Sadly, PBS Spacetime keeps on producing wildly deceptive videos nigh quantum mechanics. In belatedly October, they promoted the many worlds "interpretation" which I discussed 2 weeks ago. The Nov 30th video embedded inward a higher seat promotes Bohmian mechanics – the airplane pilot moving ridge theory.
The 12-minute-long video (plus 4 minutes non related to the principal topic) correctly sketches the important of this theory in addition to some of the history. However, almost all the claims "evaluating" the theory or "comparing" it to proper quantum mechanics are highly problematic or downright deceptive. Let me hash out some of them inward detail.
In the showtime sentence, Bohmian mechanics is promoted as "one interpretation that manages to skip... all the mysterious ideas". This is, of course, rubbish. The thing that Bohmian mechanics skips is that the public is quantum mechanical, non classical. And this "skipping" is a key in addition to lethal flaw, non a virtue, of Bohmian mechanics because it's the quantum mechanical nature of our theories that is absolutely needed to acquire an understanding betwixt the reality in addition to the experiment. It's been needed for to a greater extent than than ninety years. It's a long plenty menses of fourth dimension for people to notice.
Moreover, piece Bohmian mechanics is a classical theory, it inward no way "skips" bizarre features. In particular, Bohmian mechanics has to innovate directly non-local influences – which are truly voodoo in addition to receive got been known to live prohibited past times the 1905 theory of relativity. Also, it contains novel classical waves that spread in addition to their number in addition to dilution is constantly getting out of control. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 "janitor" that would create clean all this mess – the spreading omnipresent moving ridge functions that are no longer needed for whatever predictions in addition to won't live observed – would live badly needed.
But no i has provided Bohmian mechanics amongst a well-defined janitor of this kind. So piece these critics of quantum mechanics (=Copenhagen interpretation) seat the measuring as their pet "problem", Bohmian mechanics doesn't say in addition to truly cannot say anything coherent nigh the measuring at all. Instead, Bohmian mechanics only proposes a different even out for the stage of the unitary development inward betwixt 2 measurements – something that is considered OK inward quantum mechanics, fifty-fifty past times the critics of quantum mechanics. During the measurement, the airplane pilot moving ridge should "shrink" to emulate the collapse inward proper quantum mechanics. Proper (=Copenhagen) quantum mechanics defines rattling clear rules what happens during the measuring (these insights are truly the bulk of quantum mechanics as a novel framework of physics, non some optional makeup); piece Bohmian mechanics merely doesn't receive got in addition to cannot receive got whatever replacement for these rules.
No Bohmist has ever written downward whatever rules that would regulation how the airplane pilot moving ridge shrinks. Also, in addition to it's related, none of them has ever explained how the initial dry ground of the particle after the measuring – which has to live randomly placed inside the realm of the airplane pilot wave, to grip amongst the probabilistic distribution extracted from the airplane pilot moving ridge – is determined.
Bohmian mechanics claims to take away the demand for the intrinsic randomness of Nature. However, inward reality, it only rewrites the random resultant of the concluding measuring as a component of the random initial atmospheric condition – seat of the Bohmian particle. To grip amongst the observations, the initial seat has to live random, anyway, in addition to no i knows how this random number is prepared. It agency that Bohmian mechanics doesn't truly say anything new, original, or coherent nigh the ultimate rootage of the random numbers that nosotros mensurate at the end.
Bohmian mechanics violates locality – as required past times relativity. It has no explanation for the linearity of the equation that governs the development of the moving ridge component (rebranded as the airplane pilot wave). Any completion of it that also takes tending of the measurements etc. volition unavoidably disagree amongst the depression rut capacity of the atoms. Also, Bohmian mechanics implies a frantic – in addition to experimentally unjustified – rattling fast motion of particles around places amongst \(\psi=0\) which are needed to repel the particle from the interference minima. Bohmian mechanics isn't consistent amongst the spin, particle production, in addition to other intrinsically relativistic quantum phenomena. And it has many other serious flaws that receive got been discussed inward numerous previous weblog posts on Bohmian mechanics.
And yes, the rattling claim that quantum mechanics (like understood inward Copenhagen etc.) is "near mystical" or "wildly extravagant" is just a widespread laymen's delusion. Laymen may receive got problem to empathize modern physics but that doesn't create modern physics extravagant or similar to mystical cults.
And despite its alluringly intuitive nature, for some reason, it remains a fringe theory.This meme is repeated nigh 10 times inward the video. It's clearly beingness hoped that a prevarication repeated many times becomes the truth. Bohmian mechanics is mainly "alluringly intuitive" for the laymen – in addition to de facto laymen – who just aren't capable of learning a framework of physics that goes beyond classical physics. My dot is that the term "alluringly intuitive" is absolutely subjective in addition to the people who assign this describing word to Bohmian mechanics suck as physicists.
The describing word is inward no way an objective appraisal of whatever features of Bohmian mechanics. It is a subjective feeling, in addition to i as perceived past times the intellectually inadequate people.
Also, Bohmian mechanics doesn't rest a fringe theory just for "some" reason; the vagueness nigh the hypothetical "some" argue makes the viewers think nigh some evil conspiracy. Bohmian mechanics remains a fringe theory for a rattling important, totally well-known, in addition to completely measure reason: It just doesn't grip amongst the empirically discovered properties of Nature. The laws of relativity that imply locality are a regulation that has been experimentally verified in addition to rattling accurately verified. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 theory that prohibits locality is inward existential trouble, to pose it euphemistically. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 theory that doesn't predict the spin has a problem. And so on. If I utilization a slightly non-technical linguistic communication that is gratuitous of equations, Bohmian theory remains a fringe theory merely because it's a pile of šit. To claim otherwise – e.g. to claim that Bohmian mechanics is beingness suppressed past times the animate beingness strength of some evil, white, male, pro-capitalist or bigoted physicists – agency to deceive the audiences.
You may view that Mr Matt is literally trying to brainwash the listeners in addition to create them suspicious nigh the physicists, starting from Heisenberg in addition to Bohr, who must sure as shooting receive got "some" (dirty) reasons for their conclusions. This is non how popularization of scientific discipline works. You're non truly trying to create scientific discipline popular, Mr Matt. You're trying to create scientific discipline unpopular, disliked, in addition to travel into (and its heroes) await suspicious past times repeating your pseudoscientific populist clichés.
Proper popularization of scientific discipline tries to communicate the insights made past times scientific discipline in addition to past times scientists to broader audiences. What (not only) PBS Spacetime is doing inward these videos nigh (or against) quantum mechanics is precisely the reverse thing. It wants to intimidate the scientists in addition to force them inward a management that would live favored past times the laymen. This behaviour is immensely counterproductive. Science proceeds past times careful calculations, argumentations, in addition to particularly comparisons of the empirical information amongst proposed hypotheses. It doesn't piece of work past times imposing prejudices of large bodies of people on everyone else. If you lot don't acquire this point, you lot are misunderstanding something much to a greater extent than key nigh all of scientific discipline than just a technicality nigh a particular physics experiment.
Misinterpretations of the ideas of quantum mechanics has spawned some of the worst quackery pseudoscience hoo-ha in addition to unfounded mystical storytelling of whatever scientific theory.Right. But what Mr Matt forgot to say is that Bohmian mechanics is pretty much precisely the same form of bad quackery pseudoscience hoo-ha as other stories that seek to deny or misinterpret the rattling basic principles discovered during the quantum revolution. I think that Mr Matt is an atheist fundamentalist of a sort so he thinks that a quackery attempting to confine physics inward the era of classical physics is improve than to a greater extent than idealist types of quackeries. But it's non better.
Mr Matt says a few sentences trying to create proper quantum mechanics await "weird". But again, it's non weird in addition to if it looks weird to you lot fifty-fifty after years of thinking nigh them, it's because you're stupid, non because there's something "weird" nigh quantum mechanics.
But at that topographic point is i interpretation that remains comfortably, almost stodgily, physical. Bohmian mechanics.Again, this is basically a repetition of the prevarication I've discussed above. You may focus on the key discussion inward the sentence. It's the discussion "physical". Why does he say that Bohmian mechanics is to a greater extent than "physical" than proper quantum mechanics? It's simple. It's because he thinks that the discussion "physical" agency what physicists truly telephone weep upwards "classical". It's rattling clear that the actual thing he wanted to say is the judgement amongst the discussion "classical". Mr Matt makes this fact obvious when he says that Bohmian mechanics postulates "a existent moving ridge in addition to a existent particle". What he calls "physical" – in addition to also what he calls "real" – is that the theory assumes that everything is nigh some observer-independent, objective values of some classical degrees of freedom.
But "classical" in addition to "physical" are alone different, inequivalent adjectives. After all, almost all of novel physics has been quantum mechanical – i.e. non-classical – for over ninety years. The discussion "physics" comes from the ancient Greek "physis" or "φύσις" which is Nature, non classical physics. Nature follows the laws of quantum mechanics. The identification of the words "real" in addition to "classical" is also problematic. The discussion "real" is undefined but it's clearly beingness used because the belongings is assumed to live "good". But beingness "classical" is no expert inward physics. So the words can't live equivalent. You're outpouring to give wrong conclusions if you lot care for them as equivalent.
I think that sentences similar that – in addition to particularly words similar "physical" – are rarely beingness fought against but they should live confronted vigorously because these "microagressions" may live the principal argue that keeps most laymen, fifty-fifty laymen who are interested inward modern physics, clueless in addition to deluded. People are beingness constantly told that theories of Nature should live classical past times talking heads who pretty much deliberately conflate the describing word "physical" (and other, positively sounding adjectives such as "real") amongst the totally different describing word "classical". In this way, instead of beingness explained inward what sense they demand to update their reasoning if they desire to empathize modern physics, the laymen's wrong prejudices that the public must live fundamentally classical are beingness reinforced.
Pilot moving ridge theory is maybe the most solidly physical, fifty-fifty mundane of the consummate in addition to self-consistent interpretations of quantum mechanics.It's truly amazing how many times these primary lies receive got been repeated inward the video. So again: Pilot moving ridge theory is non to a greater extent than "physical" than proper (Copenhagen) quantum mechanics. At most, it's to a greater extent than "classical". It may live "mundane" but the finish of physical theories isn't to live mundane. Their finish is for them to live right – to grip amongst the empirical observations. "Mundane" in addition to "correct" are completely different things. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 mortal who tries to written report in addition to believe things that are maximally "mundane" is unlikely to travel a expert theoretical physicist.
As Mr Matt admits at other places, airplane pilot moving ridge theory is sure as shooting non "complete". Later inward the video, he admits that it's incompatible amongst relativity in addition to the corresponding phenomena inward quantum acre theory etc. But fifty-fifty independently of quantum acre theory, Bohmian mechanics is apparently incomplete because it doesn't say how in addition to why the airplane pilot moving ridge is "cleaned" after the measuring when the particle is absorbed, how the initial (random) seat of the particle is determined, in addition to so on.
The theory may live said to live "self-consistent" only to the extent to which it is incomplete. If you lot tried to create a Bohmian theory complete, it would unavoidably live internally inconsistent. There's merely no consistent yet consummate way to depict the quantum mechanical phenomena classically – in addition to Bohmian mechanics is nix else than a subset of the attempts to depict quantum mechanical phenomena classically.
Bohmian mechanics is also considered the to the lowest degree orthodox i because orthodoxy is radicalism plus time.Well, it's non a finish of a physical theory to live orthodox or non-orthodox, either. Nevertheless, Bohmian mechanics is clearly the to the lowest degree orthodox interpretation because it seems most incompatible amongst the founders of quantum mechanics who truly defined the orthodoxy – in addition to amongst the propositions that these physicists receive got made. And amidst the available misinterpretations of quantum mechanics, Bohmian mechanics has also attracted some of the loudest criticisms past times the actual founders of the orthodoxy such as Bohr in addition to Heisenberg. Of course, the abandonment of the classical reasoning is a key component of the quantum revolution – thence a component of the orthodoxy – so if someone tries to deny this rattling basic point, that nosotros demand a novel theory to connect the equations amongst observations, he's apparently a highly non-orthodox quantum mechanics guy. He's truly non a quantum mechanics guy at all. If a mortal were this non-orthodox relatively to religions, he would live a full-fledged heretic in addition to would live burned at stake.
So the "non-orthodox" describing word doesn't truly thing for the evaluation of the theory but the reasons why this describing word is beingness used are sociological, historical, in addition to rattling clear.
Bohr in addition to Heisenberg were radicals.Rubbish.
They considered themselves in addition to they were conservative physicists in addition to they were extending thinking inward physics that has been so successful long earlier they started amongst their successful careers. Just to live sure, allow me quote a sensible book nigh this rattling query (read the whole page!):
Contrary to mutual claims in addition to some appearances, however, inward Bohr's instance (or that of Heisenberg or several others who may live invoked here, Pauli, for example), i encounters what powerfulness live called the extreme disciplinary conservatism or, extending the notion, the extreme conservatism inward theoretical thinking. I hateful past times this an extreme reluctance to convey inward a radical change, which is endure done only at points in addition to inward regions where at that topographic point is truly no choice, inward the sense that their dependent acre (in either sense) inward fact requires it. [...]In particular, Heisenberg ever thought that he learned nigh the demand for the positivist thinking from Einstein. While finding special relativity, Einstein has warned that i must live careful to only verbalise nigh things that tin live operationally defined i.e. measured, in addition to e.g. "the absolute time" isn't i of those. Heisenberg only applied this insight to a broader laid of observations. Only the results of observations past times observers must live addressed past times a theory; a theory may spend upwards the existence of some values of quantities earlier the observations – just similar a relativistic theory rejects the rattling notion of absolute time! This positivism was already well-known inward physics to a greater extent than than 100 years agone (it's besides bad that some people soundless neglect to acquire it fifty-fifty inward 2016 but it's their fault, non because these insights would live "radical" or "new").
Otherwise, Heisenberg kept as much as he could. His Heisenberg equations of motion (for quantum mechanics) basically coincide amongst Newton's equations. The divergence truly is that \(xp-px\) is no longer null but \(i\hbar\) instead (a tiny number, a tiny change, relatively to macroscopic values of quantities amongst the same units).
Sociologically in addition to past times self-description, the declaration that Bohr in addition to Heisenberg were "radicals" is just some other lie. The qualitative modifications – e.g. the insight that i needs to pick an observer to apply the laws of physics – weren't chosen because Heisenberg, Bohr, Pauli, in addition to pals were obsessed amongst producing as novel in addition to radical things as possible, just for fun. Instead, these insights were adopted because at that topographic point was absolutely no other alternative in addition to they were remarkably able to view in addition to empathize the reasons why at that topographic point was no other choice. And at that topographic point is soundless no other choice. There volition never live whatever other choice.
When quantum mechanics was discovered inward the 1920s, they were fervent nigh the demand to reject all classical thinking inward interpreting the foreign results of early quantum experiments.No. They flora their amazing proofs that it was needed to reject the foundations of classical physics – in addition to to create the actual novel theory, quantum mechanics, that tin do much better. It was clearly i of the greatest revolutions inward the history of scientific discipline in addition to they were only fervent in i trial the proofs were settled down. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 revolution was inward no way their initial plan.
They were only as fervent as whatever scientist is fervent when talking nigh an of import resultant that has been scientifically settled. And all competent physicists are as fervent as the founders of quantum mechanics when it comes to the demand to reject all classical thinking. Who hasn't understood that to do modern physics, i must abandon classical thinking, it a crackpot – whether or non he or she has a lipstick. This fact was known already inward the 1920s in addition to it is as known today.
One aspect was that the moving ridge component was nix physical but an abstract distribution of probabilities.Again, the discussion "physical" is used instead of what he truly means, "a classical wave". The fact that the moving ridge component isn't a classical moving ridge but a template for probability distributions isn't a personal persuasion that may live left to the personal taste. It is i of the crucial insights that underlie quantum mechanics. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 mortal who rejects this insight is a mortal who misunderstand the substance of quantum mechanics. He's clueless nigh everything.
In fact, the judgement "the moving ridge component is an abstract distribution of probabilities" must live largely truthful fifty-fifty inward whatever Bohmian mechanics approach to explicate the experiments. The initial seat of the Bohmian particle has to live random in addition to has to live chosen according to the probability distribution that coincides amongst the initial values of the moving ridge component (rebranded as the airplane pilot wave). De Broglie's equations are so able to save this belongings – the Bohmian particle is distributed according to the airplane pilot moving ridge at after times, besides – after some evolution. This preservation is truly the only "achievement" of Bohmian mechanics. And it is non something to celebrate because nosotros had to conform as many things as the things that nosotros got out. Bohmian mechanics' equations may live derived as the equations that receive got this property. There's no independent essay of the theory amongst a expert result. But it's soundless truthful that at that topographic point has to live a machinery that picks the particle seat according to the probability distribution extracted from the moving ridge function.
Proper quantum mechanics postulates that this selection takes seat at the instant of the measuring – in addition to the particle's seat is unknown earlier the measurement. Bohmian mechanics tries to assume that the particle's seat exists at all times. But it soundless needs to pick a particle seat inward the initial dry ground in addition to it must live picked past times some – unspecified (because Bohmian mechanics is totally incomplete) – mechanism, according to the same logic of probability distributions as those inward proper quantum mechanics. The fact that Bohmists never verbalise nigh the picking of the initial seat from the distribution – because they would only receive got embarrassing things to say – doesn't hateful that \(|\psi|^2\) ceases to live a probability distribution. Everyone who "interprets" the objects inward quantum mechanics inward a feasible way must grip that it is a probability distribution. Like other crucial, physically well-defined statements inward physics, this declaration isn't a subjective optional "opinion" that could depend on people's moods in addition to culture.
This required an almost mystical wave-particle duality.There is nix "mystical" nigh the wave-particle duality. Mathematically, this declaration boils downward to rudimentary properties of the Fourier transform. Aside from the words "almost mystical", the discussion "required" is demagogic, too. Quantum mechanics required the wave-particle duality but it still requires in addition to volition always require the wave-particle duality. It's textbook stuff. The past times tense is some other deception.
Mr Matt also tries to sling mud on quantum mechanics because of its "fundamental randomness". But whatever feasible theory that reproduces the quantum experiments must receive got some key randomness merely because the random results are observed in addition to a feasible theory must live compatible amongst the experiments. As I mentioned, Bohmian mechanics at most needs to alter the instant when the random number is generated. It must live already generated inward the initial state, earlier the evolution. But if it would seek to eliminate the key randomness entirely, it would similar a shot contradict the experiments because the randomness of the outcomes is an experimentally proven fact.
OK, Mr Matt said historically correctly that Louis de Broglie asked inward 1927: Why non existent waves pushing existent particles? Well, at that topographic point are rattling expert reasons, they receive got been communicated to de Broglie, in addition to he abandoned those ideas. Decades later, the materials was reinvented past times David Bohm inward 1952. This historical share of the video is decent. Well, except for claims such as "the airplane pilot moving ridge is alone deterministic". It merely cannot live because at that topographic point has to live a random generator that prepares the Bohmian particle's initial position. The random generator is just beingness moved to a different place, it isn't eliminated in addition to it cannot live eliminated.
These days, to a greater extent than in addition to to a greater extent than serious physicists favor Bohmian ideas.No, at that topographic point are no serious physicists who "favor" Bohmian ideas. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 corrected version of the judgement inward a higher seat would say: There are many crackpots who are keen on Bohmian mechanics in addition to who dear to telephone weep upwards themselves serious physicists. Note that this self-confidence is observed non only on Bohmian crackpots but on almost all crackpots.
Bohmian theory differs inward "special thinking". Most of the arguments for or against it are nigh "special thinking". Are you lot to a greater extent than comfortable amongst this or that?This is just an utter lie. The reasons why Bohmian mechanics isn't considered a feasible theory receive got nix to do amongst whatever special thinking – just amongst the measure comparing of predictions amongst the experiments. And Bohmian mechanics merely cannot correctly explicate most of the observations that are beingness made past times the physicists.
Quite generally, dissimilar pop-science babblers in addition to demagogues, physicists almost never utilization this form of vague "special thinking". If a hypothesis is comparable amongst the data, it's considered as a possibility past times almost all physicists who written report these issues. Bohmian mechanics isn't seriously considered because it doesn't grip amongst the empirical facts. There's just almost no room for the vague subjective materials referred to as the "special thinking" inward physics. Physics – in addition to scientific discipline – merely isn't nigh some subjective emotional appraisals. By claiming otherwise, Mr Matt seriously distorts the rattling important in addition to grapheme of scientific discipline inward general. The "methods" he claims to live relevant inward scientific discipline – laymen's vague feelings, "comfort", in addition to votes – merely receive got nix whatsoever to do amongst the scientific method.
What are the uncomfortable features of Bohmian mechanics? Mathematically, it requires an extra equation, a guiding equation governing the development of the particle.It is non a serious occupation at all for a candidate theory to receive got a doubled number of equations. An actual occupation of this form is that i may present that the Bohmian particle seat is alone unphysical – scream back that the discussion "physical" doesn't hateful "classical", it basically agency "observable past times physical apparatuses". So all the quantities that seem to live added – the actual Bohmian particle positions or their generalizations – seem to live metaphysical rubbish.
But they could soundless be fifty-fifty if it were difficult or impossible to mensurate them. But fifty-fifty amongst these additions, the theory just can't occupation concern human relationship for the whole processes without using some other theory – most probable quantum mechanics – to do the actual heavy lifting, explicate the grooming of the initial dry ground in addition to the measuring at the end, the shape of the actual equations, linearity, in addition to other things.
Bohmian mechanics is just a light-headed caricature that can't live used to create whatever predictions a physicist cares nigh independently of other theories. It is a parasitic, ideologically driven superstructure that truly needs proper mechanics to live fully used – piece it wants to undermine the rattling foundations that allow quantum mechanics do the heavy lifting.
Mr Matt discusses Bohmian "hidden variables" as some other problem. That's light-headed because the hidden variables are precisely the Bohmian particle positions so this criticism is the same as the previous i (about the extra equation). He says something nigh the bad rap of hidden variables inward quantum mechanics. John von Neumann has proven a no-go theorem that wasn't quite right because it excluded all hidden variables, non just "local hidden variables".
But piece i powerfulness criticize some technical points of von Neumann's proof, the criticism of the overall conclusions is just totally wrong. First, since 1905, nosotros knew that "excluding hidden variables" in addition to "excluding local hidden variables" are equivalent things if you lot restrain yourself to feasible theories because the laws of Nature must live local. So the divergence doesn't thing – nosotros know that non-local theories are fatally sick for other, relativistic reasons.
Second, it is merely not true that Bell's theorem is the only theorem or the strongest theorem of a similar spirit that i may prove. Bell's theorem is just i of thousands of uncomplicated homework exercises amongst inequalities next from classical physics that i may explicitly solve. And this particular theorem shows that the supposition of local hidden variables has some implications for the measurements of spins' correlations. Because those inequalities are violated inward Nature, Nature can't run on local hidden variables.
But that doesn't hateful that Nature can run on non-local variables. Even if you lot allowed a conflict amongst relativity, at that topographic point are other theorems – homework exercises – that similarly exclude many well-defined classes of non-local hidden variables, too. If you lot demand a name, Leggett-style inequalities receive got been used to exclude classes of non-local realist theories. I don't desire to emphasize this particular piece of work because similar Bell's inequality, Leggett's inequality is just some other homework exercise. You tin invent thousands of additional ones. Leggett's inequalities has implications that "look" stronger than Bell's inequalities, at to the lowest degree from some viewpoint.
Founders of quantum mechanics didn't focus on light-headed high schoolhouse setups such as i analyzed inward Bell's papers. They looked at the physically of import questions – how atoms, molecules, nuclei, solids piece of work etc. And they receive got flora a highly feasible novel theory along amongst the evidence that its basic properties are needed to grip amongst the experiments – no classical, hidden-variable theory (whether it's local or non-local) tin do the same job.
People similar Matt seek to introduce Bell's theorem as some ultimate, crowning achievement inward physics that forever defines what tin live excluded in addition to what cannot. But this is totally wrong. Bell's theorem is just i particular illustration of a province of affairs explicitly showing how classical physics in addition to quantum mechanics create seriously differing predictions. And it's truly just the ancient, known-to-be-incorrect, classical side of the calculation that was carefully analyzed past times Bell in addition to where the inequality was derived. Bell's inequality doesn't say anything nigh theories that are right or may live correct; it only carefully studies theories that were believed to live wrong from the 1920s.
In almost all other situations, classical physics in addition to quantum mechanics differ, too. They oftentimes differ inward different ways than inward Bell's theorem. The thought that you lot empathize the mass of quantum mechanics if you lot follow Bell's derivation of the inequalities is absolutely preposterous. The derivation takes seat inward classical physics so you lot apparently don't larn anything nigh quantum mechanics if you lot only written report that derivation, just similar you lot don't larn besides much nigh electrical cars past times playing amongst the steam engine.
Experiments betoken that some type of non-locality is existent whether or non nosotros select airplane pilot wavesNo, experiments unambiguously imply that the amount of non-locality inward Nature (at to the lowest degree inward the absence of quantum gravity phenomena) is precisely zero. There is no non-locality inward Nature, this fact was settled past times Einstein inward 1905, in addition to everyone who claims otherwise is a crackpot or a liar or both.
OK, bouncing droplets as a proof of Bohmism, my tummy has run out of patience. At to the lowest degree inward the concluding minute, Mr Matt admitted that the airplane pilot moving ridge theory is "at best incomplete" because it doesn't occupation concern human relationship for relativity. Too bad that he has previously called it "complete".
Pilot moving ridge theory hasn't gotten at that topographic point (to relativity in addition to QFT) yet. But at that topographic point is expert sweat inward that direction.Statements similar that are absolutely fraudulent, too. In science, hypotheses are abandoned – falsified – when they contradict the empirical data. Anything that has been presented as "Bohmian mechanics" contradicts the relativistic, characteristically quantum-field-theory-based observations inward particle physics. So Bohmian mechanics is excluded. Claims nigh "directions" are just rubbish. There is no interesting "direction" from death. Whoever buys promises nigh "good efforts" in addition to "directions" in addition to dilutes his totally abrupt in addition to obvious understanding of the fact that e.g. Bohmian mechanics is ruled out because it contradicts relativistic, QFT-like observations inward particle physics, is a brainwashed dimwit. He is beingness fooled into imagining a completely different theory – a hypothetical theory inward some "direction" or transformed past times some unknown promised "effort" – than i that is truly beingness pushed downward his throat.
Sorry but these are 2 different theories. There is i Bohmian mechanics that has been spelled out in addition to that unequivocally contradicts relativity in addition to is thence excluded; in addition to so at that topographic point is a hypothetical futurity Bohmian (a misnomer) theory that doesn't endure from these lethal flaws. The disadvantage of the latter theory is that it just doesn't f*cking exist. But if you lot don't receive got a occupation when someone conflates these 2 theories, the wrong i in addition to the non-existent one, in addition to after hearing some totally cheap, vague, in addition to moronic words nigh "efforts" in addition to "directions", you lot conclude that at that topographic point is a feasible theory, so you lot receive got the IQ of a bumpkin (which rhymes inward Czech).
The testing of hypotheses just isn't nigh promises of efforts in addition to directions. We may only essay hypotheses that receive got been formulated inward i way or another, at to the lowest degree to a well-defined nonzero extent so that they imply something, in addition to when they disagree, they're dead.
When nosotros verbalise nigh gravity, no sort of quantum mechanics has sorted it out.That's a consummate lie, too. If you lot desire a totally consummate in addition to consistent, truly specific, 1925-like version of a quantum mechanical theory that contains a total sector of quantum gravity amongst everything it needs to contain, why don't you lot written report the BFSS Matrix theory – a light-cone estimate description of string/M-theory? Or some version of AdS/CFT? For simpler purposes, similar neutrons bouncing inward the Earth's gravitational field, the master copy Schrödinger's equation amongst an extra Newton's gravitational potential term is just fine (and experimentally validated), too. And fifty-fifty for the broad features (and perturbative expansions) of the Hawking radiations of dark holes, quantum acre theory on curved spaces is enough.
Mr Matt repeats some of the misconceptions over again at the end. Perhaps, some of them are said a fight to a greater extent than carefully but it's soundless terrible. There are just so many illogical, deceitful, idiotic, demagogic things inward this form of videos – in addition to books in addition to articles – that I am losing whatever optimism that to a greater extent than than "thousands" of people inward the public tin ever larn how the things work. If at that topographic point were iii mistakes, i could imagine that they're fixed. But the whole way of thinking nigh everything in addition to anything – including the rattling important of the scientific method – that is promoted past times similar videos seems to live absolute rubbish in addition to such a starting dot is in all likelihood pedagogically hopeless.