort of communication to take place, you should really try and clarify your ideas; otherwise, it seems like you don’t really have any interest in discussion, and simply want to copy and paste your pre-written screeds and belittle your discussion partners. In any case, I’ll make things yet easier for you, and won’t bother to copy the questions yet again; instead, if you don’t protest, I’ll assume your silence signals agreement with the answers I presented in my last post.
Your basic questions are based on the incorrect assumption that de Broglie’s wave mechanics and double solution theory is a hidden variable theory.
Let’s start with the basics. Are you able to understand there is a difference between de Broglie’s pilot-wave theory and de Broglie’s wave mechanics and double solution theory?
My questions don’t assume anything; I merely ask whether you think that position/momentum always have a definite value in that theory. If you get hung up on the term ‘particle’, it’s the term de Broglie himself uses for the singular region of the v-wave.
There’s no v-wave whose singular region is supposed to give rise to the particle in the pilot-wave theory, rather, the particle is directly postulated as an entity in itself. The fundamental entities in the double solution theory are the real (unnormalized) v-wave and the statistical ψ-wave, which are related by a constant normalization factor, while in the pilot wave theory, there is the ψ-wave and the particle.
In both theories, the motion of the particle (or singular region of the v-wave) is determined by the quantum potential, which is derived from the probability density determined by the (normalized) wave function.
Now how about answering some of my questions? Or how about this one: do you understand that Bell inequalities apply to every theory in which observable quantities have a definite value even if the quantum state (ψ-wave function) does not determine that value, and there are no nonlocal influences?
You did not answer the question.
How does the atom in front of the ball get behind the ball if it cannot move?
An 11 inch ball is millions of times longer than an atom. As the ball moves through the supersolid, where does the stuff in front go during the time that the ball occupies the same location?
A liquid is not a supersolid. In a liquid, the atoms would be pushed to the side or above or below the ball and the movement of the ball through the water would actually cause a wave at the surface where the water ended. In a very large body of water, the number of atoms moved, dispersed over a wide area might make the wake too diffuse to be seen, but it would exist.
In a supersolid you do not have the same wave forming ability. It is a solid. The atoms cannot move. So where are the atoms, not after the ball has passed, but while the ball occupies the place they have been?
*"The pilot wave theory is a hidden variable theory. Consequently:
the theory has realism (meaning that its concepts exist independently of the observer);
the theory has determinism.
The positions and momenta of the particles are considered to be the hidden variables."*
In pilot-wave theory, since it is considered a hidden-variable theory, the positions and momenta of the particles are considered to be hidden variables.
“According to EPR there were two possible explanations. Either there was some interaction between the particles, even though they were separated, or the information about the outcome of all possible measurements was already present in both particles.”
A third possible explanation is since the downconverted photon pair are created with opposite angular momenta due to conservation of momentum they are able to determine the position and momentum of their pair. This is called the exposed variable theory.
de Broglie wave mechanics and double solution theory is an exposed variable theory.
You are in a bowling alley filled with a supersolid. You roll the bowling ball.
Even though the bowling ball is considered to be incompressible, it condenses slightly as it transitions from being at rest in the supersolid to moving through the supersolid. This condensation allows the supersolid to fill-in where the bowling ball had been. This allows for the supersolid in front of the direction the bowling ball is moving to be displaced.
The aether changes state at c and something similar is occurring as objects move through and displace the aether.
This condensation of objects due to their motion through the aether causes a pressure differential in the aether allowing it to wave.
This condensation of the object occurs during acceleration of the object through the aether. The aether pushing back is referred to as the ‘back reaction’ in the following article. This is the aether ‘displacing back’.
‘An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction’
“We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself. This “back-reaction” is quantified by the tendency of angular momentum flux threading across a surface.”
Incorrect. In de Broglie’s pilot-wave theory the motion of the particle is determined by the wave function. In de Broglie’s wave mechanics and double solution theory the motion of the particle is determined by the physically real v-wave. The probabilistic results of experiments are determined by the non-physical, statistical wave function.
I say there is evidence of the supersolid nature of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it’s what waves.
I say the lopsidedness of the Milky Way’s halo is evidence of the supersolid nature of the aether.
I say the offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves is evidence of the supersolid nature of the aether.
‘Quantum mechanics rule ‘bent’ in classic experiment’
‘For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. “I feel like we’re starting to pull back a veil on what nature really is,” he said. “The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we’ve learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we’ve lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to behave.”’
“Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits.”
In de Broglie’s wave mechanics it is the hidden medium which waves. The hidden medium referred to by de Broglie is the stuff which fills ‘empty’ space. The hidden medium is another label for the aether.
A particle physically displaces the aether. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Strongly detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence between the particle and its associated wave in the aether.
What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.
The non-baryoinc fluid referred to in the following article is the stuff which fills ‘empty’ space, otherwise referred to as the aether.
‘Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies’
“Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely.”
The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.
Using this post, I have to assume that you could not find a single scientific study that makes a direct conclusion(not really interested in your off-kilter but highly imaginative interpretations) that aether is a supersolid.
If you would care to try again, please provide just one scientific study that makes the conclusion that aether is a supersolid, and said conclusion must itself use the words “aether”, “supersolid” and perhaps the word “is”.
You do realize we are in the ‘Great Debates’ section, correct? You do realize once mainstream physics understand ‘empty’ space is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid there won’t be any reason for this debate, correct?
You do realize when Robert Laughlin, Nobel Laureate, refers to the relativistic ether as a piece of window glass he is describing a supersolid, correct?
Most of the articles posted in the following refer to the gravitational aether as an incompressible fluid or as an ideal fluid.
I will realize it when he says it. He hasn’t(I checked), so this is yet another interpretation of yours. Not that it would matter anyway since what is being asked for is a scientific study, not a speech or off the cuff remark.
“Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness.” - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
You do realize we are in the ‘Great Debates’ section, correct?
You do realize once it is generally understood ‘empty’ space is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid there won’t be any reason for this debate, correct?
You did not provide a cite to a scientific study that concludes that aether is a supersolid(“piece of glass” is absolutely not acceptable, of course).
BTW, this “You do realize…” and “You are able to understand that…aren’t you” crap is very insulting, because it implies that the only reason people are disagreeing with you is because they are incapable of understanding that you are correct. I have no problem understanding you, and I still think that you are misinterpreting every single cite you have provided so far.