Bohmian Mechanics Is Probably False

**Introduction**I urge readers to take note of the fact that 95% of this debate on Con's side revolves around him trying to undermine my case. It is clear Con is barely making any effort to uphold his burden of proof in the debate. **Contention 1 From Con** *I put the name "Ilja Schmelzer" (who did disagree with the quote, but who also may or may not have sufficient credentials) beside the one quote, instead of the known theoretical physicist's name "Luboš Motl" in my last round by accident.* If the reality of the collapse of the wave-function was confirmed tomorrow; Bohm mechanics would be falsified. The Copenhagen interpretation wouldn't be falsified as it doesn't predict a non-real collapse. Scientists are getting closer and closer to confirming the reality of the wave-function collapse all the time. Physicist Kater Murch and his team actually captured the collapse process in slow motion[1]. 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. We never would have known The Big Bang happened if nobody challenged the Steady State universe perspective. Sargon obviously isn't aware that challenging norms is a good thing in science, and hand-waving is not. Here is another physicist that disagrees with Con: "According to the de Broglie-Bohm theory, the mass and charge of an electron are localized in a position where its Bohmian particle is. However, protective measurement indicates that they are not localized in one position but distributed throughout space." - Shan Gao[2] This is known as the Distribution Problem (which is fatal to Bohmian mechanics, as it shows Bohmian mechanics is not consistent with measurement). Not only do scientists believe that Bohmian mechanics can be ruled out without ruling out other interpretations, but many scientists believe it already is ruled out without ruling out other interpretations. I can quote many more than just Shan Gao (like Con posted more in his last round), but I have limited space. Now, Con claims he never implied that hidden variable theories were unfalsifiable, just if that they were falsified; the rest of Quantum Mechanics would be too. That is the most outrageous thing I have heard from Con this entire debate. The Copenhagen interpretation doesn't predict any "hidden variables" tinkering around with experiments. So, how would ruling out hidden variable theories specifically, rule out the Copenhagen interpretation? It wouldn't. As far as the end of this section with regards to my opponent's last round is concerned, the tunneling times issue has been addressed by M. Abolhasani and M. Golshani in the paper "The Best Copenhagen Tunneling Times"[3]. Vladimir K. Ignatovich modified Scattering Theory to be consistent with standard interpretations of Quantum Mechanics[4]. David Poulin also discusses in his paper "A Rough Guide to Quantum Chaos" how "Chaos" fits with standard Quantum Mechanics[5]. **Contention 2 From Con**.Violations In Leggett’s Inequalities I have no problem conceding that violations in Leggett's inequalities do not harm Bohmian mechanics directly. Thus, it seems as if Con wasted his time trying to drive this point home..Quantum Erasure With Causally Disconnected Choice I thought the other experiment by E. Megidish, A. Halevy, T. Shacham, T. Dvir, L. Dovrat, and H. S. Eisenberg[6] shows pretty clearly why my opponent's argument fails. But, I will explain. The experiment proving quantum entanglement across time shows that there need not be any actual instantaneous action. Since this instantaneous action is apparently what apparently makes Minkowskian spacetime impossible; Con's argument is refuted. Simple. Con only responds to one of my arguments for Minkowskian spacetime; I had two:(i) The universality pertaining to the behavior of the rod(ii) Its negation violates the symmetry principles of EarmanCon only responded to (ii); not (i). Therefore, even if his rebuttal goes through; my other argument stands. Either way, Con claims that the symmetry principles of Earman presuppose spacetime. Therefore, it cannot be used to support spacetime. The problem is that the Neo-Lorentzian view of Relativity (which my opponent was trying to support via the Alain Aspect experiments) does presuppose spacetime (neo-Lorentzian spacetime[7]). There are different spacetimes (such as Minkowskian, or Neo-Lorentzian). Yuri Balashov and Michael Janson write:"[T]he neo-Lorentzian interpretation violates the symmetry principles of Earman , which state that every symmetry of the spacetime posited by a theory should be a symmetry of that theory’s dynamical laws and vice versa." - Yuri Balashov and Michael Janson[8]This argument doesn't presuppose Minkowskian spacetime, just some spacetime. Thus, it is not clear that this is circular reasoning at all. Con's objection is refuted. ---My opponent completely drops my argument that the chief result from the "Quantum Erasure With Causally Disconnected Choice" paper[9] doesn't depend on interpretations of Special Relativity.They show that any non-local "hidden variables" would have to "know" what choices the experimenter would choose before the experiment took place, and change the quantum states accordingly. That is impossible (or at least we know of no laws of physics which could potentially even make that possible). Thus, we should reject hidden variable theories like Bohm's due to this fact..Feyman's ArgumentAs far as Feyman's argument about hidden variables being incompatible with observation: Con completely drops the argument again! The argument shows that the assumption that there are hidden variables does not agree with observation. Con is going on about the other part of it pertaining to how it doesn't show that the Uncertainty Principle is ontological. Even if that is true (which I don't think it is), Feyman's argument still shows that hidden variables do not agree with observation. Since Bohmian mechanics is a hidden variable theory; Feyman's argument shows Bohmian mechanics is flawed.Con must not just attack the notion that:(i) Feynman's argument shows the Uncertainty Principle is ontologicalbut also:(ii) Feynman's argument shows that the assumption that there are hidden variables disagrees with observationCon is attacking (i) while ignoring (ii) (which is the most important thing he has to attack). Until he attacks the part of Feynman's argument that really matters; it stands. I'll restate the argument again: "Imagine that there are hidden variables(non-local), 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 necessarily be the sum of two Gaussian like peaks: which self-evidently doesn't agree with observation (as shown by the diagram)" - MeEven if this fails to show that the Uncertainty Principle is ontological, it succeeds in falsifying hidden variables. Since that is all that is needed to establish the resolution, then Con focusing on whether the Uncertainty Principle is epistemological or not, instead of the fact that the argument falsifies Bohmian Mechanics (but not other interpretations); is a red-herring..Occam's Razor And Ad HocnessQuantum Mechanics is indeterministic prima facie due to apparent wave-function collapse and virtual particle fluctuations. The only way to get determinism out of quantum mechanics is to do some serious stretching; one has to make wild assumptions. Standard quantum mechanics does not assume that there are non-local hidden variables making it look "as if" there is indeterminacy. It is simpler; it just posits indeterminacy. Bohmian Mechanics violates Occam's Razor by positing non-local "hidden variables" that tinker around with experiments. That is not needed to explain the data; hidden variable theories should be rejected. It is as bad as saying their are hidden fairies making it look "as if" there is gravity. **Contention 3 From Con**Con still has not presented an argument in favor of the notion that Bohmian mechanics is probably true!The Copenhagen interpretation being false wouldn't mean that Bohmian mechanics is probably true. The Copenhagan interpretation being false would support other non-copenhagen interpretations just as much as Bohm's. Also, "counter-intuitiveness" isn't a good argument. If that's the only argument Con has against the Copenhagen interpretation; this isn't good for him ("hidden variables" messing with experiments is counter-intuitive as well). It is counter-intuitive that the Sun doesn't rise up and go down, but it doesn't (the Earth goes around the Sun). Science is filled with counter-intuitive notions. We should expect this at the quantum scale.**Conclusion**Con dropped my most important arguments, attacked my least important arguments, and presented no argument to support his burden of proof in this debate.Vote Pro. **Sources** [1] Murch, K. W., Weber, S. J., Macklin, C. & Siddiqi, I. Nature 502, 211–214 (2013).[2] http://image.sciencenet.cn...[3] http://arxiv.org...[4] http://www.academia.edu...[5] http://epiq.physique.usherbrooke.ca...[6] http://arxiv.org...[7] http://modernsoccerology.wordpress.com...[8] http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu...[9] http://arxiv.org...