Anonymous at Sat, 22 Mar 2025 17:44:17 UTC No. 16625962

>>16625960
Let's start off by clarifying that "Copenhagen interpretation" is not a well-defined thing but is instead a slogan used by various groups who claim to represent the orthodoxy.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Mar 2025 17:45:52 UTC No. 16625966

>>16625962
While that's true there are some more classical overarching ideas like non-deterministic randomness due to measurements interacting with the wavefunction.
To me I don't see how this would mesh with discrete paths that seem to be present in reality, which would better be described by pilot-wave or perhaps many-worlds

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 02:06:38 UTC No. 16626306

>>16625960
To determine the exact position of the "particle" you still need to put in infinite energy in the system so the particle remains hidden no matter what and it's untestable.
In Bohmian motion you still have the collapse of the wave function except the wave function is asserted to be real and you have the existence of the Bohemian particles. Since the wave function is real the empty unexplored branches are also real and so your theory simply turns into the many worlds interpretation except you have superfluous Bohmian particles whose existence you assert despite them being necessarily hidden. Bohmian motion adds nothing but metaphysical baggage.
The interesting part of local hidden variable theories was always the question of locality and that has been answered years ago. There is no extra explanatory power in a nonlocal hidden variable theory, you just replace indeterminacy with inaccessible particles. This is why it deservedly gets a bad rep because it's pointless.
Weak measurements are not the same as proper measurements with the proper apparatus-subject relationship. You are measuring an ensemble and inferring some value from it and not the proper position as Bohmian motion describes it.
With weak measurements you are trying to say that because you and your dog have three legs on average, you can't possibly explain why the dog has four legs on his own. The average doesn't show you the actual trajectory so what are you doing, exactly?
As for the question: the system is correlated by strong measurement with apparatus over time. It doesn't matter when you do the weak measurement of the ensemble because it's based on strong measurement result and the environment is already correlated with the quantum system you're measuring. Postselection is just a clever trick that doesn't affect the physical system. You get information about the quantum system from it correlating with the apparatus and from that data you can construct these "trajectories".

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 02:24:27 UTC No. 16626319

>>16626306
In Bohmian motion you don't have the collapse of the wave function. The idea is a universal wave that never collapses acting on quantum particles.
You COULD assert empty entangled worlds are "real" if you wanted, but I don't see why you would. Denying that particles exist period and saying it's only waves is just as denying waves period and saying it's only particles, I doubt either extreme is correct.

You touch the question but then avoid it all together.
>but it's not 100% totally accurate
Yes, it's an approximate measurement, just like all measurements.
Are you making the claim the measurement is so inaccurate that it's actually just straight lines that get "averaged out" to the expected lines of Bohmian motion? Wouldn't the "average" motion be a straight line?

I don't think you answered my question. Half your block of text was off topic. The last paragraph you wrote at least comes close, but if I may rephrase it?
>The paths weakly measured don't count because when the quantum particle is detected at one end the universe back propagates path information which only makes it LOOK like Bohmian mechanics
Is backpropogation of quantum information somehow NOT "metaphysical baggage" when acknowledging particles is?

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 04:16:19 UTC No. 16626366

>>16626319
Weak measurement means you perform strong measurements on a member of the correlated system but correlations established through entanglement do not align with the eigenstates of the measured member being weakly measured in some other way. If you measure the member it influences the remaining degrees of freedom in the system which leads them into new states with distinct properties i.e. you end up introducing some disturbance. In QM you can conditonalize the final state meaning you can adjust the probability based on new data. There is no "backpropagation" of information it's just conditional probability, by which you I assume you meant time-symmetry. You have all the information you need encoded in the pointer. You don't need pilot wave voodoo to explain the trajectories they got.
>How do followers of the Copenhagen interpretation explain [...]
Clearly rather easily. I could've also just quoted the paper which says
>Single-particle trajectories measured in this fashion reproduce those predicted by the Bohm-de Broglie interpretation of quantum mechanics (8), although the reconstruction is in no way dependent on a choice of interpretation
Which is to be expected as pilot wave equivalent mathematically.

Realistically, nobody is throwing away QFT for a meme theory with ontologically dubious claims about trust me bro particles which bring nothing to the table.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 04:24:13 UTC No. 16626368

>>16626366
>>Single-particle trajectories measured in this fashion reproduce those predicted by the Bohm-de Broglie interpretation of quantum mechanics (8), although the reconstruction is in no way dependent on a choice of interpretation
The final clause is obviously stating that choice of interpretation doesn't change the reconstruction, I.E. that they didn't assume Bohm and build backwards, they just reconstructed as best as possible and it matched with Bohm.
To again restate the question, why would a Copenhagenist expect a Bohmist outcome? Why would it NOT just be straight line shortest distance paths?

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 04:49:21 UTC No. 16626376

>>16626368
NTA but why would any interpretation disagree on the results of certain calculations? What they disagree on is in the interpretations of the calculations.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 05:11:15 UTC No. 16626385

>>16626376
I've seen shit where they will do biased reconstructions or ones where the model used for reconstruction is based off a pre-existing idea of the author.
It's not uncommon, and so sometimes people will specify
>this seems to support XYZ, but you can arrive at that conclusion without first assuming XYZ
Should it be required? No. But it's nice to have when the alternative can lead to bias.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 06:06:05 UTC No. 16626413

>>16626376
I realize I misunderstood your question
The issue here is wave function collapse (or lackthereof), where in most modern understandings of Copenhagen where waves aren't physically real etc etc would predict that if you were to trace a photons path then you find it always takes the shortest path from A to B (like that veritasium video) where experimental data shows that it may not take the shortest path and may instead take a path that looks like it's riding the wave, like Bohm proposed.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 08:13:34 UTC No. 16626461

Bohemian mechanics is retarded because it can't even account for relativistic motion... when pretty much all particles move close to c.
Next thing you tell me, special relativity doesn't work? Lol.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 08:14:36 UTC No. 16626464

Daily reminder Bohemian mechanics can't predict anything more than Schrodinger equation can, while complicating math three-fold.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 12:40:04 UTC No. 16626557

>>16626413
This can't really be confirmed. The shortest path isn't knowable even in theory because there are no absolute reference frames.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 13:31:07 UTC No. 16626580

>>16626464
But its not judenmath.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 17:29:14 UTC No. 16626761

>>16626557
That doesn't make sense. The universe is flat (mostly), and spacetime curvature around something like earth is minor enough that, yes, a straight line is the shortest path.
The absolute reference frames matter more for velocity than they do for direction, no? Maybe I misunderstood your point.

>>16626461
It is a flaw with the current model, but it was also a flaw with every other model until they got further developed. The fact that other models are more popular means they developed faster and further, I'm not staking my life on de Broglie-Bohm but I do think it's interesting it seems to have correctly predicted paths.
That lead to my question, why would the paths be Bohmian under a purely Copenhagen assumption? To me this convinces me that neither are exactly correct, nor are they exactly wrong. I'd be interested in seeing more research into it.

>>16626464
The equations for particle motion fall out of the Shrodinger equations, and again they seem to be supported by studies done on the motion of quantum particles. Read the previous paragraph for my thoughts on it.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 19:19:44 UTC No. 16626828

>>16625960
I'm pretty sure they "derived" the paths using Copenhagen.
This result is more about showing copenhagen is in some sense the same as bohmian, which nobody is surprised by.
Different interpretations just put the quantum weirdness in different places.
The QM interpretation game is just brain rot similar to how the CS autists argue about which language is better.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 19:26:44 UTC No. 16626832

>>16626828
Wrong. At least CS fags understand they are all abstractions except for machine code. Assembly is like the newton laws. Modern physics is faggotry know no other. Unlike classical physics which is king of science. Now and always.

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 06:43:54 UTC No. 16628042

the weak values obtained from weak measurements are not a methodological artifact but they come from the kirkwood-dirac complex probability distribution, one of the many quasidistributions of the phase space formulation that can be used to give a complete description of quantum mechanics

so they are a part of quantum theory regardless of interpretation. the real part of weak values tell you what is going on in the unmeasured quantum state. obviously different interpretations have different views on quantum states. some it is just a weird state of superposition, for stochastic interpretation and bohmian it will give you information about what point particles are doing at that part of space when there are no measurements going on because the formalism that guides particle behavior formally corresponds to these weak values.

something really interesting is that quantum weak values also describe the properties of classical optical fields and macroscopic beams of light, so its plausible they could be telling you valid information about physical events going on when there are no measurements happening. sure the way they are measured with minimal disturbance gives you an impression that this is just a weird trick in quantum methods. but that is not the case. it is a genuine aspect of the formalism telling you information about the unmeasured state. and you can even obtain these weak values using strong measurements.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 06:49:31 UTC No. 16628048

>>16625960
because its measuring something part of quantum formalism independent of interpretation. the stochastic mechanical current velocity is formally identical to what is being mesured in this study

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:14:45 UTC No. 16628111

>>16625960
You have fundamentally misunderstood the subject. Interpretations of quantum mechanics do not explain anything. They are not theories, they predict nothing. They are philosophical musing beyond the realm of science

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 13:42:18 UTC No. 16628174

The fact that Bohm’s formulation of the Schrödinger equation just becomes Hamilton-Jacobi + a nonlocal quantum potential is the most beautiful thing about QM. It’s self-evident pilot wave is the correct interpretation, it’s sad it can never be proven however

>>16628111
Low iq post

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:19:07 UTC No. 16628282

Stochastic mechanics is superior because it is built upon exactly the same. Hamilton Jacobi model but here is the main difference:

Bohm effectively just takes the schrodinger equation as an initial assumptions and plops deterministic particles on top.

Stochastic mechanics starts from non-quantum assumptions and derives the schrodinger equation de novo: it is literally the only formulation that gives an explanation for why quantum theory behaves the way it does...

The answer is that quantum mechanics is the natural behavior of a non-dissipative / frictionless / energetically conservative diffusion.
Regular diffusions are dissipative because when something like a pollen particle diffuses through a glass of water, it loses energy because it is being jostled about by the surrounding water molecules. The surrounding water molecules effectively cause friction on the particle motion so it loses energy. If the water molecules were to return the energy to the particle it would allow quantum behavior.

On a more abstract level, what stochastic mechanics says is that quantum mechanica is very literally just what happens when you take Lagrangian mechanics and allow the particles to deviate randomly about the path of least action. It is the stochastic generalization of Lagrangian mechanics - which requires energy to be conserved just like in Lagrangian mechanics. So you need that mechanism to conserve energy as talked about earlier or else the randomly deviating particles just turn into a regular dissipative diffusion.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:20:08 UTC No. 16628283

woops, >>16628282 was meant for >>16628174

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 17:11:08 UTC No. 16628304

muh collapse

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 19:26:58 UTC No. 16628387

>>16628048
I'm too sick to phrase what I want to say properly, I came down with a bad headcold so excuse the following retardation:
Yes, this is what falls out of Schrodinger and it was predicted accurately by Bohm, it can be accepted by other interpretations but what to me it seems to lack explanatory power.
What is the explanation? de Broglie Bohm explains, it predicted the paths correctly.

>>16628174
Personally the few studies I've looked into have seemed to agree with Bohm, hence my post. It's been enough to convince me, and people saying shit like >>16628111 while not totally wrong ignoce the point that we're trying to figure out which one is right.

>>16628282
So if I understand correctly you mean to say that the path of least action is Bohmian but is simply because that's how quantized particles travel by Schrodinger? The random deviation part is fine, that's the point of Copenhagen and other non-deterministic theories, but I'm asking why paths are Bohmian, which I don't think you answered.
Maybe I'm just being an idiot, could you rephrase your point a bit?