de Broglie’s pilot wave theory is a hidden variable theory. de Broglie himself realized his pilot-wave theory was incorrect. de Broglie’s wave mechanics and double solution theory is not a hidden variable theory.
So the paper “Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory” is not actually about the double solution theory? But you yourself referred to it as an authoritative source for de Broglie’s wave mechanics. 
Or does de Broglie’s statement that the particle is precisely located at every instant somehow in fact mean that the particle is not precisely located at every instant? Is his quantum potential only mathematically identical to Bohm’s, and thus nonlocal, but in a way obvious only to your superior conceptual insight not actually the same, depending on the locations of all particles but not actually depending on them?
Honestly, how do you square the explicit statement by de Broglie that his theory is a hidden variable theory with your insistence that it’s not?
There are no such things as hidden variables. In de Broglie’s pilot-wave theory there is only the wave function. Pilot-wave theory is a hidden variable theory. de Broglie realized his pilot-wave theory is incorrect and went back to his original idea of his wave mechanics and double solution theory.
In de Broglie’s wave mechanics and double solution theory there are two waves. There is the physical wave which guides the particle and the statistical wave function. The physical wave which guides the particle is local and not a hidden variable. The statistical wave function does not physically exist. The statistical wave function is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments. As it does not physically exist it cannot be assumed to be part of a hidden variable.
Watch the following video. In it there is a slide stating de Broglie’s wave mechanics is not a hidden variable theory and gives what is occurring physically in nature a different theoretical name.
‘The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets’
Cite for the existence of supersolids, please.
The aether is the supersolid.
See the behaviors in a double slit experiment. It is the aether which waves.
‘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.
‘The Milky Way’s dark matter halo appears to be lopsided’
“The emerging picture of the asymmetric dark matter halo is supported by the \Lambda CDM halos formed in the cosmological N-body simulation.”
The Milky Way’s ‘dark matter halo’ is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether.
“The word ‘ether’ has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. […] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. 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. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.” - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
The piece of window glass referred to by Laughlin is the supersolid nature of the aether.
Show me evidence that supersolids exist at all, don’t just repeat back one of your “Liza Program” responses.
He’s got you there.
“Well, Art is Art, isn’t it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know.”
– Groucho Marx
[quote=“QuickSilver, post:167, topic:686772”]
He’s got you there.
and
I have searched for any experiments done after Chan’s most recent, and have yet to find any that contradict it.
And the position of that particle, always definite according to de Broglie, is a hidden variable—hidden because typically, you can know it only up to the limits dictated by the uncertainty principle. There’s only two options: either the particle’s position is always definite, in which case it’s a hidden variable, or it’s not, in which case you’re not talking about the double solution theory.
So, what is it? Do you believe the particle always has a definite position, or not?
This is patently false, as well. The wave is a solution of the Schrödinger equation, and like all solutions of the Schrödinger equation is a function of the positions of all the particles considered; thus, it is nonlocal, as the position of some particle 1 instantaneously influences the value of the guiding wave at the position of particle 2 and vice versa. The only case in which that’s not obvious is that in which we limit our attention to a single particle. But in the general case, the velocity of the ith particle will, via the guidance equation, depend explicitly on the positions of all other particles. This is, again, just a simple fact of the mathematical formulation of the theory.
I mean, once again, you of course always have the possibility of convincing me of the opposite, by writing down the wave function for many particles and show that it always factorizes—if it were possible, it would be simple math. But of course, if it were possible, it would also mean that the theory is wrong, because it could not account for nonlocal quantum effects.
Nobody talks about the statistical wave as being a hidden variable; it’s the position of the particle that is the hidden variable.
No. They call their model an ‘exposed variable theory’, because you can see explicitly where the particle is at all times. But in a fully quantum theory, the particle’s position is subject to uncertainty, and can’t in general always be fully known. This ‘hides’ the variable that is explicit in their model.
Of all the posters on this board to be whooshed by sarcasm, why’d it have to be you? 
Naw-I saw that one-I just quoted the wrong post. :smack:
mpc755, I told you on page two that endlessly quoting this would earn you a warning. You have now done so and this is an official warning.
I am electing to leave this thread open in the short-term but may decide - in things don’t improve - to close it forthwith.
That quote was relevant to the specific question. The question was, “Cite for the existence of supersolids, please.”
Robert Laughlin describing the aether as a piece of window glass is evidence the aether is a supersolid as that is how a piece of window glass particles of matter can move through and displace would behave.
Please make the effort to understand the context of why I have repeated text from a previous post before banning.
The observed behaviors of particles of matter and the aether is evidence supersolids exist at all as that is what the aether behaves as.
That is not evidence for the existence of supersolids-that is Robert Laughlin claiming that aether is a supersolid…which(until supersolids are proven to exist at all) is about as valid as me saying that aether is unicorn breath.
Aether has mass which physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.
The Milky Way’s halo is the state of displacement of the aether.
The Milky Way’s halo is curved spacetime.
What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.
The state of displacement of the aetheris gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.
In a double slit experiment it is the aether which waves.
All of that is irrelevant. I’m not moderating you for content but for debate tactics. Your repeated use of the same quote shows a certain amount of either debating in bad faith or an inability to debate at all. Neither is welcome in Great Debates though - for the second - we encourage poster to learn to do so.
Is this a computer program that just spits out random sentences from a select list? Say something new that pertains to what people are actually saying, please.
‘Exposed’ variable means you can know the position and momentum of the particle without detecting it.
Due to the downconverted photon pair traveling with opposite angular momentums each of the downconverted pair can determined the position and momentum of the other. Each of the pair can determine the state of the other.
Even though the position and momentum is not known to us it is not hidden to each of the pair. Entanglement is defined as an ‘exposed variable theory’.