Understanding the Fundamental Difference in Interpretations of QM

[Lord Jestocost]

Here, he is talking about a very specific property associated with particles and talks about the point I am trying to make, the idea that it is unclear how an observable, experimental outcome i.e. perceptible is possible if particles do not have specific properties, such as position.

The fundamental “stuff” underlying our world and which we seem to “perceive” (the experience of observation) cannot be characterized in terms of classical notions like “particles” or “waves”. And more important:

“It is not true that the underlying stuff sometimes behaves like a wave and sometimes like a particle. It always behaves like itself, but we sometimes choose to measure one property, sometimes another. When we choose to measure momentum, we find momentum clicks. When we choose to measure position, we find position clicks.” (John Marburger)

 

[Lynch101]

My explanation was only of why the quantum potential in Bohmian mechanics is nonlocal. That in turn explains why, even though Bohmian mechanics is a hidden variable theory (the positions of the particles are hidden variables that determine the outcomes of experiments), it can still predict violations of the Bell inequalities: because it's a nonlocal hidden variable theory, and Bell's theorem only says that local hidden variable theories can't predict violations of the Bell inequalities.

Ah, I see. Thank you for that clarification.

 

[Lynch101]

The fundamental “stuff” underlying our world and which we seem to “perceive” (the experience of observation) cannot be characterized in terms of classical notions like “particles” or “waves”. And more important:

“It is not true that the underlying stuff sometimes behaves like a wave and sometimes like a particle. It always behaves like itself, but we sometimes choose to measure one property, sometimes another. When we choose to measure momentum, we find momentum clicks. When we choose to measure position, we find position clicks.” (John Marburger)

Thank you LJ. This seems to echo sentiments like, the map is not the territory and the Zen Buddhist saying that "the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon".

 

[Lynch101]

@Demystifier would you have any suggestions for resources (books/articles/papers/videos) that address the point you raise in your paper, namely (emphasis is mine obviously):

Intuitively, it says that the precise particle positions are not very much important to make measurable predictions. It is important that particles have some positions (for otherwise it is not clear how can a perceptible exist) .

 

[Demystifier]

@Demystifier would you have any suggestions for resources (books/articles/papers/videos) that address the point you raise in your paper, namely (emphasis is mine obviously):

Try "Against Realism" by Norsen:
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607057

 

[Lynch101]

Try "Against Realism" by Norsen:
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607057

Thank you.

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation.

Edit: Thread will remain closed.