Bohmian Mechanics Is Probably False

Given this, it will not be a point by point refutation like other rounds have brought us. Conduct and SourcesI've come to the realiziation that RT's argument from Richard Feynman is actually plagiarizing another source. All he did was take a 2011 post on a physics website and change the wording up to make it less obvious. Simply read the text of the page, and compare it to RT's opening statement, and this will become obvious and apparent. "Let us say that the electron has some internal variables as yet unknown which determine its trajectory given a set of initial conditions just like in classical mechanics. But since these hidden variables are unobserved, coupling it with a classical system should make their effect unchanged. This is what Feynman says, I think, in the last paragraph of Ch1 Vol 3, that if in the double slit experiment, if these inner variables dictate that the electron goes through the upper slit and land at a particular place on the opposite screen, and some other place for the lower screen, then the probability must neccesarily be the sum of two Gaussian like peaks, which does not agree with experiment. " Physics website from 2011 [1]"Imagine that there are hidden variables, and that an electron in some experiment has some internal variables that are not known, which determine the electron's trajectory given a set of initial conditions (similar to how it is in classical mechanics). However, since these hidden variables are not observed, grouping it with a classical system would entail that the effect was not changed. If these inner variables force the electron to go through the upper slit and land at a certain place on the opposite screen, and some other location for the lower screen, then the probability must neccesarily be the sum of two Gaussian like peaks: which self-evidently doesn't agree with observation. " -RT opening roundThis a typical type of plagiarism where a text and is taken, a few words are changed around, and then the person tries to pass it off as their own without any citation. Plagiarism is a very bad offense, so this warrants a loss of conduct points. Pro should lose this source point in this debate Although we both had numerous sources, his application of them was flawed. For example, he cited experiments by Zeilinger in 2007 and Suarez in 2008, claiming that they hurt Bohmian mechanics by falsifying Legget-inequalities. By quoting from the papers themselves, it was demonstrated that Legget inequalities had nothing to do with Bohmian mechanics, and this point was conceded by Pro. This shows a misapplication of sources because if he had read the whole thing, he would have realized that the experiments didn't have any implications on Bohmian mechanics. Furthermore, he misattributes a quote from Lubos Motl to Ilja Schmelzer, and his own citation ironically presents an argument for Bohmian mechanics. This demonstrates a clear and obvious misuse of sources. As far as I read, no similar error in my argument was pointed out by Pro. This is why I should get source and conduct points. ArgumentsI want to begin by stating that I've definitely made an effort to uphold my burden of proof in this debate. I made the argument that Bohm's mechanics is simpler due to its intuitive ontology. I made the argument that Bohmian mechanics doesn't rely on a flawed verificationist philosophy of science. I mentioned experiments which favor the Bohmian interpretation when it comes to dwell and tunneling times, escape times and escape positions, scatting theory, and quantum chaos. These all serve to establish the plausibility of Bohmian mechanics. In my opening round, I stated that "This makes it fundamentally impossible to falsify Bohm’s mechanics without getting rid of QM itself. " Pro tried to switch this around to suggest that I "admit[s] that [my]“hidden variable” theory is unfalsifiable". As I pointed out this, this is taking my words out of context in order to make an argument. I didn't ever say that hidden variables were unfalsfiiable, just that you would falsify the rest of QM if you falsified hidden variables. Perhaps Pro thinks that statement is absurd, but that's neither here nor there to what I actually said in this debate. The fact of the matter is that I never said anything close to what Pro argued I said. This continues when Pro states that "To deny potentially ground breaking experiments that can determine interpretations (such as the one proposed by P. R Holland where we can distinguish between interpretations) due to the fact that harms the "status quo" is amazingly anti-scientific. " Did I ever say that we should ignore experiments because it harms the status quo? No, I simply suggested that quoting some physicists wasn't sufficient on its own to override the consensus on an issue. Here's where the irony meter almost explodes; In his opening round, Pro criticized Bohmian mechanics on the grounds that it had little acceptance in physics. Now, he's telling me that I "obviously [aren't] aware that challenging norms is a good thing in science". The very person who argued against Bohmian mechanics based on its unpopularity is telling me that it's a good thing to question norms in science? That's very interesting. RT argues that the quantum erasure experiment doesn't depend on any interpretation of special relativity because of a quote he offered which said that no naive realist interpretation is consistent. However, Zeilinger is clearly referring to relativistic interpretations of quantum mechanics, because his only argument against a quantum system appearing as either a wave of a particle before measurement is the relativistic assumption that nothing goes faster than speed of light. His quote is better read as "No relativistic interpretation of QM is consistent with our results". However, and RT even agreed to this, Bohmian mechanics is nonrelativistic because it entails a preferred reference frame. The quote, therefore, doesn't establish that Bohmian mechanics is inconsistent with the result. By rod, I think RT is making the argument that length contraction is proof of Minkowski space. . However, there is a Neo-Lorentzian explanation of time dilation: 'By characterizing the variables for moving frames as effective variables, Lorentz maintained that the real spatial lengths, heights, and widths, and real time, existed only in the absolute reference frame. But omitting the Galilean equation, Einstein's theory lost this causal explanatory power. The coordinates (and all properties) of his inertial reference frames become 'brute facts'. " [2] So, not only is time dilation consistent with my argument, but it actually helps. RT admits that Earman's symmetry principles presuppose "some space-time". This is an implicit concession that he's using the assumption of space-time to establish that space and time are connected. Remember, he used these principles to argue against the idea that "space and time are not married in reality". So, his argument is saying "Space and time are united because of principles which presuppose space and time are united". Pro cites a paper by Vladimir K. Ignatovichw which helps my argument in some way, because it admits that Copenhagen and non-Bohmian interpretations are not consistent with standard scattering theory. He uses it as an argument because it modifies standard scattering theory to be consistent with Copenhagen and non-Bohmian interpretations. It's an attempt at modifying known facts because it's inconsistent with your hypothesis, which is the same thing Pro has been trying to criticize Bohmian mechanics for this entire debate. I've been begging Pro to explain why Feynman's experiments entail an ontology, and he's never came through. Even if it's impossible to determine position and velocity simulataneously, this doesn't entail an ontology, just like our inability to determine who shot the first bullet at Lexington and Concord doesn't mean a first shot was never fired. Pro insists that Feynman's experiments disprove hidden variables, but he's failed to articulate himself. There are two types of hidden variables: non-local, and local. Bohm's mechanics is only a non-local hidden variable theory. Pro hasn't explained which type of hidden variables Feynman was talking about, so his argument doesn't establish anything. He could have been talking about local hidden variables, non-local hidden variables, or both. The only way for Feynman's lecture to hurt Bohmian mechanics is if he was attacking non-local hidden variables, but we don't know if he was considering RT's lack of explanation. (Personally, I get the feeling that RT doesn't know either, considering he plagiarized. )My argument about counterintuitive reasons means that absent of any overriding reason to doubt our intuition, we should accept our basic instincts about reality. Arguments about the sun, therefore, are not analagous. RT's statement that hidden variables are counterinutitive doesn't seen to make any sense, considering that Bohm's mechanics more or less conforms to our everyday intuitions about reality. When I was a Copenhagenist, I tried explaining quantum indeterminism to a friend of mine, who knew nothing about David Bohm, and he asked "Doesn't this just show that you don't know what's causing it, but there could be something outside of the experiment that you dont' know about? ". I would hardly consider hidden variables to be counterintuitive if somebody who has never studied quantum mechanics suggests them. Furthermore, RT never explains why factors affecting an experiment that you don't know about are counterintuitive. Such a scenaro is perfectly imaginable to the human mind. ValeReferences. http://physics.stackexchange.com...Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, pg 83