> Unsustained by the particle or droplet, the wavefront disperses long before reaching its slit, and there’s no interference pattern. The Danish researchers verified these arguments with computer simulations.
Wait, what? From what I've always understood, the math behind de Broglie-Bohm interpretation results in the same exact results as the Copenhagen interpretation. It shouldn't be possible for any "computer simulation" to disprove it, by definition.
This article feels 1) pointless and 2) like it has an agenda. Oil droplets are a macro-scale approximation of something on the particle level where we already know the math works. This doesn't disprove anything, any more than doing experiments with rubber sheets and basketballs lets you disprove the general theory of relativity.
> crushing a century-old dream that there exists a single, concrete reality.
This is just sensationalist, cheap journalism. I expected far better from Quanta Magazine, and I'm disappointed in them. I've enjoyed many of their articles in the past, but I'm not sure I can trust them editorially any more if they print something so obviously incorrect as this article.
If you read all the way to the end, de Broglie-Bohm is discussed. I think the point is that the simpler, original pilot wave theory, which was never fully nailed down, is disproven.
correct, and the Broglie-Bohm uses an abstract amplitude wave just like copenhagen - the only difference is in copenhagen the result auto-magically appears, in-toto, when it is "measured" (¿), and in Broglie-Bohm the particle really exists the whole time and travels the whole path mapped out by what the abstract amplitude wave specified.
> Wait, what? From what I've always understood, the math behind de Broglie-Bohm interpretation results in the same exact results as the Copenhagen interpretation.
The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation is not the same as the pilot-wave theory, which was never fully fleshed out. de Broglie-Bohm is valid and makes the same predictions as the standard interpretation, but as I understood it, has never been generalized to the relativistic versions of the standard theory. That is, there is no de Broglie-Bohm version of quantum field theory.
This is discussed in the article; the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation relies on a global pilot wave, which has non-locality issues that pilot wave theory hoped to avoid.
> It shouldn't be possible for any "computer simulation" to disprove it, by definition.
Here I believe they are disproving the idea that the oil droplets riding the pilot waves cannot result in the double-slit interference pattern, using standard fluid mechanics (which appears to be Tomas Bohr's area of expertise).
> The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation is not the same as the pilot-wave theory, which was never fully fleshed out.
Most contexts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory) define pilot-wave theory and the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation as the same. de Broglie himself also proposed a specific pilot-wave theory that is not valid (see article). When referring to a "pilot-wave" theory it is helpful to state specifically who the author is in order to resolve any likely confusion, which this topic usually seems to involve.
> has never been generalized to the relativistic versions of the standard theory
>This is discussed in the article; the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation relies on a global pilot wave, which has non-locality issues that pilot wave theory hoped to avoid.
Isn't it the other way round? Pilot-Wave theory having issues with non-locality that de Broglie-Bohm hoped to avoid?
Wait, what? From what I've always understood, the math behind de Broglie-Bohm interpretation results in the same exact results as the Copenhagen interpretation. It shouldn't be possible for any "computer simulation" to disprove it, by definition.
This article feels 1) pointless and 2) like it has an agenda. Oil droplets are a macro-scale approximation of something on the particle level where we already know the math works. This doesn't disprove anything, any more than doing experiments with rubber sheets and basketballs lets you disprove the general theory of relativity.
> crushing a century-old dream that there exists a single, concrete reality.
This is just sensationalist, cheap journalism. I expected far better from Quanta Magazine, and I'm disappointed in them. I've enjoyed many of their articles in the past, but I'm not sure I can trust them editorially any more if they print something so obviously incorrect as this article.