Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

In dense aether model the space behaves like 3D analogy of 2D water surface, which follows from Boltzmann brain perspective. Similarly to water surface space is noisy and it's in neverending motion: a Brownian motion of space, so called Zero Point Energy or quantum noise. Object moving across space leave wake waves around them in similar way, like boats at the water surface: so called pilot wave. Except that because space wiggles, so that pilot wave is formed even around objects at rest. Pilot wave is not esoteric abstract object at all and its plasmon analogy is directly observable for example by electrons within electron microscope:

For understanding of measurement process in quantum mechanics it's crucial to realize, that all objects are surrounded by pilot wave - both observer both observed object. Before observations the pilot waves of both subjects wiggle randomly, so that the result of observation is also random. But once observation occurs, both objects become entangled and their pilot wave start to undulate in synchrony. The random wiggling of pilot wave of observed object thus disappears for its observer and we are saying, their wave function collapsed. This synchrony remains at play as long until so called quantum decoherence takes place (random vacuum fluctuations all around us indeed tend to break this synchrony). In addition, the phase of pilot waves at which both subjects remain locked mutually is still random and the entangled system thus represents its own version of reality with respect to another, still unentangled subjects, which are still wiggling unphased.

Look, how easy and natural actually is to understand basic ideas of both "many words", both Copenhagen quantum mechanics: the pilot wave theory embraces them both by the simple mechanic model!

Congratulations Zephir_AWT for your explanation close from mine.

Now, you should share your hypothesis, try to explain how pilot wave as you said and 3D matter are linked all together ?

it remains the main point to trigger a new physic.. after Albert E...

Quote

I like De Broglie's pilot wave theory a lot, but there's some evidence that it too is not a complete explanation of reality ...Oil droplets guided by “pilot waves” have failed to reproduce the results of the quantum double-slit experiment, crushing a century-old dream that there exists a single, concrete reality.

You can read that

Quote

After perfecting their experimental setups, getting rid of air currents, and setting oil droplets bouncing on pilot waves toward two slits, none of the teams saw the interference-like pattern reported by Couder and Fort.

So that some experimentalists failed to replicate experiment, made by two teams previously and which even amateurs replicate on YouTube easily. How many teams failed to replicate Fleischman & Pons experiments? And what it actually says about theory of cold fusion? The truth is, Louis de Broglie was aetherist and pilot wave theory is too aetherish for being palatable for mainstream physicists.

Quote

there's some evidence that it too is not a complete explanation of reality

Louis de Broglie himself coined double solution theory instead of his former pilot wave theory. But these subtleties are outside the scope of this forum.

Quote

try to explain how pilot wave as you said and 3D matter are linked all together

As I told, in similar way, like wake wave around boat at the 2D surface. When object is moving, vacuum undulates around it and it deforms space-time in such a way, the speed of light remains constant. The pilot wave thus explains also light speed invariance and relativistic contraction of time including twin paradox. Or better to say, the pilot/wake wave formation is just the consequence of fact that surface ripples cannot catch the object motion, because they always propagate with constant speed, independent of object motion. The pilot wave formation is thus required by special relativity - it's relativistic effect.

Note that vacuum density increase due to pilot wave deform is relative effect: when two objects are moving in parallel, their pilot waves will be equal so that these objects wouldn't experience time dilatation mutually, because they're actually stationary with respect to each other. Only objects in relative motion would observe pilot wave and relativistic effects.

For understanding of measurement process in quantum mechanics it's crucial to realize, that all objects are surrounded by pilot wave - both observer both observed object. Before observations the pilot waves of both subjects wiggle randomly, so that the result of observation is also random. But once observation occurs, both objects become entangled and their pilot wave start to undulate in synchrony. The random wiggling of pilot wave of observed object thus disappears for its observer and we are saying, their wave function collapsed. This synchrony remains at play as long until so called quantum decoherence takes place (random vacuum fluctuations all around us indeed tend to break this synchrony). In addition, the phase of pilot waves at which both subjects remain locked mutually is still random and the entangled system thus represents its own version of reality with respect to another, still unentangled subjects, which are still wiggling unphased.

Look, how easy and natural actually is to understand basic ideas of both "many words", both Copenhagen quantum mechanics: the pilot wave theory embraces them both by the simple mechanic model!

Given the title of this thread speculation about fundamentals of quantum mechanics is irrelevant. By definition all the different interpretations are equally true of false, since they make the same physical predictions.

HOWEVER - I'd make some comments.

• Pilot wave analogies are unsatisfactory because they "work" by supposing some complex extra mechanism (the Pilot waves) that is not further explained. Rather like creationism as explanation for evolutionary fossils it cannot be disproved but is unsatisfactory. For a similar but slightly less encumbered interpretation see Cramer transactional interpretation.
• Any analogy based on our human perception of macroscopic 3D space is likely to anthropomorphise. We have ample evidence that the fundamental structure of GR + QM is nothing like the macroscopic reality in which we are situated - so why should we prefer physical theories that copy aspects of it?
• The likelihood that spacetime can be generated from quantum entanglement, somehow, is now pretty good. Too many straws in the wind in that direction to ignore. IF that is true then we have a very different fundamental model of time and space, from which qm interpretation will arise. Thus many worlds become one world in which varying amounts of entanglement describe where things happen, when they happen, and whether they can influence each other. There is then no fundamental distinction between events outside the light-cone that cannot communicate and events in different "worlds" where lack of overlap makes interaction very low probability. And the same maths generate both phenomena.

Quote

By definition all the different interpretations are equally true of false, since they make the same physical predictions.

Well, Mr. Alan himself just said that pilot wave is not complete description of reality - no matter whether he is correct or wrong, it would imply that pilot wave isn't equivalent to another, "more complete" interpretations. And they really aren't, that means that their labelling as interpretations is misnomer - at least partially . Lets consider the difference between Copenhagen Interpretation (CI), De Broglie–Bohm theory (BT) and the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI). BT assumes that under normal circumstances we have so-called quantum equilibrium and only then do you get the usual predictions of standard quantum mechanics that you get when you assume CI. This means that you can try to detect small deviations of exact quantum equilibrium, see here for details.

If the MWI is correct then time evolution is always exactly unitary. The CI doesn't explain how we get to a non-unitary collapse, but it does assume that there exists such a thing. This implies that at least in principle there should be detectable effects. Systems that are well isolated from the environment should undergo a non-unitary time evolution at a rate that is faster than can be explained as being caused by decoherence by the residual interactions it still has with the environment.

David Deutsch has proposed a thought experiment to illustrate that MWI is not experimentally equivalent to CI. Suppose an artificially intelligent experimenter is simulated by a quantum computer. It will measure the operator A = |0><0| - |1><1|. The qubit is initialized in the state |1/sqrt(2)[|0> + |1>]. Then the CI predicts that after the measurement the state of the qubit undergoes a non-unitary collapse to one of the two possible eigenstates of A, i.e. |0> or |1>. The MWI asserts that the state of the entire quantum computer splits into two branches corresponding to either of the possible outcomes.

To decide who is right, the experimenter decides to let the computer perform the unitary time evolution corresponding to inverting the final state of the quantum computer (according to the MWI) to the initial state, but while keeping the record that a measurement has been performed. This transform to the modified initial state is still unitary and can therefore be implemented (all unitary transforms can be implemented using only the CNOT and single qubit rotations). Then it is easy to check that if the CI is correct that you don't get that desired modified initial state back and the difference between the two states if the qubit you end up with, can be easily detected by doing measurements on it.

Quote

Pilot wave analogies are unsatisfactory because they "work" by supposing some complex extra mechanism (the Pilot waves) that is not further explained

Pilot wave ontologically doesn't differ from ad hoced wave function in another interpretations, which aren't explained anyway. The physical explanation of pilot wave as a wake wave of aether is indeed private mine and arbitrary, nevertheless from this model also follows, that pilot wave is actually required by special relativity: the vacuum adjusts speed of light propagation to speed of object relative motion in this way. Pilot wave makes space-time around object in motion directionally deformed and more "dense" for propagation of energy in just the way, the speed of light would remain constant and local time of object did run more slowly according to special relativity. In this way it's the only interpretation which doesn't only explain how quantum mechanics and wave function actually works, but it also explains, how special relativity and its time dilatation is working. Pilot wave model is thus key for unification of both theories at intuitive logical level.

Pilot wave model also explains, how another interpretations of QM are working and which their strengths and weaknesses are as illustrated above. It implies that ad-hoced wave function actually is "real" physical wave of vacuum - it just surrounds the particle in motion, it doesn't really dissolve it and delocalize it. The particle thus doesn't pass both slits in double slit experiment at the same moment as some interpretations of wave mechanics imply - only it's adjacent pilot wave does it. The fact that such a pilot wave cannot be directly observed makes no problem for pilot wave theory, because it's transverse wave of vacuum in essence - and no transverse wave of vacuum can be really observed by light waves until it doesn't radiate (you cannot see the light from flashlight, until it doesn't impact your retina).

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Lets consider the difference between Copenhagen Interpretation (CI), De Broglie–Bohm theory (BT) and the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI).

This is old man's religious brim-bram. QM is not a fundamental theory for describing the reality. It works just for low potentials or "the upper half of the world".

It's fun to see that people still discuss about a mathematical duality as being something real aka a problem that needs to be solved.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

The fact that such a pilot wave cannot be directly observed makes no problem for pilot wave theory, because it's transverse wave of vacuum in essence - and no transverse wave of vacuum can be really observed by light waves until it doesn't radiate (you cannot see the light from flashlight, until it doesn't impact your retina).

The fact is that current physics only knows a little about the reality as it misses the all dominant magnetic part. The phase space of a wave can assume any velocity as recently has been measured at least 64c. Even worse as new modeling shows that the electron has no defined mass radius, what indicates a potentially infinite event horizon.

Either a model can explain what we see or better it can calculate it from first principle. If the calculation works then the only question is how exact!

Because QM/QED can neither exactly calculate nor explain anything for dense matter it has no value to discuss about fringe claims like how many hairs has Schrödingers cat...even if you sit in a coffee-shop near Copenhagen1, Copenhagen2, CopenhagenX...

George Box: "All theories are wrong, some are useful". I'd add, some theories are apparently more useful than others. Neither quantum mechanics, neither general relativity is exact theory of reality, fundamental the less.

In dense aether model it's not accidental that we use pair of theories instead of single one. Both theories are actually very similar and they do apply to intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives of observable reality. Both theories are saying that deformed space has attributed mass density/probability proportional to energy density of this deform by E=mc^2 formula - they just illustrate it at different scales. It's not also accidental that both theories do apply on dimensional scale, where observable objects get perfectly spherical (1, 2), because dimensionality of space-time goes through infimum there. We know, that most stars aren't exactly spherical, but the sphere is the most useful approximation of them. While we can propose a more exact models (ellipsoid, geoid), one could hardly invent better model, which would provide more info / testable predictions at lower number of parameters at wider range of conditions.

The role of general relativity and quantum mechanics for description of observable reality is similar. Better to learn, how and why they work so well.

Psychologists: Getting Liberals to Agree Really is Like Herding Cats. Conservatives have problem, that they adhere on accepted status quo and they hate/ignore/deny any deviations from it. Whereas liberals have opposite problem: they don't want to respect any authority and they tend to dismiss even high quality theories on behalf of vague perspective of even better ones.

IMO both attitudes are biased and we should learn to balance them. In my opinion we can never find any better formal theory than QM and GR (in similar way like we never find any other dimensional scale, at which the objects would be as spherical as they already are at GR/QM scales). The geometry of Boltzmann brain universe simply has no more room for it and it has only two most deterministic perspectives: intrinsic and extrinsic one: no more, no less. All other theories which would be more exact would be also less general and vice-versa: more general theories will be also less exact and/or inherently more complex (defined by higher number parameters). In dense aether model we are random Boltzmann brain which is observing random Universe. Both randomnesses intersect in intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives like moire at two dimensional scales, at which observable reality gets most deterministic - least dimensional. At the water surface the ripples spread in regular circles also at certain distance scale, bellow and above it the things get fuzzy fast. And QM/GR theories describe just these most determinist scales at which we are observing random Universe from inside and outside of it: it's not their weakness or strength, but their property. They will fail outside these scales the more, the more the parameters get distant from these scales. But once we look for analytical explicit description of reality, there can be hardly any better description (I mean better in the sense of number of axiom inputs versus number of theorem outputs of theory).

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Better to learn, how and why they work so well.

Better to learn how well
(exactly) or not....GR and SM work for the nucleus.

So: I stand by my statement about QM foundations and no physical prediction.

Zephir (via Deutsch) claims that CI can be distinguished from MWI.

That is not true. the though experiment requires wave function collapse to jhappen within an isolated system when D thinks it will happen - but this is not defined and of course will not happen.

CI is silly - no-one sensible thinks it is realistic - bit it cannot be physically distiguished form other interpretations.

Quote

electron has no defined mass radius, what indicates a potentially infinite event horizon

In dense aether model electron is formed by mutual resonance of longitudinal and transverse waves of vacuum. The Mobius loop model of electron comes on mind here.

The -2/3 loops of internal and 1/3 external loops corresponds the fractional charge of quarks. We can see that electron is actually two-quark particle like meson, but living on its very own instead of surface of atom nuclei, where mesons usually reside. One of quarks forming the electron is heavily collapsed like atom nuclei in topological inverted space-time and it's negative charge becomes positive one, so it's responsible for weak charge of electron. The second branch encircles the center along loose loop and it's responsible for electromagnetic Coulomb charge of electron. The electron has thus finite radius given by repulsive scope of weak nuclear force in similar way like neutrino. Two electrons not only would repulse by Coulomb force, they would also collide once they approach at distance smaller than 10^-18 meters - this distance thus represents the physical size of electron, where also most of its rest mass remains concentrated.

Quote

GR and SM work for the nucleus

From above diagram follows that GR works best for objects of size of Sun, quantum mechanics works best for objects of size of electron orbital. It's not accidental that Sun is mostly composed of degenerated electron orbitals, because these two objects are holographically dual. Outside these scopes the GR and QM theories are predestined to fail, but parabola for waterfall model also fails at most of common situations, yet it remains most effective and useful model for waterfall description.

Quote

CI can be distinguished from MWI

CI is based on intrinsic perspective and it denies consistent histories, MWI on strictly explicit one and it denies collapse, whereas pilot wave theory embraces both, being thus more general. Above I explained that collapse of wave function can be easily explained by synchronizing of pilot wave of observer with pilot wave of observed object. But such a perspective is extrinsic and generally inaccessible for us. From intrinsic perspective of observer the wiggling of observed object suddenly just disappears once they get entangled after exchange of quanta of energy during process of observation.

Even more intuitively the CI says, that observed object gets delocalized across whole scope of observation, MWI says, that pinpoint object is surrounded by its own delocalized reality and Broglie pilot wave theory says, that pin point object is surrounded by delocalizing atmosphere of finite radius, in the scope of which it also lives in its own alternative reality - but not outside it. De Broglie himself later improved this view by so-called double solution model, according to which partially delocalized object remains surrounded by delocalizing atmoshere, we are thus dealing with two mutually interfering wave functions here. And this view is actually most exact one (despite it's least known accepted the less) and it can be illustrated easily by double slit experiment.

CI predicts that photons would form smooth interference pattern - but no dots (they must be fully delocalized). MWI predicts that photons would form dots arranged into interference patterns but never any smooth pattern. Only De Broglie theory allows the both: fuzzy dots overlapping into less or more smooth pattern, the fuzziness of dots is function of photon energy. X-ray and gamma ray photons arrive always as a dots at target and they never get delocalized = they violate Copenhagen interpretation. With compare to it, low frequency photons are so delocalized that they never form any distinct dots at target = they violate MWI, because all photons actually share the "same world".

In this way all these interpretations can be easily distinguished from each other.

Copenhagen/Bohr interpretation was apparently developed with lightweight photon experiments on mind and it has principal physical problem with all heavier particles, like electrons. According to Copenhagen interpretations for example electrons are residing around atoms fully delocalized into a fuzzy blobby orbitals. When particle goes through double slit, it gets fully delocalized so that it passes both slits "at the same moment", just at the moment when it hits the matrix at target whole this delocalized blob suddenly "collapses", Copenhagen/Bohr interpretation says....

But which force could be responsible for physical ddissolving and composing such a compact particle like electron on demand, not to say about even heavier ones (proton, neutron)? The energy density of electron orbital (in the range of eV) is clearly insufficient to do that (the splitting of electron to photon would require energy at least 512 keV) - so it's evident, that electrons still revolve atom like real pinpoint particles.

A post in major part by Gokul Gopisetti: Here is an article I read in Science Daily a few year back and completely forgot about: "In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed. The experiment revealed that the greater the amount of "watching," the greater the observer's influence on what actually takes place. . . To demonstrate this, Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. . . The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. . . Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it. . . Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. . . the very presence of the detector-"observer" near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier. . .

"In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased.

"Thus, by controlling the properties of the quantum observer the scientists managed to control the extent of its influence on the electrons' behavior."

"Let us start with a superposition of 100% fuzziness of definition; then, let us introduce a detector of 100% observer influence. What will happen to the fuzziness of superposition? The Wave function collapses. That is the detector refines the fuzzy definition by 100%. And let us say the fuzziness becomes 0%.

Let us reduce the observer influence of the detector to 75%, this refines the fuzziness by 75% and the fuzziness drops to 25%.

Let us now reduce the observer influence to 50%, this refines the fuzziness by 50%. That is the superposition is 50% defined and 50% fuzzy.

What happens when we reduce the observer influence to 0%, the superposition is untouched by the observer, untouched by measurement and the interference pattern returns."

Quote

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…/1998/02/980227055013.htm