Timeline for Why do people still talk about bohmian mechanics/hidden variables [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 25, 2017 at 21:04 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 12, 2017 at 16:35 | comment | added | Cyberchipz | It's now 3 years later, and I thought those reading this might find this link informative: Experimental nonlocal and surreal Bohmian trajectories. Abstract: Weak measurement allows one to empirically determine a set of average trajectories for an ensemble of quantum particles... We entangle two photons and determine a set of Bohmian trajectories for one of them using weak measurements and postselection. We show that the trajectories seem surreal only if one ignores their manifest nonlocality. advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1501466 | |
| Dec 14, 2013 at 7:31 | comment | added | anna v | I put more value on the locality and special relativity arguments that exclude internal degrees of freedom for the electron. This as far as hidden variables. Bohmian mechanics seem to me a complicated mathematical way to describe what we already know simply, which cannot go into second quantization that has was proven experimentally to work with locality and special relativity perfectly within our errors. | |
| Dec 14, 2013 at 7:28 | comment | added | anna v | Well, I will disagree with the great Feynman ,"But we must not forget that what is inside the electron should not be dependent on what we do, and in particular upon whether we open or close one of the holes. So if an electron, before it starts, has already made up its mind (a) which hole it is going to use, and (b) where it is going to land"a) he is anthropomorphising the electron b)ignoring that all wavefunctions are dependent on the boundary conditions.It is the boundary conditions that make the electron wavefunction "know" where it will go.Boundary conditions exist for complex systems too. | |
| Dec 14, 2013 at 7:03 | history | edited | yayu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1905 characters in body
|
| Sep 11, 2013 at 13:06 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Sep 11, 2013 at 14:23 | |||||
| Aug 2, 2011 at 19:15 | comment | added | jdm | To think about hidden variables is not necessarily unreasonable at all. One could take the opposite stance and ask "Why isn't every physicist a Bohmian?" as in this interesting paper arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412119 . | |
| Mar 19, 2011 at 20:02 | comment | added | user68 | @Deepak It is certainly my error to close it so late; I'll try to be more reactive. | |
| Mar 19, 2011 at 19:53 | comment | added | user346 | @mbq if you close a question, with so many answers and so many votes, are you not disallowing those who have not yet answered the chance to do so in the future? The question could have been formulated in a less confrontational manner, but I think its a bit late to close it, IMHO. There are some very detailed and non-argumentative answers here. | |
| Mar 19, 2011 at 17:54 | comment | added | user68 | Sorry, but such questions are somehow not working on this site -- they collapse into an useless random argument. | |
| Mar 19, 2011 at 17:46 | history | closed | user68 | not constructive | |
| Mar 19, 2011 at 12:20 | answer | added | Daniel | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 18, 2011 at 21:41 | answer | added | Raskolnikov | timeline score: 21 | |
| Mar 18, 2011 at 18:04 | vote | accept | yayu | ||
| Mar 18, 2011 at 18:04 | |||||
| Mar 18, 2011 at 4:22 | answer | added | Janne808 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 18, 2011 at 3:43 | answer | added | user1355 | timeline score: 8 | |
| Mar 18, 2011 at 3:10 | history | edited | DarenW |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 17, 2011 at 22:36 | answer | added | Andrew | timeline score: 29 | |
| Mar 17, 2011 at 20:26 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/48480441933643776 | ||
| Mar 17, 2011 at 18:22 | answer | added | Luboš Motl | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 17, 2011 at 18:17 | answer | added | iii | timeline score: 6 | |
| Mar 17, 2011 at 17:58 | history | asked | yayu | CC BY-SA 2.5 |