Uncharitable punchline is “if you take pilot wave but keep track of every possible position that any particle could have been (and ignore where they actually were in the actual experiment) then you get many worlds.” Seems like a dumb thing to do to me.
They also highlight that quantum entanglement in pilot-wave gives you faster-than-light “communication” of random bits. You have to eat that under any theory, that’s just real life.
They also highlight that parts of the wave don’t carry particles. Yes of course...
}endholywar
They also implicitly claim that in order for the Born rule to work, the particles have to start the sim following the psi^2 distribution. I thinkk this is just false, and eg a wide normal distribution will converge to psi^2 over time as the system evolves. (For a non-adversarially-chosen system.) I don’t know how to check this. Has someone checked this? Am I looking at this right?
Uncharitable punchline is “if you take pilot wave but keep track of every possible position that any particle could have been (and ignore where they actually were in the actual experiment) then you get many worlds.” Seems like a dumb thing to do to me.
Except I don’t know how you explain quantum computers without tracking that? If you stop tracking, isn’t that just Copenhagen? The “branches” have to exist and interfere with each other and then be “unobserved” to merge them back together.
What does the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester look like in Pilot Wave? It makes sense in Many Worlds: you just have to blow up some of them.
Uncharitable punchline is “if you take pilot wave but keep track of every possible position that any particle could have been (and ignore where they actually were in the actual experiment) then you get many worlds.” Seems like a dumb thing to do to me.
How would you formalize pilot wave theory without keeping “track of every possible position that any particle could have been” (which I assume refers to, not throwing away the wavefunction)?
Pilot Wave is just Many Worlds in disguise:
Are Many Worlds & Pilot Wave THE SAME Theory? (youtube.com)
Please share punchline.
Edit: watched video.
Startholywar{
Uncharitable punchline is “if you take pilot wave but keep track of every possible position that any particle could have been (and ignore where they actually were in the actual experiment) then you get many worlds.” Seems like a dumb thing to do to me.
They also highlight that quantum entanglement in pilot-wave gives you faster-than-light “communication” of random bits. You have to eat that under any theory, that’s just real life.
They also highlight that parts of the wave don’t carry particles. Yes of course...
}endholywar
They also implicitly claim that in order for the Born rule to work, the particles have to start the sim following the psi^2 distribution. I thinkk this is just false, and eg a wide normal distribution will converge to psi^2 over time as the system evolves. (For a non-adversarially-chosen system.) I don’t know how to check this. Has someone checked this? Am I looking at this right?
Except I don’t know how you explain quantum computers without tracking that? If you stop tracking, isn’t that just Copenhagen? The “branches” have to exist and interfere with each other and then be “unobserved” to merge them back together.
What does the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester look like in Pilot Wave? It makes sense in Many Worlds: you just have to blow up some of them.
I must abstain from further culturewaring but this thought experiment is blowing my mind. I hadn’t heard of it.
Could I just say that the wave interferes with the bomb (if it’s live) and bumps the particle after the wave hits the mirror?
(I don’t actually know enough physics to, like, do the math on that.)
How would you formalize pilot wave theory without keeping “track of every possible position that any particle could have been” (which I assume refers to, not throwing away the wavefunction)?
I have thoughts on that but my formalizations have never been very formal. I think this debate could go unresolved until one of us writes the code.