I wanted to know that are the main shortcomings of contemporary Pilot-Wave theory which is holding it back from dominating physics departments? To what extent is the facukty biase, do you think, influencing Pilot-Wave emergence?

Furthermore, Is string theory still being debated? If yes, then how has the physics community overcame its unempiricality? Is it solely because of its elegent mathematics or the the philosophic tendencies of the vehement scholars backing it?


closed as too broad by Chair, StephenG, John Rennie, Cosmas Zachos, Qmechanic Oct 20 '18 at 11:17

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ I voted to close under the homework rule as these questions have been widely discussed in the physics community and have answers-a-plenty for anyone who wants to look them up on the internet. Lack of basic research. $\endgroup$ – StephenG Oct 20 '18 at 9:47
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the Input, I will surely consider it for my next questions. $\endgroup$ – Bertrand Wittgenstein's Ghost Oct 20 '18 at 9:49

Non relativistic Bohmian mechanics give indistinguishable results to quantum mechanics in predictions, with the expense of enormous complications for more than simple problems. AFAIK the situation with relativistic physics and field theoretical formalisms are not at the same situation. As quantum field theory has been very successful in fitting data, the only promising new proposition for including gravity in a theory of everything, again AFAIK are string theories.

If yes, then how has the physics community overcame its unempiricality?

It is strange to talk of unempiricallity for a proposed theory which can embed the standard model of particle physics . The standard model is an encapsulation of a huge number of experimental data, and in this sense, a higher level theory that can naturally embed all these data can be considered empirical. The problems with string theory is that there is no definitive model, whose predictions can be tested and validate it.

If supesymmetric particles are found in the new runs of the LHC, that would be a positive validation, as supersymmetries are inherent in string theory. Experiments at CERN are looking for microblack holes,unsuccessfully up to now. If any are found it will be another validations from some type of string model.

The CMS experiment at CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has completed a search for microscopic black holes produced in high-energy proton-proton collisions. No evidence for their production was found and their production has been excluded up to a black hole mass of 3.5-4.5 TeV (1012 electron volts) in a variety of theoretical models.

Microscopic black holes are predicted to exist in some theoretical models that attempt to unify General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics by postulating the existence of extra "curled-up" dimensions, in addition to the three familiar spatial dimensions. At the high energies of the Large Hadron Collider, such theories predict that particles may collide "closely enough" to be sensitive to these postulated extra dimensions. In such a case, the colliding particles could interact gravitationally with strengths similar to those of the other three fundamental forces – the Electromagnetic, Weak and Strong interactions. The two colliding particles might then form a microscopic black hole.

So it is the promise of string theories in unifying all four interactions : electromagnetic, weak, strong and gravitational that is keeping the interest alive.

  • $\begingroup$ Interesting, I might have misexpressed my self by saying S.T. is unempirical. What I meant was it is unintuitive, and non-impirical. That is, the extra-dimentionality of S.T. is, by definition, what I am referring to when I say unempirical. Regardless of how many expiremental validations we get, it does not change the fact that it is inherently, by employing numerous dimentions, unempirical. We can not verify the basis on which it stand. Regardless, thank you for your answer. As for B.M. the only problem currently, as I take from your answer, is it complicated formalism. I see. Thank you. $\endgroup$ – Bertrand Wittgenstein's Ghost Oct 20 '18 at 10:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Moe I believe that with relativistic theories there are problems, and have not heard of an equivalent quantum field theory which deals with many particles in an interaction. $\endgroup$ – anna v Oct 20 '18 at 13:29

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.