Is Quantum Mechanics BS?

If Pilot-Wave Theory (e.g. Bohmian Mechanics) is proven to be experimentally correct? How come the majority of Physicists still accept Quantum Mechanics? Isn't Quantum Mechanics just a lazy theory, because it relies on randomness to explain what we don't yet (or refuse to) understand? Bohmian Mechanics is deterministic, and it still satisfied Schrödinger's wave equation.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/nmC0ygr08tE
twitter.com/AnonBabble

You cant prove anything to be physically correct.
The only thing you could do is falsify a theory, which hasnt be done for qm yet.
Fuck determinism and the copenhagen Interpretation. Quantum coherence is way to go.

One of the benefits of science is the ability to make inferences from previous data. A deterministic approach is far more reliable at getting accurate results than a non-deterministic one.

qualiantum mechanics :)

>How come the majority of Physicists still accept Quantum Mechanics?

Because theoretical predictions are in excellent agreement with experimental results.

>Isn't Quantum Mechanics just a lazy theory, because it relies on randomness to explain what we don't yet (or refuse to) understand? Bohmian Mechanics is deterministic, and it still satisfied Schrödinger's wave equation.

This sentence is so wrong I don't even know where to begin.

>This sentence is so wrong I don't even know where to begin.
It's so wrong that researchers at MIT show otherwise: youtu.be/nmC0ygr08tE

Literally nothing to do with what you wrote, and the fact you think it does makes me think that I'm wasting my time. Bohmian mechanics may be deterministic but, because you can't know the whole configuration space (that's why it's called a hidden variables theory), the outcomes would look identical to the results from standard quantum mechanics.

Like with pseudo-random number generators, the initial conditions are the seed. Once we develop methods to crack the initial conditions, we will have developed predictive power over the Quantum universe.

>Once we develop methods to crack the initial conditions

Wew lad.

Once (if) that happens then we can revisit quantum theory.

Or we could teach both along side one another in universities

The shit you see on sci...

>How come the majority of Physicists still accept Quantum Mechanics?

There are many empirical phenomena that can be explained sufficiently by Quantum Mechanics
Just because you're an autist and want everything to be deterministic doesn't make it so

What a beautiful video

Are you laughing or crying?

>qualiantum mechanics

*memechanics

yes

Let me rephrase:

Are you crying? Or laughing?

I know what you mean m8

>Once we develop methods to crack the initial conditions
Ya, sure we'll get right to work on a method of measuring the entire universe

Superposition of both until you actually look at me, in which case I pick one.

better develop a method to crack the initial conditions so you can find out

No crack for me today. Only weed.

Non-deterministic physics is lazy physics. We can attribute randomness to anything we don't understand, that doesn't make it so.

>I've never read a book on quantum mechanics

It's okay user, most people who run their mouths don't about it haven't. Also "non-deterministic physics" would also include statistical mechanics.

What results have bohmian mechanics produced beyond quantum mechanics?

>Also "non-deterministic physics" would also include statistical mechanics
Correct, why should fluids get special treatment?

Bohmian crackpots and their anti-quantum jihad never fail to make me cringe. Bell's theorem has ruled out any hope for realism in the quantum world. This was 50 years ago, and you are still clinging to an already disproved ideology only because you don't have the IQ to understand a fundamentally stochastic physics.

Bell's theorem has disproved local hidden variables, it does not rule out non-local hidden variables.

Because the models work senpai.

If bohemian mechanics worked as well, or better, we'd probably be all over that.

Bohmian mechanics is essentially just another interpretation of QM, but it is really shitty at relativistic shit.
Try to explain the standard model in
Bohmian terms.

Wew

QM is pleb tier. Only true gentlemen use Bohemian Mechanics

>youtu.be/nmC0ygr08tE

It is a pretty cool thing to see. But more of a toy model at this point.

Sure, but at the same time, being able to reproduce Quantum behavior at the macro-level proves Bohmian mechanics is more than an academic circlejerk.

>Quantum behavior at the macro-level

It was an analogy, nothing else.

>itt: OP has never read or opened a QM textbook

Bohmian mechanics is completely equivalent to orthodox quantum mechanics

Why are you arguing for non-locality when you find randomness so hard to swallow?

waves are derived from assuming particles behave as a single point of mass

how is it not compatible with pilot wave theory?

And how does this explain consciousness?

Wrong thread

Was einstein right all along?

Einstein? Oh you mean that guy whose theory Jacob Barnett had to correct?

>Implying that Jacob Barnett would actually be someone without Einstein
Go shitpost elsewhere

GRW, Penrose, or Transactional make sense.

Personally, I am interested in computer simulations. Thus, I am not concerned with non-locality, because the entire state of the universe is already known to the computer.

Both ants in the eyes of Langan

>teach both along side one another
... like Evolution and Creationism?
That'll be fckn great, won'it?

>Non-deterministic physics is reality-based physics.
FTFY

...

Prove it.

>not being a many worlder

Wew lad

Bells theorem also assumes that the experimenter has free will. A decidedly illogical assumption.

>Personally, I am interested in computer simulations. Thus, I am not concerned with non-locality, because the entire state of the universe is already known to the computer.
This is a good point

>If Pilot-Wave Theory (e.g. Bohmian Mechanics) is proven to be experimentally correct? How come the majority of Physicists still accept Quantum Mechanics?
They make the same predictions (according to the creators of Bohmenian mechanics), and therefore what you wrote is wrong.

PS: There's a lot of mathematical work left to do to make Bohmian mechanics as useful as standard math of quantum mechanics. Specifically, IIRC, they haven't yet combined Bohmian mechanics and special relativity, but they have for the standard math of quantum mechanics.

It's not laziness. It's simply the most advanced and accurate mathematical model that we have yet developed for its domain of applicability (aka everything except gravity).

No no. IIRC, Bohmenian mechanics gets classical realism at the cost of locality.

This user has it right.

It's not, and can never be (as Bohm himself admitted), Lorentz invariant.

>It's not laziness. It's simply the most advanced and accurate mathematical model that we have yet developed for its domain of applicability
Empirically it's correct, on a historical/philosophical level we know that people have attributed randomness to things they do not understand. If this reasoning holds true, then the end game theory is a deterministic one.

QM is the single most complete and accurate model that physics has. Its predictions are flawless unlike GR which requires a ton of tweaks and make-believe to fit observation.

QM is so beautiful it lulled physicists into objectifying math enough to accept such shitty theories as superstring.

this desu senpai
>the universe isn't superdeterministic because muh feels

>A deterministic approach is far more reliable at getting accurate results than a non-deterministic one.
>A deterministic approach is far more emotionally appealing to the kind of people that study physics.
FTFY

QM fucks up linear time models on practice.

>Once we develop methods to crack the initial conditions