Timeline for Why is entanglement not explainable by pilot waves theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 1, 2023 at 19:41 | comment | added | don't train ai on me | @Void The explanation in BM of entanglement is not a formal extension. It is just Bohmian Mechanics and Bohm himself knew it was nonlocal. Your comment is incorrect. | |
| Nov 3, 2022 at 17:59 | comment | added | James | @Void i posted a follow up question on this physics.stackexchange.com/questions/735097/… | |
| Nov 3, 2022 at 11:37 | comment | added | Void | @James The essential assumption is that one is able to repeat experiments over and over while preparing the same initial state/setup over and over. One can then decide to switch the measurement devices or perform series of experiments and collect the statistics. Ultimately, if the spins had been decided at creation, the statistics of the series of measurements would have to fulfill some of the Bell inequalities. But it has been shown robustly that nature violates these inequalities (see this years Nobel prize in Physics :]). | |
| Nov 3, 2022 at 2:43 | comment | added | James | @Void How can we be certain that the spin is not decided all along, when the paired particles are created in the beginning? In Bohmian mechanics, our incomplete knowledge of the precise position of the particle causes the banding pattern observed (due to extreme sensitivity of final deterministic path to its initial location). Are there experiment results that have proved that the spin of entangled particles can't have been decided in the beginning, and we just have incomplete knowledge of it? After all, there is no way to turn back time and repeat the exact measurement many times to prove it. | |
| Nov 2, 2022 at 21:27 | comment | added | Void | @doublefelix Yes, I agree that a formal extension of Bohmian mechanics can be constructed for entangled particles. However, the original idea of a "pilot wave" that emerges from local interactions and then guides the particles through local potential-like interactions is simply not realizable when entanglement comes into the picture. I argue that to answer OP's question, as it stands, one has to be clear on this point! | |
| Nov 2, 2022 at 21:06 | comment | added | don't train ai on me | "However, it turns out that one cannot make the guiding wave only a function of the position of just one of the two electrons!" Yes, this is correct, but it is always like this in BM. Generally in an entangled state the velocity of each particle is a function of the positions of each of the others. This allows for non-local influence. But nonetheless the theory predicts the correct experimental results, so OP's question is answered in the positive. If your criteria for a plausible theory has "locality" as a must, then you can cross BM off the list. But nonetheless explain experiments it does. | |
| Nov 2, 2022 at 21:00 | history | answered | Void | CC BY-SA 4.0 |