Talk:de Broglie–Bohm theory

Recent changes I made.

I started to make one small change, but as I read more I realized the article has numerous problems. Thus I have by now made a number of changes. The most visible ones concern tightening the intro. It should be a succinct summary but it had grown with some long blocks of quotes etc. I moved the quotes to the History section.

The other changes are mostly around incorrect or misleading content. I tried to squeeze my justification in to the edit summary but I will reply to any complaint about my changes made here in the Talk pages. I want to be clear I'm not a Bohm-hater (or supporter), I just want the article to be clear and correct. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I just removed a paragraph claiming that one can switch the interference pattern on or off using a 'minimally invasive detector' at one slit. The source was about oil droplet pseudo-particles, which hold little scientific value, as the neither prove or falsify a theory nor make a falsifiable statement. 89.12.241.132 (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the material. Perhaps you only read small fragments of the piece, as it also contains a clear discussion of the double slit experiment itself that verifies all the material in the paragraph. Remsense ‥ 论 18:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

And I fixed the ref as the old one did indeed discuss oil droplets. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there a video available of the interference pattern being switched off with both slits open? Thank you!

Otherwise, one should consider this pseudo particles as fringe science.

--77.11.2.56 (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It's been empirically observed, yes. Demanding a "video" is a bit of a befuddling conflation, as if it is the only way physical phenomena can be documented. This is one that involves individual quanta of light, so the idea of there being a "video" in the conventional sense breaks down, as even though it's light there's nothing to "see": photography operates on the scale of many trillions of quanta as are processed by our eyes. Remsense ‥ 论 14:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

ESSW, surreal trajectories, many hydrodynamic results.

The (tiny) experimental section has a cryptic comment about ESSW. There is actually quite a lot of work related to this paper.

• Frumkin, Valeri, and John WM Bush. "Misinference of interaction-free measurement from a classical system." Physical Review A 108.6 (2023): L060201.
• Frumkin, Valeri, et al. "Real surreal trajectories in pilot-wave hydrodynamics." Physical Review A 106.1 (2022): L010203.
• https://thales.mit.edu/bush/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Bush-AnnRev2015.pdf

In particular some of the work out of JWM Bush's group shows that the surreal trajectories of ESSW are real trajectories in classical hydrodynamics. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hydrodynamic quantum analogs: "Experiments cannot be reproduced"

In the section on hydrodynamic quantum anologs, it says "Hydrodynamic pilot-wave analogs have been claimed to duplicate the double slit experiment, tunneling, quantized orbits, and numerous other quantum phenomena which have led to a resurgence in interest in pilot wave theories."

Shortly afterwards the article says "These results have been disputed: the experiments cannot be reproduced."

Attached to this second quote are the following two references:

• https://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.92.013006
• https://www.quantamagazine.org/famous-experiment-dooms-pilot-wave-alternative-to-quantum-weirdness-20181011/

These references do not say the experiments cannot be reproduced, they are only concerned with the double slit experiment in particular. The Elysian Vector Fields (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I changed the text. I made a quick pass sometime ago to remove some of the egregious claims in the article. The hydrodynamics analog work is rather convoluted and the fluid dynamics of it has taken on life of its own. That makes simple statements on the relationship to QM difficult either way. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Review ref

This recent review should be useful

• Benseny, A., Albareda, G., Sanz, Á. et al. Applied Bohmian mechanics. Eur. Phys. J. D 68, 286 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjd/e2014-50222-4

Johnjbarton (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)