Pilot Wave Theory: Classical Physics At The Quantum Level | Answers With Joe

46 thoughts on “Pilot Wave Theory: Classical Physics At The Quantum Level | Answers With Joe”

1. YOU CANT TOUCH ME THERE ANYMORE!!

2. Pilot wave is BS

3. Did anyone else scroll down to see if Cody Dixon commented?

4. The Heisenberg Gag was almost predictable and very very flat…but I guess therefor even better. I really LOL

5. The second choice. But we are getting deeper because due to a black hole after the collapse who can make the difference between GR AND QM – some hypothetical math should show up

6. Pilot Wave theory asks us to believe that electrons hover motionless in atomic orbitals. If that idea sits well with you, go ahead.

7. Does the brain bucket come in different colours? 😂

8. For starters, Fried Brain sandwiches is the only way to fly.
   A south St. Louis favorite for 200 years.

   (Disclaimer: author is not from the area described above, altho he may have lived at Gravois and Taft from 1979 to 1980.)

   AND HE LOVED HIM SOME FRIED BRAIN SAMMITCHES AND COLD BUDWEISER!!!!

9. I appreciate your explanations in general, but I especially like the fake ad. More, please.

10. What is the name of that theory where different generations know of certain dangerous areas without any communication?

11. Its not everywhere at once
    more like its moving so quick that it can be everywhere in a short time making it look like it everywhere at once till measure at a single point in illusion(time) moro theory 4/20/20 O.M.C

12. Isnt quantum field theory similar to pilot wave theory

13. Okay. I'm getting tired of wondering wtf that golden, almost lightbulb-shaped thingy is on the top left shelf. Can somebody crack this stupid mystery for me so I can go back to paying attention to Joe? It'd be much appreciated.

14. I am constantly amazed by the weirdness of the world. It's just spectacularly weird! I love it.

15. Is random possibility not governed by law? Short-sightedness, tunnel vision,= some of our weaknesses(mankind's/humanity's). Keep expanding perception as far as possibility is concerned. Work that mind fool……till you need a brain bucket…..or at least till it hurts and defragging (sleep) becomes necessary. Also the personality that Joe puts forth ( at least as far as the way I perceive and interpret the man) is just the bee's knees. Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate you are Channel Joe. You keep doing your best to continue to not be limited in scope.

16. I did not understand that.

17. Spacetime with a luminal velocity oscillation of Gh/c2 called a 'spaton' would explain both pilot waves and zero point energy.

    It would show that while General Relativity is the motion of spacetime on a large scale, Bohmian Mechanics is the motion of spacetime on a quantum scale.

    On a classical scale, the quantum mechanics of mass influences spacetime.
    On a quantum scale, spacetime influences quantum mechanics.

    It's all about the motion of spacetime and it's all relative.

    False Messiah @LeoYohann

18. Here some arguments in favor of Bohm:
    https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07392

19. Ok, I know what dark matter is. It's a part of the living being that is this universe. We see the effects of it the same way a small little germ in your body sees the effects of your blood, and your muscles. So, now I get it, this entire universe is a living being. The stars are like it's blood cells. It's name is God, and we are just the little germs that live inside of it's body.

20. Joe, we need to figure how this stuff works. You're a smart lad, you do it. I have tried. I have no answers. All I can say is God. But if there is a God, I believe there is a scientific explanation for it. We can prove God is real with math. Do you understand that life is impossible? Mathematically it would be like a tornado going through a junk yard and accidentally assembling a fully functional jumbo jet. There is only one conclusion then, some higher power that we don't have the ability to understand created it. Do you think the ant in your yard knows how your car works? Then what makes us think we would know how God works?

21. "All it required was invisible waves throughout the universe".. so like quantum fields??

22. Not that Copenhagen interpretation is wrong, but it's just lazy. It gives up on explaining some things, and later wonders why its development is stonewalled.
    It's also interesting that existence of some ether was repeatedly debunked (supposedly), to the point that considering it would look like you're using medieval way of thinking
    But then they go and explain every elementary particle with … wait for it … a field 😀
    For any sane mind, even without being expert in quantum mechanics would be clear that things go way smaller than the known elementary particles, not so unlike how they got smaller from atom, and then smaller than protons & neutrons etc… I guess you see the pattern?
    Pilot-wave theory is simply reasonable one, and it gives open field to explore and advance where Standard model has already given up.
    I'm sure that if for the last 30 years, even 1% of the scientists working on different flavors of the String theory, were working on Pilot wave theory, things today would be very different.

23. What about tunnelling?

24. It's turtles all the way down.

25. “Imagine you’re an explorer.” I heard “in a store.”

26. Sorry, no. Pilot Wave Theory is, and always was, a futile desperate attempt to make QM fit into classical thinking. Yes, you can squish a variety of cherry picked quantum phenomena into PWT. For example, you can sort of solve wave-particle duality, and the basic double slit experiment. You really can't do justice to entanglement. In particular, you can't describe an implementation of a quantum computer with PWT. Now, I know that people have tried, and there are papers on this, such as Roser(2010). Such efforts are just mathematical slight of hand.

    Proof that PWT implies P=NP:
    A simulation of PWT can be implemented on a classical computer. This makes sense because PWT is a classical theory.
    An NP-hard algorithm can be implemented on a quantum computer and executed in polynomial time. This is no longer a thought experiment. It's been done.

    If PWT is correct, then one can solve an NP-hard algorithm in polynomial time on a simulation of a PWT quantum computer running on a classical computer.
    Therefore, PWT implies P=NP.

    For those without a background in computer science, P=NP is generally assumed to be false, though not yet disproved. For practical purposes, if a proposition implies P=NP, that is generally informally accepted as proof that the proposition is false. In any case, PWT doesn't appear to include a recipe for a proof that P=NP.

27. Where can I get a brain bucket? I'm about to click on the links below and will probably need it. In my opinion, we are still to technologically primitive to measure or even detect every force that is in play in the universe. Pilot wave theory may turn out to involve a series of forces that we will someday be able to quantify. We may yet be able to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt the existence of parallel universes and even move between them. We are infants in a grown up universe.

28. Are those invisible waves the Ether?

29. I’m too lazy to craft a new response to this video, so I’m just going to copy and paste a comment I made on a different video of the same subject.
    The theory of the “pilot wave” seems to make sense as long as no one asks “what’s waving”? In other words, what is the nature (the physiological makeup) of the waving medium?

    In what seems to be an effort to rescue the integrity of a worldview in which particles themselves do not spread out into waves, aren’t they simply introducing another mysterious and inexplicable phenomenon into the mix (i.e., the “pilot wave”) in order to support the theory?

    In the double slit experiment, a single particle can be shot through the slits one-at-a-time.

    Therefore, in the context of pilot wave theory, what exactly is it that is interfering with itself as it “pilots” (guides, carries) a single particle to its destination on the screen?
    _____

30. The main problem that I have with Quantum Mechanics is the randomness. Not that each result is truly random, which means that there is a churning effect going on at the bottom of reality, but the FILTERING of these random values using the various formulae of Quantum Mechanics that LIMIT the ranges of such results depending on the context/situation. Where/how is this filtering occurring? If random values are simply spewing out from some "magic source", every single experiment should give the same range of random values with the same odds for each value, but this is obviously not true. THIS is the main problem, in my view.

31. I will take one of those Brain Buckets right about now please.

32. There are many different interpretations of quantum mechanics, NONE of which have been agreed to as being THE interpretation. What fucks everyone up is that the Schroedinger equation is no good once a measurement is made and the wave function collapses. Figuring THAT out is what will decide the issue.

33. A "circular" wave around a particle goes through the double slits first creating a interference pattern on the other side, the particle follows through 1 slit and follows at random the interference pattern. The tool trying to measure this disrupted the wave and the particle reacts normaly. Entanglement is then a "linear" wave acting on two different particles apart from each other reacting to same frequencies. Quantum physics and normal physics are now the same.

34. Has the double slit experiment been preformed in space to if the earth / gravity has been influencing the results???

35. What if the particles are the source of the waves?

36. I dont even have any clue wtf I just did understand in this video, wait I also confused myself with all stuff of physics I learned previously.

37. 'Dogs and cats living together'

38. First of all, great show @Joe Scott.

    Second, the Copenhagen interpretation is also deterministic, on a larger scale. I am viewing the pilot wave theory as an attempt to adjust the equations, instead of our perception of reality, around us. This approach is too hubristic for my taste.

39. wait where do I get the brain bucket?? no link………..

40. <{&^THEE^LIGHT^DISPELLED^THE^DARKNESS}><{''LOL'}>/A+M+A+N

41. 2:20 You list as source: "What the Bleep Do We Know?" Wait… your source is a BULLSHIT WOOTARD book?!

42. Maybe I'm missing something about Pilot Wave Theory, but i don't see how quantum tunneling fits into it. Tunneling is an ever present phenomenon, ranging from how the touch screen on your cell phone works, to fusion at the center of the sun. And there are tunneling diodes that employ tunneling to (oddly enough) produce a negative resistance response curve

43. The universe is just a big stoichiometric equation combined with quantum mechanics and relativity everywhere except where sentience and reason have evolved.

44. I think it really ought to be called "spooky coincidence at a distance." Information cannot travel faster than c (or, another way of saying it, information cannot travel backward in time); however, coincidence can.

    There CANNOT exist any experiment that looks at an object and answers the question: "has the wavefunction collapsed yet?" Because it could, then you could use this wavefunction-collapse to send a signal faster than c: "measure" the particle over here, and use the nonexistent detector over there on the particle's extended self or on its entangled twin to find out whether or not you've measured it over here.

    So, "wavefunction collapse" (or more accurately, changing a wavefunction from one state to another, because you could either "collapse" from a wave-shape to a spike-shape or vice versa, or from an spin-up-or-down state to a spin-left-or-right state) is not a physical event but more of an accounting event. It is absolutely false that you're changing the particle from a less-real condition to a more-real condition; you're merely changing it from one condition to a philosophically equal condition.

45. But see also: John Cramer's Transactional Interpretation

46. Prolly should have a "Probability State" t-shirt. You know, like a college but not cause of the double meaning. Get it Joe?

Comments are closed.