The Copenhagen ("CI" for short) Interpretation (vs Bohm-Hiley or "many worlds" interpretations) is THE most important topic in QM, and disproving it will be the biggest thing to happen in Physics since Einstein wrote his last papers.
Here's some interesting talking points you might find worthwhile in your research and studies. Maybe it simply outlines a better METHOD for our Math and Physics communities? Or maybe it's simply a recommendation to put ones feet on two better platforms before attempting to do higher theoretical Physics? As you'll see below, Complex Algebra (as pushed by William Rowan Hamilton in the late 1800s) and a new interpretation for QM are central to what i think will be the next 100 years in Physics...
I think Einstein (once again) will be correct in his 'God doesn't play dice' assessment, and in fact we're already seeing experiments proving such...
Even now, modern hot Physicist with their finger on the pulse of modern Physics theory are increasing the value on Einstein's 1930s-era ER and EPR papers... (i post this video for it's title only, but it's a good video if you have the time)
..so is it EVER a shock that Einstein simply made no errors? (we've already seen his Cosmological Constant "error" become a non-error after all... https://www.space.com/9593-einstein-biggest-blunder-turns.html )
Physics in its long history has had bouts with barking up the wrong tree for many many years (and sometimes "errors" end up not being errors, see Einstein cosmo-constant ref above, or Physicists of old beleiving in the "aether"), and it is probably true the Copenhagen Interpretation has led Physicists astray for many decades (about 100 years actually) on a wild goose chase down a dark dead-end alley. If you really think about what CI says, you get to a point (like Bohr did) where you must believe in metaphysics and the pre-determination of life (you must believe outcomes are fatalistic, and man has no choices during his life). Spend enough time getting deep and dirty on CI, and you'll find this to be true (again, as Bohr did). Bohr was led astray by the magnificence of Heisenberg's math and for this he could not be faulted for Heisenberg's math was truly awesome. Heisenberg didn't get it wrong either, his Uncertainty Principle is spot on, and always will be. But it's implications aren't as broad as Bohr and Heisenberg (two guys desperate like ANY Physicists for "resolution" as fast as possible-- during their lifetimes of course) wanted them to be. They ended up "cheerleading" the community into a bad path, and perhaps if we're lucky, in our lifetimes, we'll all learn just how wrong they were.
If you talk to Bohm's still-living co-writer, Basil Hiley, he can probably shed much light on exactly what Bohm-Hiley were saying, as it's frequently mis-interpreted-- especially by the CI majority. Personally, i think Hiley himself isn't staunch enough deterministically-speaking. While Heisenberg may have indeed proved that some things simply cannot be known by humans (experimenters), Einstein I think stated it all correctly when he used "God"-- which I'll say means "nature"-- while describing that NATURE KNOWS what's occuring even if humans do not. This should not be surprising really, as one cannot hope to know what things as small as a bit (quantized paricles aren't dissimilar from "1"s or "0"s of computer science) perform, when it takes more than a bit to measure just to find out. A metaphor might be: an engineer doesn't have to understand particle physics to construct a long-lasting building (see the Pyramids) with solid principles using the information available at the time. There's a better example out there, but I can't think of it right now, sorry.
If you think that time and spin (a property of sub-atomic particles in physics) should be considered as basic "dimensions", we don't disagree with you. However, we think time and other quantities (spin, color, etc...) have been given "boogeyman" like credit, when in fact all they really are is another spatial set of dimensions which don't manifest to humans like X,Y,& Z do. I'm alluding to, of course, an algebraic solution to Quantum Mechanics which can most likely be compared to what William Rowan Hamilton did with Quaternion algebra. Quaternion Algebra is a 4-dimensional algebra reliant on orthogonal dimensions associated with the complex number "i" or sqrt(-1) which SUPPOSEDLY has no obvious "solution". I simply think of sqrt(-1) as a transform, it moves a bit 90 degrees directionally. A "bit" means "1" or a line spanning from one quantum point to another, the base value of everything, not unlike what a bit means in computing. See, not only did the world go down the wrong fork with CI of QM, but they also chose the wrong math in vector analysis instead of complex algebra. I think the Physics community (given Witten, Yau, et al) are a lot closer to understanding this wormhole than they do the CI wormhole, but suffice it to say the vast majority of the overall community is still stuck in vector MATH bc it's easier for humans to visualize. We live in the computer age, what better time to program a computer to do the tedious complex algebra FOR you? I digress...
Perhaps not dissimilar to "Moore's Law" ending in chips more than a decade ago, I think we're quickly reaching an era where experiments will have less and less effect on good Physics, and fiddling with numbers has never been more important to the advancement of Physics in the future. Again, the String Theorists may not be doing anything productive, but they ARE barking up the right tree by working heavily with orthogonal algebras and geometries.
I think we will eventually go back and realize how great and forward-thinking both Hamilton (Quaternions) and Einstein (AGAIN) and Bohm were. The more we learn, the more Einstein's EPR and ER documents will become as special to the human experience as his famous E=mc^2. I think Bell was probably the most objective Physicist/mathmetician of the last 50 years of the 20th century, and it's important, I think, he never really dispelled Bohmian Mechanics. In my opinion, the beauty of Bohm-Hiley mechanics has more do to it being the proper PATH, than it has to do with being the bona fide answer to QM. They practically told you as much, by stating often it relied on "hidden" variables. What is Physics if not the pursuit of that which is hidden? So their work really just sets the platform on which to build, not the full building (or answer). Einstein in his letter to Dirac(or was it Pauli? or Planck?) really didn't dispell Bohm's theory, he simply said (paraphrasing) what many did-- "can someone else read this and tell me if there's any merit to it, bc I want to dismiss it" If Einstein didn't say your were wrong, you might've had something!
Consider what Bell said, effectively, all local things must satisfy his Bell's theorem or else Einsteinian relativity is lost. But is this ACTUALLY true? It's my theory that a particle (call it "P" for convention's sake) moving from point A to point B (this is going to be a slightly different interpretation of Heisenburg's UP, so bare with me) is nether represented by what existed at A or what exists at B, but that ALL outside world particles view "P" as the net RESULT of being in both of those places at subsequent quantized times. But what is time anyway? Think of it like the spinning of a bit, equaling "1", 90 degrees. Time doesn't really change particles, it just moves them from one place to another, no? For example: At point A particle "P" is pointed east with normal value of 1, but at point B it's now magically been rotated 90 degrees to north but still with normal value 1. It's moved one quantum distance to the right, it's changed it's direction/dimension from sideways to up, but it's value is still the same.
In Physics we'd LIKE to say the speed of the particle (from A to B) and talk separately about the spin, but doesn't all of modern algebra contradict that interpretation? To all other particles, what's SEEN (via relativity or Heisenberg's U.P.) is actually the amalgam of A and B. To other particles, P might actually not be valued as "1" but sqrt(2). P's direction isn't east and north, but northeast. Obviously, at a QUANTUM level, P only had two values, one at point A and one at point B. But when calculating P's RELATIVE effect on the rest of the world, the rest of the world see's the OPERATOR function not the particle. So while quantum mechanics is REALITY that only "God" (Nature) can "see", we as humans keep assigning the WAVE FUNCTION as the actual THING. It is not. The wave function is the operand, an algo, an algebraic dictator of movement. It can SEEM like a real thing, but it is not. What's real is the particle's ACTUAL positions in space. With this same analogy, we get into the actual usages of the world's "real" and "imaginary" and it actually works. Is time some truly different measurement than spatial dimensions which are clearly wrought from algebra? NO. Going back to simple Quaternions, 4 dimensions of SPACE (w, x, y, z) can algebraically come to the same results as 3 space + 1 time (x, y, z, t). This is because TIME IS A 4th SPATIAL DIMENSION PERPENDICULAR TO 3 DIMENSIONS of SPACE. But cannot time itself be a function of several spatial dimensions? Again, we turn back to Hamilton's usage of "i" "j" and "k". These for Hamilton are imaginary dimensions, but they work together in much the same way as x, y, and z do. What if "TIME" is actually just all the imaginary dimensions rolled into one, and altho we cannot "see" it with our experimental equiptment, it exists? Wouldn't that roughly match the percentages we see for Dark Matter and Dark Energy? What if Hamilton's extra IMAGINARY dimenions, are simply the "dark" version of our x, y, and z dimensions? If you wanna get all science-fiction-ee you could say there's a dark universe which parallels our own, and while it's much the same (maybe it uses a "left-hand-rule" instead of RHR) as our REAL (or more correctly, quantized integer) universe, it simply has a sqrt(-1) identity attached to everything?
In short, Bell's is very important, bc it niether confirms nor denies Bohm-Hiley is on the right track, it simply puts a light on locality. If you ask Hiley, he'll tell you he's not rigid on locality, and this makes sense. But "spooky action at a distance" may only be referring to a distance travelled via imaginary universe which cannot violate Relativity in our own. But much like 1 + 1 can be the same as sqrt(2) if viewing the operator (wave function) rather than the operated-upon (the particle's whereabouts per Heisenburg), the particle can be confused with violating locality when in fact if you use COMPLEX ALGEBRA Einstein's locality/relativity rules aren't violated whatsoever!
Over time, I think the Physics and Math communities will merge, and we'll all come to put much more wieght on the studies of Bohm, Hiley, de Broglie, Bell, and yes William Rowan Hamilton who spent half his career toying "inexplicably" with quaternions. (how odd he'd do that, but he always had a flare for the relevant so this passion is either an outlier or we still just don't accept how relevant it truly was mathematically) I am not saying Quaternions are the answer either, I'm simply saying COMPLEX ALGEBRA in the format William R Hamilton would have approved (aka not vector analysis popularized in the early 1900s) is going to deliver the breakthrus when it comes to writing Einstein's General Relativity dreams on paper as proof. While mathematically the string theorists are working in the right area, I fear it's a stone-age belief in Bohr/Heisenberg's Copenhagen Interpretation of QM which is now holding back the greatest Physics minds in the world-- our studnets-- as a community.
Take the computer, and optimize it for complex algebra of all types (dimensions). Use it, and teach Quaternion theory like it was the late 1800s.
Dispel crazy "metaphysical" explanations of QM, and apply full court press to the modern experiments which are now making CI very unsightly. This one too... (I typically use Aephraim Steinberg as my reference label for this experiment conducted by a full team-- simply bc its the most memorable name from this experiment)
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1501466
Like Hiley, i do not dispute the value of the wave function. It is REAL in the same sense that the strong or magnetic forces are real even if we view it as a particle-less force. It's as real as sqrt(2) is to 1 + 1 (but orthogonal to each other). What is disputed is simply the interpretation of the Wave Function.
Perhaps the wave function is nothing more then the amalgam of everything that's going on locally and deterministically in the "alternative universe" of complex space (by complex we mean, for instance, "i" "j" and "k" planar dimensions), but written in a format as an OPERATOR on our REAL universe? Again, perhaps if we all imagine "time" as not a wierd dimension that somehow stretches space, we should view time as just an alternate universe with it's own ORTHOGONAL (and therefore algebraically sound) layout. By doing Physics in 4 dimensions (similar to quaternion algebra), we are just SIMPLIFYING everything in the complex universe as a single dimension--> TIME? This would explain why it's so different, YET, YET, it holds hands so tightly (as Einstein pointed out) with our 3 beloved spatial dimensions? (up, forward, right)
Lastly, what Hiley and Bohm MAY have missed, was that the "unseen" or "surreal" or "non-local" effects which they keep, might actually be both local AND deterministic. In other words, the complex planes have their OWN physics going on, and that physics interacts with the real planes via "time" and/or the "wave function" operator. So the "spooky actions" or "surreal" effects ARE occurring locally to the real particles, they are just occurring in an "invisible" set of geometry known as the complex world which sits a short orthogonal jump from all our known spatial dimensions. We all know about algebraic mapping correct? So it's not strange to think that something mapped in one geographic location might be mapped quite a distant OUT in another geographic location?
This is how functions work at their most basic level. What may seem very distant in our own real universe, might be a distance of "h" away in the complex plane, and therefore not violate Einstein's relativity. This ties directly in, with quantum entanglement. but it's not "entanglement", it's the SAME PARTICLE just having different algebraically CORRECT coordinates in a perfectly mapped (using a complex wave function I've not developed but would be the proof for you guys to figure out) Wave Function.
In short, modern Physicists are not just ignoring a valid re-interpretation of QM and math, but more simply ignoring the complex planes which clearly, in algebra anyway, show they are neither spooky nor difficult. I don't even think it will take much time to adjust, someone simply needs to start inserting more complex dimensions which make algebraic sense (so 4 dimensions works, but 5 doesn't work for anything, and 8 dimensions works better than 7)
In fluids, the "pilot wave" comes from the medium (the ocean or water) itself, correct? Is this not going to be the same in the double slit experiment? the particles aren't interacting, they are interacting with a defined MEDIUM. That medium is the real space PLUS the complex dimensions which have their own lattice. Determinism can be rooted in the real dimensions, and locality is rooted in how reals and complex map to each other (much like quantum entanglement works).
notes:
CI = Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics; basically, particles don't exist until we observe them. Everything in the universe is a "field" not a collection of particles; but worse, everything in the universe is a PROBABILITY FIELD of potential outcomes for where that electron or gamma ray COULD be. It's actually hard to believe Physicists for 100 years have accepted this as their reality, willingly, but they have. I think they just like to pretend what they do is too complicated for the average joe; it makes them feel smarter to believe in something so difficult it actually doesn't make logical sense. In fact, CI just doesn't make logical sense bc it isn't logical.
U.P. or UP = Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle: you can know the location but not the speed, within a certain band of error, thanks to relativity. The big debate is whether UP says something about the actual nature of particles, or whether it says something about the limitations of human experimentation and observation. The latter is true no matter what you believe, but the former is believed only by Bohr, Heisenburg, and 99.9% of Physicists ever since those two met in Copenhagen and formed an ACTUAL school of thought (literally AND figuratively)
QM = Quantum Mechanics. The dual particle-wave nature of light and fast sub-atomic particles as evidenced by the basic double-slit experiment, but more.... It also entails the concepts that distance and other measurable quantities are actually based on very small integers and not infinite real numbers. You can think of it as "distance has a shortest distance, it's not infinitely dividable into smaller distances". Another way to look at it, is that infinity doesn't exist, the world has a finite number of things in it. Quantization, when viewed logically, is actually comforting. Remember fractions and decimals in math class? Fuck fractions and decimals, 1 + 1 is everything. The trouble is, 1 + 1 sometimes equals sqrt(2), so don't go getting too simpleton.
de-Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave Theory: in QM particle physics, it says the equivalent that balls on a pool table aren't just affected by other billiard balls, but also by the vibrations the cue ball gives the table which the table then gives back to the cue ball which then affects the cue-ball's path. Easy right? Yeah, but the last 100 years of Physicist find much fault with this. The great irony of modern physics is, the more money they spend on experiments the closer to perfect the "Standard Model" becomes.
The Standard Model of sub-atomic physics: Everything is either a particle with specific properties, or a wave. However, the waves are also sometimes particles. While there was once 5 forces in classical physics, three have been sorta combined as "Electro-Weak" which encompasses magnetic, electro and weak forces, but the FIELDS of these forces are said to contain particles too-- such as photons (light particles coming from Elecro-Magnetic force) gluons (like photons but for Strong nuclear force), and some bosons (Weak force) have all been found experimentally. The last great conquest of man is to find gravitons and in a way the Higgs Boson (recently found experiementally by the Large Hadron Collider in Europe) has a lot to do with gravity so is the universe just a bunch of particles like we simpletons always thought? Pretty much. String theorists and CI QM-ers aren't very happy with the Higgs finding, it makes life too simple I guess, and therefore them less smart and justified?
Locality = all things interact with each other at speeds equal or less than the speed of light. anything else is "spooky action at a distance" as Einstein called it. If something happens at faster than the speed of light, then you must be dreaming bc it ain't really happening. "Entanglement" starts to complicate this locality concept, even if you believe it's dogma. We believe it's dogma just like quantized nature is dogma. Others think locality can be violated and they have their reasons.
Deterministic = a particle has a DEFINITE location and speed, even if we humans can't measure both of those quantities accurately. CI says that's wrong, it interprets UP as saying every particle is actually a cloud of probability, which won't show it's true qualities until we measure/observe it. Einstein leaned deterministic, whereas the rest of his peers were not.
Wave Equation = basically we mean Schrodinger's Equation, which defines the probabilities of where particles can be and what speeds they might've had, but cannot predict precisely a particle's exact path. It's a differential equation and the basis for almost all modern physical theory.
Pilot Wave = a wave which is created by an object like an oil drop or electron, which is created in a medium like water or space, which then ACTS on the particle itself. So a ball dropped in water will make waves, and those waves will contribute to the ball's eventual path.
Many Worlds Interpretation = Theory that particles do EVERYTHING allowed by the probablistic Wave Function, and therefore every moment in the universe seperates into infinite different worlds where each POSSIBLE thing that can happen in EVERY situation creates a brand new universe. Yeah, i know, it's fucking absurd and you should dismiss it immediately bc even the universe itself is too big even if only ONE history path is taken by everything in it, much less infinite different universes formed each quantized "second" of the day. But it can't REALLY be proven wrong, altho I can prove it wrong by saying that if you believe this theory then your life doesn't matter. If your life doesn't matter, then niether do the lives of the people who conjured "many worlds" theory, and at least the latter is true!
You have a minor misspelling in the following sentence:
It should be separately instead of seperately.Go Fnck Urself Naahhzi!