b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 8287821 (Thread)

# Ah, I vaguely remember all this.
I think in the end I mostly agreed with Bohm. And this just reminds me how much I've managed to forget in just a couple of years.
(I helped save b3ta! my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:19, archived)
# The problem with the Bohmian approach
is that you assume something totally ridiculous at the outset to justify a result you know to be true. I like it but I don't really believe it for a moment.

Unless I'm meaning something very different by the Bohmian approach but I don't think so. You arbitrarily change you potential and then recover Schroedinger's equation, right?
(I helped save b3ta! boris the spider, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:27, archived)
# My memory is a little hazy, but I think he set up something mathematically equivalent to schroedinger, probably with random assumptions, yes.
I remember very pretty drawings showing that instead of a probabilistic approach, you can show deterministic paths for particles diffracting through a slit.
Where basically, the path of the particle is determined by exactly which part of the slit it passes through, under the influence of some kind of 'quantum force field'.
(I helped save b3ta! my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:31, archived)
# Yep, that's the one :)
I like it and in the unlikely event that I ever have to teach people quantum mechanics that's how I'll start it off, but personally I don't take it very seriously although there are people who do. I also don't take the many-worlds nonsense at all seriously although there are people who do.

I pity anyone I'll ever teach quantum mechanics to.
(I helped save b3ta! boris the spider, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:35, archived)
# Haha, it's more intuitive but the maths was pretty horrible if I remember rightly.
I think the best we can really do is be pragmatic, use the formulas that we know work brilliantly, and leave the interpretation to philosophers.
I can't really see us being able to distinguish between them experimentally.
(I helped save b3ta! my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:40, archived)
# damn straight
my view exactly. feynam once slagged off physicists for being obsessed with a theory of everything and said "they're just algorithms" and i think there's a lot in what he said.
(I helped save b3ta! boris the spider, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:43, archived)