What is De-Broglie's interpretation and how does it relate to DBB theory?

[liquidspacetime]

Mate - why do you keep simply posting text?

Mate - why can't you understand there are two waves in de Broglie's Double Solution theory? You don't have to agree to it, however, why can't you even understand it?

 

[atyy]

'But in about the last 20 years I have again convinced myself that one should return to the idea that a particle is a very small object that is localized and moves along a trajectory. As I have shown in a series of increasingly thorough studies, malized W wave, with the aid of my concept of a particle guided by its wave, if one completes this notion by a so-called hidden thermodynamics, whose development opens up very novel perspectives. One particular consequence of this therrnodynamics appears very important to me: The principle of least action would merely be an aspect of the second principle of thermodynamics.'

Mate - why do you keep simply posting text?

You realize physics is written in the language of math?

When I look at a physics paper I look at the equations. That's why I know De-Broglies wave is simply the wave-function multiplied by a constant - he states it right at the outset. That's why I know the particles motion is determined by the quantum potential - its what the force equation says. You must look at the math.

You must also read the paper critically - looking for what's really going on and trying to understand it - rather than non-critical acceptance.

I will have a look at your link as see what I think.

I had a look. It contains basically the same stuff as the paper I posted eg equation 12 and 13 are the same as 34 and 35.

Thanks
Bill

Take a look at liquidspacetime's post #101, which will explain why he is correct - he is only talking about a single particle theory (which also makes sense in terms of the John Bush papers he's been linking to). They are all about one particle, and in that case $v$ can be in physical space, and $\psi$ can be in configuration space.

 

[bhobba]

I understand you disagree with de Broglie. However, are you capable of understanding in de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves?

I am capable of understanding he interprets it that way.

What I am not capable of understanding is, except for that constant multiplication factor, its in anyway different from the wave-function. Any statement otherwise is obvious - well - rubbish.

Thanks
Bill

 

[liquidspacetime]

I am capable of understanding he interprets it that way.

What I am not capable of understanding is, except for that constant multiplication factor, its in anyway different from the wave-function. Any statement otherwise is obvious - well - rubbish.

Thanks
Bill

And that attitude is why you won't advance your understanding of what occurs physically in nature.

See https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/de-broglies-interpretation.775636/page-6#post-4879540

 

[bhobba]

Not according to de Broglie. And the physical wave is now being mathematical determined by chaos theory which de Broglie also understood.

Then he is wrong - simple as that.

He states right at the beginning of section 2 in the paper I linked to the wave-function is simply a multiple of his wave-function.

There is simply no escaping it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

And that attitude is why you won't advance your understanding of what occurs physically in nature.

And with your attitude you won't understand anything.

Stop reading just the text. Understand and interpret the equations.

Thanks
Bill

 

[atyy]

And with your attitude you won't understand anything.

Stop reading just the text. Understand and interpret the equations.

Thanks
Bill

liquidspacetime is correct. Look at his post #101.

 

[bhobba]

Take a look at liquidspacetime's post #101, which will explain why he is correct - he is only talking about a single particle theory (which also makes sense in terms of the John Bush papers he's been linking to). They are all about one particle, and in that case $v$ can be in physical space, and $\psi$ can be in configuration space.

Atty - its simply a multiple of it. It can't change the space it resides in.

But maybe what you mean is something like this.

For a single particle it can be viewed as residing in physical space ie an actual wave - got it. In general the wave-function will contain multiple particles and reside in configuration space and can't be interpreted that way.

Is that what you are getting at?

If so - yes I get that.

But - that does not change the fact its a multiple of the wave-function so can't be different from it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[atyy]

Atty - its simply a multiple of it. It can change the space it resides in.

Thanks
Bill

As we know from standard quantum mechanics, the wave function for one particle can be considered a physical wave or a configuration space wave. In the same way, $v$ can be also considered a physical wave, and $\psi$ can be considered a configuration space wave.

 

[bhobba]

As we know from standard quantum mechanics, the wave function for one particle can be considered a physical wave or a configuration space wave. In the same way, $v$ can be also considered a physical wave, and $\psi$ can be considered a configuration space wave.

See my previous post - I think I get it now.

I may glimpsing what Liquidspace could be getting at - but I wish he had explained it from the start.

Correct me if I am wrong. He is associating an actual wave with the wave-function of a single isolated particle. You can do that. Now when they interact and become entangled then that wave-function gets changed - in fact standard QM doesn't even have the concept of that - its a hidden variable.

Thanks
Bill

 

[atyy]

See my previous post - I think I get it now.

I may glimpsing what Liquidspace could be getting at - but I wish he had explained it from the start.

Correct me if I am wrong. He is associating an actual wave with the wave-function of a single isolated particle. You can do that. Now when they interact and become entangled then that wave-function gets changed - in fact standard QM doesn't even have the concept of that - its a hidden variable.

Thanks
Bill

It's something like that, but I'm not sure about the part you wrote about interacting and becoming entangled. The main thing is he is only talking about single particle theory, so $v$ and $\psi$ can be constant multiples of each other, but we can consider $v$ to be in physical space and $\psi$ to be in configuration space. There is no known generalization to multiple particles. In the known generalizations, both $v$ and $\psi$ have to be in configuration space to reproduce quantum mechanics. Both of us initially assumed that liquidspacetime was talking about the general multiple particle case, but it seems he is only talking about the single particle case.

 

[liquidspacetime]

In the version of the double solution theory in http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf the $v$ wave can be considered in physical space, and the $\psi$ wave in configuration space in the special case of one particle. That does not generalize to two particles.

That's one of the things de Broglie was working on. John Bush is also working on it.

 

[liquidspacetime]

See my previous post - I think I get it now.

I may glimpsing what Liquidspace could be getting at - but I wish he had explained it from the start.

Correct me if I am wrong. He is associating an actual wave with the wave-function of a single isolated particle. You can do that. Now when they interact and become entangled then that wave-function gets changed - in fact standard QM doesn't even have the concept of that - its a hidden variable.

Thanks
Bill

That's not it at all. The wavefunction doesn't interact with anything as it doesn't physically exist. It is a mathematical construct only.

 

[bhobba]

There is no known generalization to multiple particles.

Yea I see how it can be interpreted differently.

I dug up a copy of his reference and De-Broglie and, interestingly, he did generalise it to many particles.

Didn't go through the detail, and really haven't the inclination to, but I got the impression it was along the lines I mentioned.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

That's not it at all. The wavefunction doesn't interact with anything as it doesn't physically exist. It is a mathematical construct only.

OK - you are interpreting it differently - one in configuration space and another in physical space.

Now for the 64 million dollar question - what happens when two particles are entangled - what happens to the physical wave-function residing in physical space. The actual wavefunction no longer can be interpreted that way.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bohm2]

The main thing is he is only talking about single particle theory, so $v$ and $\psi$ can be constant multiples of each other, but we can consider $v$ to be in physical space and $\psi$ to be in configuration space. There is no known generalization to multiple particles. In the known generalizations, both $v$ and $\psi$ have to be in configuration space to reproduce quantum mechanics. Both of us initially assumed that liquidspacetime was talking about the general multiple particle case, but it seems he is only talking about the single particle case.

Yes, and that's why Maudlin argued that once you involve multiple particles it won't deliver the goods:

What the oil-drop experiments provide is a tangible partial analog of the pilot-wave picture, but restricted to single-particle phenomena (that is, this sort of experiment cannot reproduce the sort of phenomena that depend on entanglement). That is because only in the case of a single particle does the wave function have the same mathematical form (a scalar function over space) as do the waves in the oil. Once two particles are involved, the fact that the wave function is defined over the configuration space of the system rather than over physical space becomes crucial, and the (partial) analogy to the oil-drops fails...

In the single particle case, where configuration space is just three-dimensional space, there's no difficulty. But as far as I understand, there's no solution in a multiparticle system without bringing in configuration space? And then one is forced to treat the configuration space as "real".

 

[bhobba]

YIn the single particle case, where configuration space is just three-dimensional space, there's no difficulty. But as far as I understand, there's no solution in a multiparticle system without bringing in configuration space? And then one is forced to treat the configuration space as "real".

Like I said De-Broglie may have resolved it in his theory. It's in the textbook mentioned. But I really can't motivate myself to sort it out - it is a very fringe interpretation that's way out of the mainstream.

But Lliquidspacetime may be able to explain it - hopefully with some actual math.

Thanks
Bill

 

[atyy]

Yes, and that's why Maudlin argued that once you involve multiple particles it won't deliver the goods:

In the single particle case, where configuration space is just three-dimensional space, there's no difficulty. But as far as I understand, there's no solution in a multiparticle system without bringing in configuration space? And then one is forced to treat the configuration space as "real".

I think getting the agreement with Bell does not rule out that the wave remains physical, but incorporates superluminal siganalling (violating relativity), which I think is the loophole that Brady and Anderson are trying to use. Obviously in this case, the physical wave cannot be a constant multiple of the statistical wave, since the statistical wave is in configuration space. So it would not be straightforward generalization of de Broglie's theory for one particle. However, I don't know if there is any theory that supplies the correct technical details. A relativity violating theory would be ok, as long as the violation is below experimental resolution (for example, QED on a lattice violates relativity, but should be ok as long as the lattice is very fine).

 

[microsansfil]

They are if they are hidden.

This one is not hidden, but it is in French :

Restatement of the interpretation of the wave mechanic by the double-solution which the author, beginning again his attempts of 1924-1927, tried to develop with the collaboration of several young scientists.

This de Broglie paper explains the reason which led him to this double-solution

Patrick

 

[bhobba]

the physical wave cannot be a constant multiple of the statistical wave, since the statistical wave is in configuration space.

Like I said - that's the 64 million dollar question.

Thanks
Bill

 

[liquidspacetime]

the wave-function is simply a multiple of his wave-function.

And there is a physical wave which guides the particle.

 

[liquidspacetime]

As we know from standard quantum mechanics, the wave function for one particle can be considered a physical wave or a configuration space wave. In the same way, $v$ can be also considered a physical wave, and $\psi$ can be considered a configuration space wave.

In de Broglie's double solution theory the $v$ is always a real wave and the $\psi$ wave is never a physical wave, it is always a fictitious wave.

 

[liquidspacetime]

Yea I see how it can be interpreted differently.

I dug up a copy of his reference and De-Broglie and, interestingly, he did generalise it to many particles.

Yes, he did. And so is John Bush and his team.

 

[liquidspacetime]

It's something like that, but I'm not sure about the part you wrote about interacting and becoming entangled. The main thing is he is only talking about single particle theory, so $v$ and $\psi$ can be constant multiples of each other, but we can consider $v$ to be in physical space and $\psi$ to be in configuration space. There is no known generalization to multiple particles. In the known generalizations, both $v$ and $\psi$ have to be in configuration space to reproduce quantum mechanics. Both of us initially assumed that liquidspacetime was talking about the general multiple particle case, but it seems he is only talking about the single particle case.

NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS
A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION
by
LOUIS DE BROGLIE

Chapter IV. The Wave Mechanics of Systems of Particles

 

[liquidspacetime]

what happens to the physical wave-function residing in physical space.

Q. What happens to flying unicorns residing in physical space?
A. There are no such things as flying unicorns.

There is no such thing as a physical wave-function in de Broglie's double solution theory.

 

[liquidspacetime]

Yes, and that's why Maudlin argued that once you involve multiple particles it won't deliver the goods:

In the single particle case, where configuration space is just three-dimensional space, there's no difficulty. But as far as I understand, there's no solution in a multiparticle system without bringing in configuration space? And then one is forced to treat the configuration space as "real".

de Broglie worked on the multi-particles.

NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS
A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION
by
LOUIS DE BROGLIE

"Chapter IV. The Wave Mechanics of Systems of Particles"

So aren't other's in terms of chaos theory.

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/fluid-systems-quantum-mechanics-0912

"The second advantage is the relatively recent development of chaos theory. http://www.technologyreview.com/article/422809/when-the-butterfly-effect-took-flight/ by MIT’s Edward Lorenz in the 1960s, chaos theory holds that many macroscopic physical systems are so sensitive to initial conditions that, even though they can be described by a deterministic theory, they evolve in unpredictable ways. A weather-system model, for instance, might yield entirely different results if the wind speed at a particular location at a particular time is 10.01 mph or 10.02 mph.

The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It’s impossible to measure a bouncing droplet’s position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments."

 

[bhobba]

Yes, he did. And so is John Bush and his team.

Mind detailing how he did it?

Thanks
Bill

 

[liquidspacetime]

Like I said De-Broglie may have resolved it in his theory. It's in the textbook mentioned. But I really can't motivate myself to sort it out - it is a very fringe interpretation that's way out of the mainstream.

But Lliquidspacetime may be able to explain it - hopefully with some actual math.

Thanks
Bill

de Broglie did not resolve the mathematics for either a single particle or multi-particles in terms of the physical wave which guides the particle.

 

[bhobba]

to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments."

Gee I wish I had a dollar every time that has been bought up.

Quantum-like is not QM.

For it to be of any value one needs an actual theory with actual equations showing how QM emerges.

Thanks
Bill

 

[liquidspacetime]

I think getting the agreement with Bell does not rule out that the wave remains physical, but incorporates superluminal siganalling (violating relativity), which I think is the loophole that Brady and Anderson are trying to use. Obviously in this case, the physical wave cannot be a constant multiple of the statistical wave, since the statistical wave is in configuration space. So it would not be straightforward generalization of de Broglie's theory for one particle. However, I don't know if there is any theory that supplies the correct technical details. A relativity violating theory would be ok, as long as the violation is below experimental resolution (for example, QED on a lattice violates relativity, but should be ok as long as the lattice is very fine).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

"Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variables as a viable explanation of quantum mechanics (though it still leaves the door open for non-local hidden variables).

When a downconverted photon pair are created, in order for there to be conservation of momentum, the pair are created with opposite angular momemtums. The propagate with opposite polarizations.

Each of the pair can determine the position and momentum of the other based upon their own position and momentum. This can be referred to as a non-local hidden (to us, not to the particles) variable theory.

Bell's theorem does not apply in de Broglie's double solution theory as it can be considered to be a non-local hidden variable theory.

The particles are not physically or superluminally connected.

They are entangled as they can determines each other's state.

 

[bohm2]

Yes, he did. And so is John Bush and his team.

Is there a hydrodynamic analog of entanglement that explains experiments showing that photons could be entangled that never existed at the same time:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.4191v1.pdf

 

[bhobba]

de Broglie did not resolve the mathematics for either a single particle or multi-particles in terms of the physical wave which guides the particle.

He didn't.

Wow - what a fantastic theory. No wonder you are so enamoured.

Actually, from reading the paper I linked to I am pretty sure he did it for one particle - see the guide equation I mentioned before - equation 13.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

When a downconverted photon pair are created, in order for there to be conservation of momentum, the pair are created with opposite angular momemtums. The propagate with opposite polarizations.

What have photons got to do with Bells theorem which applies to any quantum objects in a Bell state?

You keep mentioning this parametric down-converted stuff. Its a concept from quantum optics that has zero bearing on entanglement in general.

Thanks
Bill

 

[liquidspacetime]

This one is not hidden, but it is in French :

Restatement of the interpretation of the wave mechanic by the double-solution which the author, beginning again his attempts of 1924-1927, tried to develop with the collaboration of several young scientists.

This de Broglie paper explains the reason which led him to this double-solution

Patrick

I see nothing different in this article.

"the particle well localized in space follows one of the current lines of the flow hydrodynamics"

 

[bhobba]

Bell's theorem does not apply in de Broglie's double solution theory as it can be considered to be a non-local hidden variable theory.

Bells theorem must apply to it.

It says, since its non local, it can be real.

Thanks
Bill