The double solution theory, a new interpretation of Wave Mechanics

Yes I provided a reference a few days ago... I provided an FQXI paper which explained time wasn't an observable in physics... it's never been an observable ever. Reading the clock on the wall doesn't make time observable, I am afraid.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Physical, as in something you can actually see, measure. Just like mass can be seen and measured, so can energy, spin... even location can be measured.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, it isn't a true time evolution, it is like having time without time in this sense. Not many people know this, but Einstein developed his general theory fully aware time was static and he fully intended this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Start your own thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE

"Whatever the case may be in quantum mechanics, the statistics are an incomplete description of our fluid system and emerge from an underlying pilot-wave dynamics[60] This physical picture is remakably similar to an early model of quantum dynamics proposed by Louis de Broglie..."[61]"

 

And there are several ways it ultimately falls out of the equations. But you don't understand this, you just see a time variable and think it's absolute. The FRW metric isn't true when we talk about the subject of time. Among many ways time fails to describe evolution, one of them purports back to the 1960's when Einsteins equations where quantized leads to timelessness. Clearly, the FRW metric isn't that advanced, physics wise.

 

This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Start your own thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE

"Whatever the case may be in quantum mechanics, the statistics are an incomplete description of our fluid system and emerge from an underlying pilot-wave dynamics[60] This physical picture is remakably similar to an early model of quantum dynamics proposed by Louis de Broglie..."[61]"

 

And of course, the FRW metric is imposed into the modern understanding of general relativity, none of it escapes timelessness of GR.

 

This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Start your own thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE

"Whatever the case may be in quantum mechanics, the statistics are an incomplete description of our fluid system and emerge from an underlying pilot-wave dynamics[60] This physical picture is remakably similar to an early model of quantum dynamics proposed by Louis de Broglie..."[61]"

 

if I block you, I don't see your posts right? It will effectively, cut you out of the conversation yes?

 

This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Start your own thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE

"Whatever the case may be in quantum mechanics, the statistics are an incomplete description of our fluid system and emerge from an underlying pilot-wave dynamics[60] This physical picture is remakably similar to an early model of quantum dynamics proposed by Louis de Broglie..."[61]"

 

Has everything to do with the conversation, because you destroyed it about several pages back and now you are sour about anyone having an intelligible discussion in your absence.

 

This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Start your own thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE

"Whatever the case may be in quantum mechanics, the statistics are an incomplete description of our fluid system and emerge from an underlying pilot-wave dynamics[60] This physical picture is remakably similar to an early model of quantum dynamics proposed by Louis de Broglie..."[61]"

 

Well it looks like cav755 is so insanely obsessed with making reality obey his fantasies, he's spent virtually all of the last several days arguing with everyone else at Wikipedia and constantly reverting the article to include his graffiti, to the point that the system automatically flagged him and he got himself investigated and banned for 24 hrs. Bet that still ain't enough, I expect he'll be tearing that strait jacket off and getting right back at it ASAP. Notice how I can predict cav's next action more precisely than he can predict anything about anything, must mean I'm a genius scientist just like Galileo.

 

It wasn't an automatic block. And the user who submitted the complaint doesn't understand there is a difference between de Broglie's wave mechanics and de Broglie-Bohm theory.

Are you able to understand the statistical nature of quantum mechanics does not fully explain the walking droplets?

From 2:10 in the video, "Whatever the case may be in quantum mechanics, the statistics are an incomplete description of our fluid system and emerge from an underlying pilot-wave dynamics"

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

"XII. Conclusion
Such is, in its main lines, the present state of the Wave mechanics interpretation by the double-solution theory, and its thermodynamical extension. I think that when this interpretation is further elaborated, extended, and eventually modified in some of its aspects, it will lead to a better understanding of the true coexistence of waves and particles about which actual Quantum mechanics only gives statistical information, often correct, but in my opinion incomplete."

The Copenhagen interpretation is statistical and incomplete.

 

Anyone who gets into an edit war on Wiki has demonstrated a disturbing degree of inability to argue constructively and persuasively. While it does not necessarily mean you are wrong, or mad, it obviously raises the likelihood considerably, as far as people who do not know you are concerned.

 

People who consider themselves knowledgeable about physics freak out over the correct notion aether has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment. The person who first cut the de Broglie's wave mechanics section from the double slit experiment wikipedia page doesn't know the difference between de Broglie's wave mechanics and de Broglie-Bohm theory. When I put it back and explained the difference between the two theories he just cut it out again and then submitted the complaint.

 

Am I a little confused here? Are "walking droplets" a quantum phenomena...?

 

What the MIT professors are saying is that the statistical nature of quantum mechanics does not apply to the experiment they have performed as there is an underlying mechanism they witness which is de Broglie's wave mechanics. They then go on to say, "This physical picture is remakably similar to an early model of quantum dynamics proposed by Louis de Broglie...". Meaning, de Broglie's wave mechanics explains the underlying physical processes which are occurring in their experiment. de Broglie's wave mechanics is a more complete understanding of what occurs physically in nature and correctly describes what they witnessed.

Aether has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. In a double slit experiment it is the aether which waves. de Broglie refers to the "hidden medium" as being that which waves; which is the aether.

de Broglie's wave mechanics allows for a more complete understanding of what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment than does the non-physical statistical approach of quantum mechanics.

 

That is not what they were saying means. It means exactly what they said! It is SIMILAR to what de Broglie proposed.

Do you understand that for most people the word SIMILAR, is not defined the same as or translate to the word, EXPLAINS?

But that does not address the question or the intent behind the question, which is that the walking droplets are not quantum phenomena, and thus should not be expected to explain quantum phenomena.., or be explained as quantum phenomena.

The reason QM has survived as it has, is that it explains things that our classical everyday experience cannot.

QM mechanics does not describe most of what happens between "objects" in everyday experience or somewhere out in the deaths of space. Just as GR does not explain what is happening at and/or below a sub atomic level. Just because a real physicist says something is similar, does not mean you can stop and declare the two to be the same. In a very simplistic way a bowling ball on a rubber sheet conveys a similar conceptual image as the curvature of spacetime, but they are not the same and neither explains the other.

You obviously do not understand the QM you are trying to explain, or you would also understand what was meant by the word, similar.

 

That actually depends on what context one is using the theory. For instance, there are some very successful semi-classical models of physics, in which part of it has a classical physics describing quantum behaviour.