Pilot Wave theory is a theory I should have been told about
when I was a child, and it should have been mentioned in
science fiction stories at least as often as quantum mechanics
or other post-Newtonian theories of physics. ...

Pilot wave theory holds that there is no wave particle
duality, no role for probability, and that reality stays the
same before and after observation. Particles are guided by
pilot waves that act like waves, for example, forming
interference patterns in the double-slit experiment. The
observable particle behavior is as it is because the particles
follow non-observable waves. ...

<https://www.scifiwright.com/2022/09/on-the-unpopularity-of-pilot-wave-theory/>

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.

On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 12:47:39 AM UTC+11, Don wrote:
> Pilot Wave theory is a theory I should have been told about
> when I was a child, and it should have been mentioned in
> science fiction stories at least as often as quantum mechanics
> or other post-Newtonian theories of physics. ...
>
> Pilot wave theory holds that there is no wave particle
> duality, no role for probability, and that reality stays the
> same before and after observation. Particles are guided by
> pilot waves that act like waves, for example, forming
> interference patterns in the double-slit experiment. The
> observable particle behavior is as it is because the particles
> follow non-observable waves. ...
>
> <https://www.scifiwright.com/2022/09/on-the-unpopularity-of-pilot-wave-theory/>
>
Not seeing anywhere that you're showing actual evidence for there being a separate wave.
And anytime somebody says that the experts in the field are clueless the odds are very good that they're a kook

On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:47:34 -0000 (UTC), Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:

> Pilot Wave theory is a theory I should have been told about
> when I was a child, and it should have been mentioned in
> science fiction stories at least as often as quantum mechanics
> or other post-Newtonian theories of physics. ...
>
> Pilot wave theory holds that there is no wave particle
> duality, no role for probability, and that reality stays the
> same before and after observation. Particles are guided by
> pilot waves that act like waves, for example, forming
> interference patterns in the double-slit experiment. The
> observable particle behavior is as it is because the particles
> follow non-observable waves. ...
>
> <https://www.scifiwright.com/2022/09/on-the-unpopularity-of-pilot-wave-theory/>
>
>Danke,

I once read a post on Usenet suggesting that photons do not, in fact,
behave like particles in some situations and likes waves in other
situations. Instead, they behave like /photons/, and we are the ones
trying to force them into boxes that they simply will not fit in.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:22:49 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:

> I once read a post on Usenet suggesting that photons do not, in fact,
> behave like particles in some situations and likes waves in other
> situations. Instead, they behave like /photons/, and we are the ones
> trying to force them into boxes that they simply will not fit in.

I think that this is a principle that practicing scientists already accept,
despite talking about wave-particle duality. The only error in that
statement is that it isn't just photons. Electrons, for example, behave
that way too.

John Savard

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 8:39:45 AM UTC-7, Hamish Laws wrote:

> Not seeing anywhere that you're showing actual evidence for there being a separate wave.

Oh, pilot wave theory is a valid interpretation of quantum
mechanics put forward by a real scientist. But while it
seems to reconcile quantum mechanics with classical
thinking, it also doesn't seem to bring anything new to
the party - it's unpopular, I think, because it seems more
likely to be contrived than real.

John Savard

On 10/01/2024 13:47, Don wrote:
> Pilot Wave theory is a theory I should have been told about
> when I was a child, and it should have been mentioned in
> science fiction stories at least as often as quantum mechanics
> or other post-Newtonian theories of physics. ...

I agree. It is intuitively simple, gives mathematically correct
predictions of the results of experiments (as do all other
interpretations), and there is nothing anywhere to say that any other
interpretation is better or closer to reality.

> Pilot wave theory holds that there is no wave particle
> duality, no role for probability, and that reality stays the
> same before and after observation. Particles are guided by
> pilot waves that act like waves, for example, forming
> interference patterns in the double-slit experiment. The
> observable particle behavior is as it is because the particles
> follow non-observable waves. ...

De Broglie waves. After Comte Victor Louis De Broglie, kinda my hero,
though iirc he didn't specify much as to the "reality" or
"observability" of the waves, more to the "actuality".

Later at Copenhagen, Bohr shouted loudest and de Broglie shut up.

Bohm did some later work on Pilot Wave theory, as did Bell.

> <https://www.scifiwright.com/2022/09/on-the-unpopularity-of-pilot-wave-theory/>

also Feynman's sum-over-paths (which I think is getting closer to the
real situation, but still not quite there) - actually foreshadowed by De
Broglie in part of his 1924 thesis on the principle of least action.

or the many-worlds interpretation (which I think is mostly wrong),

or the transactional interpretation (which I think is wrong but.. maybe
contains a hint or two),

or the ensemble interpretation (hmmm), and so on.

Incidentally I think Pilot Wave theory is closest to being correct, but
it needs a bit more, ie an explanation of what is happening.

just my 2c

Peter Fairbrother

Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> Don wrote:
>> Pilot Wave theory is a theory I should have been told about
>> when I was a child, and it should have been mentioned in
>> science fiction stories at least as often as quantum mechanics
>> or other post-Newtonian theories of physics. ...
>
> I agree. It is intuitively simple, gives mathematically correct
> predictions of the results of experiments (as do all other
> interpretations), and there is nothing anywhere to say that any other
> interpretation is better or closer to reality.
>
>> Pilot wave theory holds that there is no wave particle
>> duality, no role for probability, and that reality stays the
>> same before and after observation. Particles are guided by
>> pilot waves that act like waves, for example, forming
>> interference patterns in the double-slit experiment. The
>> observable particle behavior is as it is because the particles
>> follow non-observable waves. ...
>
> De Broglie waves. After Comte Victor Louis De Broglie, kinda my hero,
> though iirc he didn't specify much as to the "reality" or
> "observability" of the waves, more to the "actuality".
>
> Later at Copenhagen, Bohr shouted loudest and de Broglie shut up.
>
> Bohm did some later work on Pilot Wave theory, as did Bell.
>
>
>> <https://www.scifiwright.com/2022/09/on-the-unpopularity-of-pilot-wave-theory/>
>
> also Feynman's sum-over-paths (which I think is getting closer to the
> real situation, but still not quite there) - actually foreshadowed by De
> Broglie in part of his 1924 thesis on the principle of least action.
>
> or the many-worlds interpretation (which I think is mostly wrong),
>
> or the transactional interpretation (which I think is wrong but.. maybe
> contains a hint or two),
>
> or the ensemble interpretation (hmmm), and so on.
>
>
> Incidentally I think Pilot Wave theory is closest to being correct, but
> it needs a bit more, ie an explanation of what is happening.
>
> just my 2c

The cultural idiosyncrasies of interpretation intrigue me - Marxist
materialism as counterpoint to Copenhagen idealistic immaterialism,
for instance.

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.

On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 12:07:42 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:22:49?AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> I once read a post on Usenet suggesting that photons do not, in fact,
>> behave like particles in some situations and likes waves in other
>> situations. Instead, they behave like /photons/, and we are the ones
>> trying to force them into boxes that they simply will not fit in.
>
>I think that this is a principle that practicing scientists already accept,
>despite talking about wave-particle duality. The only error in that
>statement is that it isn't just photons. Electrons, for example, behave
>that way too.

And, indeed, the post referred may well have said "electrons" instead
of "photons". I made a choice, as I do not recall which was used.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 6:29:56 AM UTC-7, Don wrote:

> The cultural idiosyncrasies of interpretation intrigue me - Marxist
> materialism as counterpoint to Copenhagen idealistic immaterialism,
> for instance.

I recently learned, from a reply to a post of mine in sci.physics,
that what I had thought of as the Copenhagen Interpretation of
quantum mechanics -

quantum systems drop out of superposition, and become classical,
upon being observed by a conscious human observer

is _not_ the Copenhagen interpretation, but is, in fact, the
von Neumann - Wigner Interpretation.

This is the interpretation, of course, that keeps being used
by Tarot card readers and the like to claim that Science has
now shown that Mind has a fundamental role in the Universe,
and it's not just materialistic.

When I believed that interpretation to be the Copenhagen Interpretation,
I had formed the notion that perhaps no one really believed it, but
that instead they thought the "real" explanation of symmetry-breaking
was some as-yet undiscovered nonlinear term in the Schrodinger
equation... and this theory about consciousness being involved was
merely a *stopgap*, to turn Quantum Mechanics into a complete theory,
that agrees with the fact that no one ever sees half-dead half-alive
superposed stray cats wandering the streets... which stopgap contains
no claims about what the _actual_ observation mechanism is, so as
not to bias the search for it.

But apparently von Neumann and Wigner (before the latter changed
his mind on the merits of this interpretation) did take it seriously,
so my "stopgap" hypothesis turns out not to be the case.

John Savard

John Savard wrote:
> Don wrote:
>
>> The cultural idiosyncrasies of interpretation intrigue me - Marxist
>> materialism as counterpoint to Copenhagen idealistic immaterialism,
>> for instance.
>
> I recently learned, from a reply to a post of mine in sci.physics,
> that what I had thought of as the Copenhagen Interpretation of
> quantum mechanics -
>
> quantum systems drop out of superposition, and become classical,
> upon being observed by a conscious human observer
>
> is _not_ the Copenhagen interpretation, but is, in fact, the
> von Neumann - Wigner Interpretation.
>
> This is the interpretation, of course, that keeps being used
> by Tarot card readers and the like to claim that Science has
> now shown that Mind has a fundamental role in the Universe,
> and it's not just materialistic.
>
> When I believed that interpretation to be the Copenhagen Interpretation,
> I had formed the notion that perhaps no one really believed it, but
> that instead they thought the "real" explanation of symmetry-breaking
> was some as-yet undiscovered nonlinear term in the Schrodinger
> equation... and this theory about consciousness being involved was
> merely a *stopgap*, to turn Quantum Mechanics into a complete theory,
> that agrees with the fact that no one ever sees half-dead half-alive
> superposed stray cats wandering the streets... which stopgap contains
> no claims about what the _actual_ observation mechanism is, so as
> not to bias the search for it.
>
> But apparently von Neumann and Wigner (before the latter changed
> his mind on the merits of this interpretation) did take it seriously,
> so my "stopgap" hypothesis turns out not to be the case.

Superposition seemingly slipped into sfnal dogma shortly after Bohr
bellowed the bombast heard round the world - or at least the Occidental
World. The Orient closed its ears to Copenhagen's cacophonous counter-
revolutionary, reactionary rhetoric in 1947, when it censured the
Copenhagen Interpretation at the yearly Meeting of the Soviet Union's
Academy of Science.
Nonetheless, Bohr's bellow bounced round the echo chamber until it
reached Borges, a boy from way, way Down South. And the bark 'o Bohr
manifested itself as Borges' "The Garden of Forking Paths."

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.

On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 8:06:39 AM UTC-7, Don wrote:

> Superposition seemingly slipped into sfnal dogma shortly after Bohr
> bellowed the bombast heard round the world - or at least the Occidental
> World. The Orient closed its ears to Copenhagen's cacophonous counter-
> revolutionary, reactionary rhetoric in 1947, when it censured the
> Copenhagen Interpretation at the yearly Meeting of the Soviet Union's
> Academy of Science.

Pardon me, why should I take advice on scientific matters from
the people who thought Trofim Lysenko had a good idea?

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 8:06:39=E2=80=AFAM UTC-7, Don wrote:
>
>> Superposition seemingly slipped into sfnal dogma shortly after Bohr=20
>> bellowed the bombast heard round the world - or at least the Occidental=
>=20
>> World. The Orient closed its ears to Copenhagen's cacophonous counter-=20
>> revolutionary, reactionary rhetoric in 1947, when it censured the=20
>> Copenhagen Interpretation at the yearly Meeting of the Soviet Union's=20
>> Academy of Science.
>
>Pardon me, why should I take advice on scientific matters from
>the people who thought Trofim Lysenko had a good idea?

This is a valid point although some folks are starting to think that there
might be something to Lysenkoism in that there are epigenetic traits which
are inherited in addition to the genetic ones, and some of those may be
affected by the environment.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:41:41 AM UTC+11, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 8:06:39=E2=80=AFAM UTC-7, Don wrote:
> >
> >> Superposition seemingly slipped into sfnal dogma shortly after Bohr=20
> >> bellowed the bombast heard round the world - or at least the Occidental=
> >=20
> >> World. The Orient closed its ears to Copenhagen's cacophonous counter-=20
> >> revolutionary, reactionary rhetoric in 1947, when it censured the=20
> >> Copenhagen Interpretation at the yearly Meeting of the Soviet Union's=20
> >> Academy of Science.
> >
> >Pardon me, why should I take advice on scientific matters from
> >the people who thought Trofim Lysenko had a good idea?
> This is a valid point although some folks are starting to think that there
> might be something to Lysenkoism in that there are epigenetic traits which
> are inherited in addition to the genetic ones, and some of those may be
> affected by the environment.

That's a long way off what Lysenko argued, it also seems to be pretty minor compared to the main inheritance approach

Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:41:41=E2=80=AFAM UTC+11, Scott Dorsey wrot=
>e:
>> >Pardon me, why should I take advice on scientific matters from=20
>> >the people who thought Trofim Lysenko had a good idea?
>> This is a valid point although some folks are starting to think that ther=
>e=20
>> might be something to Lysenkoism in that there are epigenetic traits whic=
>h=20
>> are inherited in addition to the genetic ones, and some of those may be=
>=20
>> affected by the environment.=20
>
>That's a long way off what Lysenko argued, it also seems to be pretty minor=
> compared to the main inheritance approach

This is true, but it's still interesting to see how things come around.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 03:55:43 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:41:41?AM UTC+11, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 8:06:39=E2=80=AFAM UTC-7, Don wrote:
>> >
>> >> Superposition seemingly slipped into sfnal dogma shortly after Bohr=20
>> >> bellowed the bombast heard round the world - or at least the Occidental=
>> >=20
>> >> World. The Orient closed its ears to Copenhagen's cacophonous counter-=20
>> >> revolutionary, reactionary rhetoric in 1947, when it censured the=20
>> >> Copenhagen Interpretation at the yearly Meeting of the Soviet Union's=20
>> >> Academy of Science.
>> >
>> >Pardon me, why should I take advice on scientific matters from
>> >the people who thought Trofim Lysenko had a good idea?
>> This is a valid point although some folks are starting to think that there
>> might be something to Lysenkoism in that there are epigenetic traits which
>> are inherited in addition to the genetic ones, and some of those may be
>> affected by the environment.
>
>That's a long way off what Lysenko argued, it also seems to be pretty minor compared to the main inheritance approach

Lamarck is the actual originator; Lysenko was a johnny-come-lately.

When the epigenetic results were first revealed, I had a hard time
convincing people on another newsgroup that this meant that Lamarck
was correct -- just not the way he thought.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"