Bohmian Mechanics Is Probably False

Introduction I suppose my opponent's definitions are sufficient. However, I would like to add to the definition of Bohmian mechanics: "Bohmian mechanics, which is also called the de Broglie-Bohm theory, the pilot-wave model, and the causal interpretation of quantum mechanics, is a version of quantum theory discovered by Louis de Broglie in 1927 and rediscovered by David Bohm in 1952. It is the simplest example of what is often called a hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics."[1] In this debate, I will be arguing that it is false that Bohmian mechanics is experimentally equivalent to standard Quantum Mechanics, and that some interpretations can be ruled out, or made implausible by experiment. I will then be arguing that Bohmian mechanics violates Occam's Razor, and is most likely false due to recent experiments. The Current State Of Bohmian Mechanics In Physics This is not an argument in favor of the resolution, so Pro cannot call me out on an Ad Populum fallacy. I am just potentially bulking up my argument by showing the current support the interpretation my opponent endorses has in physics. The poll carried out by Maximilian Schlosshauer, Johannes Kofler, and Anton Zeilinger shows that barely anybody accepts Bohm mechanics, while the most support goes to the Copenhagen interpretation. This survey was only done with 33 participants, but I highly doubt if the sample size was bigger a major difference would appear. Can Certain Experiments Rule Out, Or Make Implausible Certain Interpretations? My opponent may argue that all interpretations of quantum mechanics are empirically equivalent. Is this true? Well, of course not. If this was true, then we never would have known than Bohm's original interpretation (that there were local hidden variables) was false due to violations in Bell's Inequalities. However, these experiments ruled out that particular interpretation[2]. There is no reason to think this couldn't be the case for non-local hidden variables as well (I will actually argue that it is the case later on). Therefore, we know that certain interpretations can be ruled out by experiment. Physicist Victor Stenger drives the point home: "Now, after a series of precise experiments, the issue has been decided: the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics has been convincingly confirmed, while the most important class of hidden variables have been ruled out." - Victor Stenger[3] Therefore, the idea that all interpretations of quantum mechanics are experimentally equivalent is false, and there is no reason to think current Bohmian mechanics makes the exact same predictions as the other interpretations (it doesn't). As far as other interpretations are concerned, Max Tegmark even came up with a thought experiment, which could show whether the Many-World's interpretation was true or not called "quantum suicide"[4]. Even more concrete, R. Plaga came up with an idea to test the Many Worlds Interpretation in the paper "Proposal for an experimental test of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics"[5]. There are ways to test certain interpretations, and they are not all necessarily experimentally equivalent. Why Is Bohmian Mechanics Probably False? P1: If Bohmian Mechanics is true, realism is true P2: Realism is not true C: Therefore, Bohmian Mechanics is not true The argument is valid Modus Tollens. But why accept the premises? Defense of P1 Bohmian mechanics predicts realism: "Bohmian mechanics insists on realism..."[6] "Bohmian mechanics is realist."[7] We know Bohmian mechanics is realist because it denies the objective collapse of the wave-function upon measurement. "[I]nterpretations such as that of de Broglie and Bohm in which no collapse occurs..." - P.R. Holland[8] If there is no wave-function collapse, then particles have definite positions when not observed; and realism (or "naive" realism) is true[9]. This is what Bohmian Mechanics embodies. I don't think my opponent will object to P1 of the argument, because it is well known and not controversial that Bohmian mechanics is realist. The issue, it seems, will be surrounding P2. Defense of P2 Violations of Leggett's inequalities by Anton Zeilinger in 2007 falsified a broad range of non-local hidden variables and realistic pictures[10]: "Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism."[10] However, there were still some loopholes. These loopholes can be considered refuted by the before-before experiment, which is explained in further detail in the paper "Nonlocal 'realistic' Leggett models can be considered refute by the before-before experiment" by Antoine Suarez[10]. So, non-local realism is done for, thus, Bohmian mechanics is done for. If that is not enough, in 2012 a huge team of scientists confirmed the closing of all loopholes for realism: "No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results." - Xiao-song Ma, Johannes Kofler, Angie Qarry, Nuray Tetik, Thomas Scheidl, Rupert Ursin, Sven Ramelow, Thomas Herbst, Lothar Ratschbacher, Alessandro Fedrizzi, Thomas Jennewein, Anton Zeilinger[11] Also, in Non-Causal Quantum Eraser experiments, it has been shown that the idea that a quantum system might appear definitely as a wave, or definitely as a particle is false. This is exactly what Bohmian mechanics predicts though, meaning Bohmian mechanics has been ruled out. "Our work disproves the view that a quantum system might, at a certain point in time, appear definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle [before measurement]." - Anton Zeilinger[12] --- It seems that because realism is so problematic in modern physics, and experiments keep ruling it out; we should reject realism. But Bohmian mechanics is realist (it rejects wave-function collapse upon observation). Thus, Bohmian mechanics is probably false. Richard Feynman And The Uncertainty Principle"Heisenberg recognized that if it were possible to measure the momentum and the position simultaneously with a greater accuracy...quantum mechanics would collapse. So he proposed that it must be impossible." - Richard Feynman[13]Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman makes a good argument in favor of the Uncertainty Principle, and against hidden variables. 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. Occam's Razor And Ad Hocness This section alone is sufficient to establish the resolution. We have a clear prima facie case interderministic interpretations, as Quantum Mechanics appears inherently indeterministic. The idea that there are non-local "hidden variables" really making the process deterministic is worse than divinely hidden fossil theories from creationists! We wouldn't doubt evolution because of the possibility of God planting fossils to make it look "as if" evolution happened, so why doubt indeterministic interpretations because of the possibility of hidden variables making it look "as if" there is randomness? We wouldn't. Even though it is possible, it is not probable. Thus, Bohmian mechanics is improbable because it is Ad Hoc and violates Occam's Razor. Conclusion I showed that interpretations of Quantum Mechanics can be either ruled out, or confirmed by experiment and that they do not all make the same predictions. I showed that local hidden variables have being ruled out and this falsified older interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, so there is no reason to believe that we cannot rule out non-local hidden variables as well. Also, if interpretations all inherently make the same predictions, then there wouldn't be so many papers discussing how to test interpretations. I showed that Bohmian Mechanics is realist, and that realist interpretations are not compatible with modern experiments. Thus, it is probably false. Basically, violations in Bell's inequalities shows there are no local hidden variables, and violations in Leggett's inequality demonstrate that there aren't non-local hidden variables. Of course, there were some loopholes, but they have been closed by the before-before experiment (and experiments as recent as last year). I also showed that the Uncertainty Principle is not just epistemic, and that Bohmian mechanics is Ad Hoc and violates Occam's Razor. The resolution has been established. Bohmian mechanics fails to be compatible with observation, and should be rejected. Sources [1] http://www.preposterousuniverse.com... [2] http://qudev.ethz.ch... [3] http://www.colorado.edu... [4] http://science.howstuffworks.com... [5] http://cds.cern.ch... [6] http://atdotde.blogspot.ca... [7] Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal, Volume 132 (P.246) [8] http://users.ox.ac.uk...[9] http://arxiv.org... [10] http://physicsworld.com... [11] http://www.quantumphil.org... [12] http://phys.org...[13] http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu...