Your dismissal of Bohmian Mechanics is a choice you make for yours. That other scientists choose muddled theories such as the Copenhagen a Interpretation or wildly speculative, science-fiction theories such as the Many-World Interpretation is of no consequence to me. Metaphysical intuitions are for each individual to explore as they wish. My preference for Bohmian mechanics is that the wave is real, it fits all experimental data, explains phenomenon such as the delayed choice experiment, was the foundational theory for Bell's theorem, and leaves open the possibility of free will. Far more concrete than the completely unintelligible Copenhagen Interpretation or the far out Many-Worlds. Had Bohm been satisfied with Vsn Neumann's "proof", we would still be sitting here without a real wave, causal but not deterministic) theory for quantum mechanics. But it is all a matter of taste.

As for particles, they don't appear to exist. What does exist, is a wave and what we measure as particles are wave perburtations. De Brogle was apparently correct all along. The Bohm quantum potential field offers the best explanation I have read that addresses this unnecessary ambiguity of how a wave spontaneously turns into a particle, by simply doing away with the concept of a distinct particle. And while there is a body of support for my interpretation, some scientists continue to utilize the concept of particles to simplify discussion even though it is grossly misleading. Some ideas are hard to bury. I provided one scholarly article which suits my position that scientific texts should stop referring to. particles

From the philosopher's perspective, arguing for Bohmian mechanics is fine. The interpretation is, along with Many-Worlds interpretation, less philosophical compared to other interpretations. I'll give you that. As with all of other interpretations, there are strong and weak points. Some people resolved to Bohmian mechanics interpretation for their (classically) intuitively understandable interpretation of Quantum Mechanics like you have, sometimes incorrectly referred to as the realists' approach. Contrary to what you suspect me of doing, I have rather an agnostic view on the interpretation of Quantum mechanics because they are already completely reasonable the way it is. There is no need to complicate the story by attempting to interpret these with classically intuitive senses. If you are happy philosophically, fine. I don't really care.

As a scientist, Bohmian mechanics is inadequate and needs to be refined or remodeled to be accepted. There is a good reason why. Contrary to your statement, Bohmian mechanics is only consistent in non-relativistic level. It cannot be extended to the relativistic level for many-particle case, either (some attempts are there, but they are scientifically yet to be accepted). The spin is screwed up in this theory. It also unnecessarily complicates Schrodinger's equation by adding extra equation, and yet the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle still applies. That means it doesn't really give us any new information at all. This is the consensus among most physicists today, but that is subject to change if Bohmian mechanics are refined in a way that is scientifically sound and surpasses current theory of Quantum Mechanics. Until then, scientists using QM should stick with current QM.

Either way, what I strongly disagree and discourage is to assume that one type of interpretation (that is not even widely accepted) is true and base argument on it. One should always base an argument on premises that are neutral. Like I have done, my claims are neutral and agnostic about interpretations. Elementary particles are elementary particles by definition, a priori knowledge. There is no assumption here. The target of the term "particle", may be a wave like you mention (actually, de Broglie–Bohm theory does not consider particles the way you do so you are wrong here too), a quantum of a field, or a classical particle, it doesn't matter. That is a posteriori knowledge. That does not deny the existence of the target in which the term "particle" is referring to.

To b respond, I am not as infatuated with relativistic physics as some scientists may be. Any set of theories that on one hand demands reciprocity (Special Relativity) and then contradicts itself by allowing for non-reciprocity in accelerated systems, is just too muddled for my taste and predictably leads to uncomfortable paradoxes such as time travel and cars that sunny fit into garages sometimes. Bohm once wrote that where there are paradoxes there are problems and the paradoxes need to be resolved in order to move forward. Relativistic theory is chock full of paradoxes, enough so that it should minimally be considered highly questionable at its core. Both theories actually provide very little practical usefulness, other than describing how gravity may affect the behavior of systems, and I see no reason to discard a strong theory such as Bohm's in favor of a confounding theories like Relativity. In time both Special and General will most certainly be discarded. That Einstein became somewhat of a pop figure because of his hair and his science fiction theories of time travel is something science c will have to deal with. They should have dealt with the problems very early on.

As I described the De Broglie-Bohm wave theory is the latest updated version. This is how De Broglie described it hits essay. It is used to describe the Bohm-Abrohomov effect. This illustration appears in Bohm's book:

I would like you to address my concern instead of talking about something else.

Also, stop trying to convince somebody of something you don't really understand. You cannot win against me in science especially physics and chemistry. I know more than you do, and I know them more accurately than you do. I know that because your knowledge of physics is simply wrong in some places. I know that because you thought atoms can be directly observed using photon (they can, with sophisticated instrument, but by the way you write it, you probably didn't know). That can actually be intuitively understood if you are educated in science without being in a Lab that works on these area. You have several wrong understanding of De Broglie-Bohm theory. You also think I was talking specifically about Einstein's general and special relativity, when the term "relativistic" does not necessarily (in fact usually don't) refer to that.

I know, in general, the paradox and incompleteness of Einstein's theory of general and special relativity. I don't need you to tell me that. But did you say, Einstein's relativistic theory provide little practical usefulness? Wow, apologize to Einstein right now. Contrary to what you claim, general and special relativity is still quite useful as good approximation in several fields, especially special relativity since they can provide fairly practical explanation or prediction without having to have to go through tremendous sophisticated calculations. Dare tell me if satellites are pointless bunch of crap that we don't need.


Perhaps you've never really understood the significance of Dirac's equation and Quantum Field Theory (actually there are several approaches to QFT but I am being general here), and how they are important in explaining relativistic scale phenomenons. As so, you also probably don't understand the problems arising from Bohmian mechanics. No wonder why you blindly believe them.

Glad to hear that relativity had some value with approximations and that gravity affects satellite clocks. All theories have problems, Relativity is nothing but problems. They are just a mumbo jumbo of paradoxes that are inherently conflicting and on the surface nothing more than a nice theory for science fiction writers. You can see an atom? Not really. Instruments can register an image that they are designed to register. Please don't drag me into the age old trap of replacing real things with symbolic images. You know that photograph. It's not you and it doesn't even approximate you. Thanks for the update though.

So that your time isn't wasted, this scientist will teach you something new. Enjoy it! The are no particles. There are field perturbations.

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/quantum_theory_waves/index.html

Oh my goodness...

First of all, this "there are no particle" thing and "symbolic" crap you keep on saying has already been addressed hundreds of time before, that you kept ignoring. READ FOR GOD'S SAKE. It's fine if you don't understand. You can just tell me what part of it you didn't understand. But ignoring it is a whole different story, especially when that was where it all started. This is getting really annoying.

Second, I don't give a crap about Einstein's relativity for now. I wasn't even meaning to talk about that. You misinterpreted it because you were clueless and I ended up explaining it. I was talking about relativistic quantum mechanics. As I suspected, you didn't even know the highly successful Dirac's equation, QED, and QFT, and how Bohmian mechanics fails to account for these area (as of now). QFT is so far, and by far, the most successful and advanced quantum mechanical theory today. If you don't know this, you can't even hope to discuss anything with me.

Third, you can see atoms. Period. End of discussion. I don't even wanna talk about this again. You can actually search online for this. Searching for why a specific type of instrument is used, what the images actually means, and how we determine what we see is what we meant to see a good starting point for someone like you who is totally clueless. It's better if you actually get at least physics/chemistry (both of these intervene a lot) undergrad level of knowledge before you talk about something like this. Don't tell me you don't know the difference between atoms and elementary particles.

Most importantly, fourth, stop shifting the discussion into something else. Every time you talk about something on science, I have to fix it for you because you are wrong here and there. This is tiresome. How about we get back into what we were originally discussing? You haven't replied once to my concern despite telling you several times.


And the link you send me? This must be a joke, right? First of all, he is not a scientist. He is a philosopher working on philosophy of science. Also, I learned nothing new. This is philosophy, not science. It does not add anything to my knowledge of science, not to mention it says "Einstein for Everyone" which is ironic considering your criticism of his Theory of relativity. Thanks for wasting my time.

Your eyes are better than mine.

Or maybe you have your eyes closed.

Heck, you can see an atom. Good for you.

Enjoy yourself. Your just another scientist overstepping boundaries and using some age old tactics to justify yourself. You are in no position to make the statements you are making from a scientific evidence perspective. If you want to put on your metaphysical hat, then go right ahead.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45572/how-do-we-know-particles-exist-arent-they-just-waves

Oh my God. I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS!!!! WHAT ARE YOU READING!!!!!!!!???????????

If you are talking about the definition of a particle, then that is something else. Likewise, we can say that about every single thing in this world. I'm sitting on a chair right now, but I am not sure if I can call a stone outside that people are treating it as a chair, a chair. If you are confused about the definition of a particle because you are confused about the distinction between a classical particle and a quantum mechanical particle, then we are talking about something else. You are perhaps confusing the difference between how things should be defined, with how things are. If not, then read below. — FLUX23

This is fallacious as a response to what Chany said (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/52491). Chany's argument bases itself on the fact that, whatever an atom actually may be, atom must exist. Whether particles are classical particles, quantum particles, or quanta of a field, the target of the term particles still exists. It has not disappeared out of the concept. We can later redefine "atom", but that does not mean the target of what Chany said as "atom" has disappeared out of this world. It's just that there is another better and suitable noun to refer to "atom" in light of new evidence. — FLUX23

TheMadFool talks about an object called "God" that we do not know if it, in any form that it actually refers to, really exists. But he claims to scientifically prove its existence based on the fact that people are affected by the belief that it exists. This is, like you said, a bad fallacious argument. Chany attempted explaining this by talking about atoms. Chany's argument does not base itself on the premise that atom is what people classically refer to as atoms. The term "atom" is used in a way to refer to something that actually exists, and does not depend on whether what it actually may be. Whether or not an (classical) atom is actually something else, that "something" still exists. Chany claims that to argue in the way TheMadFool did, that "something" must exist. I think your type of fallacy is called referential fallacy or something. I told you about a priori and a posteriori knowledge because of this. — FLUX23

Elementary particles are elementary particles by definition, a priori knowledge. There is no assumption here. The target of the term "particle", may be a wave like you mention (actually, de Broglie–Bohm theory does not consider particles the way you do so you are wrong here too), a quantum of a field, or a classical particle, it doesn't matter. That is a posteriori knowledge. That does not deny the existence of the target in which the term "particle" is referring to. — FLUX23

You are the metaphysicist here. You are the wrong one here. You are the one using old tactics to justify yourself. You are the one unable to correctly understand anything because you are clueless. You are the one misinterpreting other people's argument because you are ignoring them.

Using freaking offensive words to me without any grounds to back it up is just lame.

I didn't even talk single thing about metaphysics in my post. I already said I have agnostic view of any interpretation of quantum mechanics because it's unscientific to attempt interpreting it.

Also, the link provides arguments that is against your views. What are you doing?

A priori is not scientific term nor is a particle a scientifically defined term, yet you've seen one. Remarkable! You are mixing up science with metaphysical ideas and desires (as does Relativity in a truck full) and coming up with a mess. A desire for something is not the same as scientific evidence.

No one had seen an atom or particle. It is impossible with the Uncertainty Principle. You can only see an aspect as defined by the instruments used and the experimental set up.

Scientists are working on all aspects of Bohmian Mechanics but all solutions require a change in view and perspective, especially in regards to Relativity and the paradoxical notions that emanate from it. There is a ton of scholarly papers on Google scholar on this subject.

If you want to be metaphysical then just say so.

Okay, so you still refuse to read.

I know a priori is not a scientific term. I'm not trying to say anything scientific by saying:

Elementary particles are elementary particles by definition, a priori knowledge. There is no assumption here. The target of the term "particle", may be a wave like you mention (actually, de Broglie–Bohm theory does not consider particles the way you do so you are wrong here too), a quantum of a field, or a classical particle, it doesn't matter. That is a posteriori knowledge. That does not deny the existence of the target in which the term "particle" is referring to — FLUX23

This is pure logic. There is nothing scientific about it. Why do you think I was talking scientific here?


It seems like you don't understand what uncertainty principle is...Even worse, you also don't seem to understand what atom is...If you don't know these, why did you even think of arguing using these?


I know there are scientist working on theoretical aspect of Bohmian mechanics. I never denied that. In fact, I've already mentioned that. Like I said, I know more than you do. What you have presented so far, I already know.

So you are admitting that Bohmian mechanics is still faulty at the current stage, and that this is the reason most scientists are reluctant to use it. Thank you. Finally. This argument is done.



Also, please don't accuse others of something before they accuse you in order to make the other person look like they are doing the wrong thing when in fact it is you. You are the metaphysicist here bro.

EDIT: I hope this was the Physics Forum. You would have had to deal with hundreds of post that disagrees with you. Are there any physicist here?

I'll tell you what, if you are going to make a scientific claim as a scientist, then why don't you:

1) Present all of the evidence

2) Admit to the ongoing discussions and disagreements among scientists (there are always opposing points of views),

3) Refrain from presenting your metaphysical ideas and desires as scientific facts (there is no such thing)

4) And clearly mark boundaries when you cross them, e.g. calling upon a priori knowledge to support a metaphysical definition as a settled scientific issue.

Most scientists would be better off if they refrained from pushing their own metaphysics as settled science.

You really don't like reading other people's posts do you? Fine. But promise me you will read EVERY SINGLE WORD I have posted so far including this one. I will not accept further question if you fail to do this and say a bunch of irrelevant crap over and over again. I am being EXTREMELY generous with you right now, considering how much you offended me with no grounds whatsoever to back it up but with your delusions.

1) Picture of pentacene taken by AFM (published in Nature Methods)
http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v6/n11/images/nmeth1109-792-I1.jpg
These are clearly atoms arranged to form pentacene. Considering how AFM (Atomic Force Microscopy) is based on atomic force that barely affects the sample itself in terms of electronic structure, it accurately and truly shows the real molecule and how the atoms are arranged. If you think this not the actual image of atom because of "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle", then you are uneducated and stupid. (in fact it is this uncertainty principle that allows us to see these atoms.)

2) Ongoing discussion: Bohmian mechanics is an incomplete theory that is yet to be accepted throughout the scientific community. Poll (https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069) shows that out of 33 participants in one of the quantum physics conference shows that 0% believed in Bohmian mechanics. This may be a total coincidence since college physics classes barely teach Bohmian mechanics, but that only further shows that it is not widely utilized. This poll is actually pretty fair since they ask the participants several questions and categorizes them based on the answer instead of just asking for the name of the interpretation they believe in. I highly suggest you read the article.

3) I have shown no metaphysical ideas. Refer to this post:

I have rather an agnostic view on the interpretation of Quantum mechanics because they are already completely reasonable the way it is. There is no need to complicate the story by attempting to interpret these with classically intuitive senses. — FLUX23

I don't care if what we call a particle is actually a classical particle (classical mechanics), quantum particle (quantum mechanics), or a quantum of a field (quantum field theory). They are merely interpretations that are subject to change when better theories are provided in the future. What matters to me is if it can reproduce experiments well. But I can still call a particle a "particle" because that is the term used to refer to these things.

4) I did not use a priori knowledge to support a metaphysical definition as a settled scientific issue. It seems like you don't know what a priori knowledge means.
Statement: Particle is particle.
This statement is obviously true. This type of knowledge is called "a priori knowledge".
Statement: Particle is a quantum of a field.
This statement requires prior experiment or theoretical investigation to know. This type of knowledge is called "a posteriori knowledge".
I argued that what you are presenting is only a posteriori knowledge. That is irrelevant to what Chany or I said about atoms and particles because the argument holds independent of what atom actually is. When we talk about "atom" in general, the target of the word "atom" refers to an atom or whatever they actually may be. So "atom" is an "atom" and this is independent of what they actually look like. The target of the word atom remains existent. This is a problem of logic. Not science at all. If you cannot accept this logic, then you don't even belong on this forum.


Typically this type of question is something I should be doing to you. You are an offensive, ignorant, brat that knows nothing about science but pretends to know, base everything on personal preferences and unscientific speculations and personal metaphysical view, say a bunch of irrelevant crap, refuses to read what other people have written, fabricate facts, fabricate what other people says, and accuse them of wrongdoings that they have not committed. You are a very twisted person. I am so glad you are not a scientist.

Your turn.

1) Present all of the evidence. (Don't be biased)

2) Admit to the ongoing discussions and disagreements among scientists. (Don't be biased)

3) Refrain from presenting your metaphysical ideas and desires as scientific facts. (Believing in Bohmian mechanics and basing every argument under this assumption is nothing more than just metaphysics.)

4) And clearly mark boundaries when you cross them. (You are the one doing it, not me.)

A more unbiased, less hysterical, and less metaphysical report on current scientific understanding of wave-particles. In time, as Bohm suggested, it will be understood that the quantum potential field is real, particles are a manifestation of field perburtations (as De Broglie described), that non-local action is the result of this quantum potential, and all will be well again in physics.

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-physics-what-is-really-real-1.17585

I enjoy well written and will presented ideas that present the true current state of disagreement and discussion.

"In 2005, de Broglie–Bohmian mechanics received an experimental boost from an unexpected source. Physicists Emmanuel Fort, now at the Langevin Institute in Paris, and Yves Couder at the University of Paris Diderot gave the students in an undergraduate laboratory class what they thought would be a fairly straightforward task: build an experiment to see how oil droplets falling into a tray filled with oil would coalesce as the tray was vibrated. Much to everyone's surprise, ripples began to form around the droplets when the tray hit a certain vibration frequency. “The drops were self-propelled — surfing or walking on their own waves,” says Fort. “This was a dual object we were seeing — a particle driven by a wave.”

I said it is your god damn turn. Answer the 1) 2) 3) and 4). This is not fair. I've gave an unbiased information and you completely ignored them once you know that you were wrong the whole time. It has been like that for all this time.

You failed to address my point, once again. If you don't plan to read, then don't respond in the first place. This is obviously unfair. Why is it me that I will always address your concern and you don't. And even if you do, you can't even properly provide one single legitimate argument.

For the third time, I freaking said I have an agnostic view of particles because it is subject to change in light of better theory. What the fuck are you reading? To conclude something as something is metaphysical as it can get. What you are doing is exactly metaphysics. I am wondering why you are blaming other people for doing something you are doing. Your links are always in contradicting with what you say. You insist on believing that particles are waves (which is not even a correct interpretation of De Broglie-Bohm theory), but this article provides that there is a disagreement with some other forms of interpretations. So then you are admitting that you are biased and metaphysical when you insist that particles are waves. Thank you, that is all I need to know. You are biased and a believer, far from a scientist. You are another one of those pop-culture science lovers that claims they know science and completely blow it.

Non-scientist trying to act smart with a scientist is not a smart thing to do. Calling someone a failure as a scientist when you don't even understand a crap and contradicts yourself makes it even worse. I would've asked for more humble and modest approach if you don't understand something. Don't ever do that again, and I encourage you to never do that again with anyone.


This is it. I am done. You are done. There is nothing to be discussed anymore. All I understood from you is that you understand nothing, and arguing with you is pointless because you refuse to address my points. This discussion was off-topic anyway (you made it that way). Thank you for wasting my time.

Your information is totally biased. Immediately you lose all credibility when you edit scientific positions to suit your purposes and then mix some of your metaphysical biases into your heavily edited presentations of science. Your scientific argument to appeal to polls is ludicrous. I don't even know how to attach such a frivolous stance. When you start to push an agenda, you are no longer a scientist.

For the 15th time, you are unable to correctly address my point and come back with bullshit. I didn't even talk about information in the above post. WTF are you reading? You are talking about yourself with that pathetic post of yours. You are not even worthy of talking about science with this is the level wrong/biased/metaphysical knowledge you have with this much ignorance and arrogance, much less talk about others. Show this thread to a physicist, then. Share this thread in Physics Forum. See what you'll get.

EDIT: Oh, wait. I forgot that you can't even tell the difference between a philosopher of science and a scientist. Then forget about what I've just said. You don't even know the right person to refer to.

You seem to misconstruing ideology with reality. The idea of a god may affect others, just as an engaging novel or television show would, but that does not mean the characters in your favorite novel or tv program exist. A stone of measurable mass and density may be proven to exist by showing it's physical effects on it's environment. Which includes but is not limited to properties such as gravity, hardness, and reflected light. However the rock is not an idea in one's head. A god on the other hand, is a vision of man and does not exhibit direct physical properties.

However the rock is not an idea in one's head. A god on the other hand, is a vision of man and does not exhibit direct physical properties. — Qu3stion

How do you know this?
As per scientific principles the only way to confirm the existence of something is by detecting its effects on instruments and our senses. God does have physical effects on us - imnthe way we eat, we dress, we think, we speak, etc. Am I wrong then in concludig god exists?

God does have physical effects on us - imnthe way we eat, we dress, we think, we speak, etc. Am I wrong then in concludig god exists? — TheMadFool

Yes, for the umpteenth time, you are wrong. If analogies like the one quoted below don't cause you to realise that your reasoning is fallacious, then perhaps nothing will.

The sensible thing to do would be to concede. It would have been more sensible if you had done so much earlier on in the discussion. The more persistent you are, the more unreasonable you are being.

The idea of a god may affect others, just as an engaging novel or television show would, but that does not mean the characters in your favorite novel or tv program exist. — Qu3stion

Yes, for the umpteenth time, you are wrong. — Sapientia

Can you prove to me that god does not exist?

Can you prove to me that god does not exist? — TheMadFool

That's a red herring.

That's a red herring. — Sapientia

That's a red herring.

Can you prove to me that god does not exist? — TheMadFool

I do not need to disprove God to disprove your argument. The merits of an argument stand alone; showing a poor argument for a position does not require one to provide an argument for an opposing position. I can say that God exists and that your argument is bad.

I do not need to disprove God to disprove your argument. — Chany

My argument is god exists. You contradict that. So, I'm asking you to prove to me that god doesn't exist.

Your argument's conclusion is that God exists. Your argument, detailed in the first post and supported throughout the thread, is faulty because I can substitute God for anything, even fictional beings, and your argument proves their existence. Again, I do not have to argue against the existence of God or prove that God does not exist to show that your argument is faulty.

Again, I do not have to argue against the existence of God or prove that God does not exist to show that your argument is faulty. — Chany

So what then is your position? The following three options are what you have:

1. God exists
2. God does not exist
3. You don't know

That's a red herring. — TheMadFool

That's a red herring.

My beliefs are irrelevant to the validity and soundness of your argument. Do you admit your argument is faulty?