In de Broglie’s double solution theory the wave-function wave does not guide the particle. That’s why he named it the ‘double solution theory’.
The wave-function wave is fictitious. It doesn’t physically exist. It doesn’t guide the particle. It is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments.
Anyway, in sum, there are two waves in de Broglie’s double solution theory. The wave-function wave does not guide the particle. It doesn’t physically exist. It is the physical wave in a hidden subquantic medium which guides the particle. You can understand this, or you can keep not understanding de Broglie’s double solution theory.
The physical wave and the statistical wave only differ by a normalization factor. They’re the same kind of mathematical entity, defined on the same space, having the same properties.
“That the guiding wave, in the general case, propagates not in ordinary three-space but in a multidimensional-configuration space is the origin of the notorious ‘nonlocality’ of quantum mechanics. It is a merit of the de Broglie-Bohm version to bring this out so explicitly that it cannot be ignored.”
de Broglie states configuration space is fictitious. Meaning, it doesn’t physically exist and has nothing to do with the guiding wave.
NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS
A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION
by
LOUIS DE BROGLIE
“In addition, we will see that, for particle systems, the [wave-function] wave is propagated in a configuration space, which is an abstract and fictitious space.”
Bohmian mechanics: configuration space is real and is what waves in terms of the pilot-wave.
de Broglie’s double solution theory: configuration space is fictitious. It is a mathematical construct. It doesn’t physically exist. The guiding wave exists in a physically real hidden medium. The guiding wave exists in ordinary three-space.
Have you ever convinced anyone of…well, anything, related to your idea? If you genuinely have something to contribute, then write up a paper— an actual scientific paper with rigor and math and specifics, not philosophical ramblings and quote drops— and submit it to a journal. Design an experiment that would prove or disprove your idea. Talk to real physicists— in person, and not on a random message board— and let them poke holes in it. And so on. Repeatedly quoting the all-caps NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS etc. from a physicist whose major work was done 60 or 70 so years ago is not a compelling argument.
So, for example: Is there an equivalent of Schrodinger’s equation for your system that differs from the standard QM case? Write it out, using actual math instead of vague analogies and quotes. How does second quantization work? Is there an action and a Lagrangian in your setup? As Asympotically fat alluded to above, how do wave-functions of a multi-body system correspond to a physical wave, and how do you enforce conversation laws? And so on. Science involves very specific, technical, rigorous ideas; from the links you’ve been insistently repeating, it looks like you don’t understand the difference between that and what you’re doing. Hell, many of us are familiar with the philosophy of quantum mechanics as a discipline, and what you’re doing isn’t even that.