IMG_9418
md5: 21273426ac36018b3e380426d9f12087
🔍
It’s July 1st, 2025. Quantum mechanics has been solved! Turns out Bohmian mechanics was right all along. The catch is that you must allow for an aether, e.g. the quantum vacuum. The aether is either stationary or flowing in all directions which is why the Michaelson-Morley experiment only detected a small fringe shift. Here’s more explanation:
—
GPT Prompt: Okay, let’s assume there is an aether that particles “ride on.” Is that the pilot wave? Is the interaction between the particle and the wave enough to explain the double slit experiment?
—
Excellent — you’re now asking the million-dollar realist question:
“If there’s an aether-like medium that particles ride on — is that the same as the pilot wave?
And is the interaction between particle and wave enough to explain the double-slit experiment?”
Short answer:
Yes — this is almost exactly what Bohmian mechanics proposes.
And yes again — the pilot wave (acting like a quantum aether) fully explains the double-slit behavior — without needing collapse, consciousness, or multiple universes.
Let’s walk through this in clear, physical language.
⸻
Step 1: The Basic Idea — A Particle Guided by a Wave
In Bohmian mechanics:
• A particle (say, an electron) has a definite position at all times.
• It is guided by a real, physical wave — the pilot wave — which is just the same wavefunction ψ from standard quantum mechanics.
• The wave exists in configuration space, not just 3D space, and it evolves smoothly via the Schrödinger equation.
So in your language: the pilot wave is the “aether,” and the particle “rides” it like a surfer on a quantum tide.
>>16712699 (OP)>quantum mechanics SOLVED!>it’s another idiot with his interpretationsNobody cares about interpretations. Come back when you have a rigorous notion of second quantization that admits interacting field theories.
Step 2: How the Double-Slit Works in This Picture
Imagine you fire a single electron at a barrier with two slits. Here’s what happens in Bohmian mechanics:
The Wave (Pilot Wave):
• Passes through both slits, like a water wave.
• Interferes with itself beyond the slits.
• Creates a wavy intensity pattern on the far side.
The Particle:
• Passes through only one slit — it has a definite path.
• But its trajectory is guided by the structure of the wave — so it bends and curves in response to the interference created by the pilot wave.
• The wave tells it: “Avoid this area; move toward that peak.”
Result:
• After many electrons go through, the pattern of their impacts builds up into the familiar interference pattern.
• But each particle followed a definite path the whole time.
No mystery. No collapse. No wave-particle duality.
>>16712699 (OP)skipped your first paragraph
saw the line break
>GPT Promptdid not read
do not care
fuck off my board
Why This Works
The key equation in Bohmian mechanics is the guidance equation:
v(x) = (1/m) ∇S(x)
Where:
• S(x) is the phase of the wavefunction
• v(x) is the velocity of the particle at position x
• The particle “feels” the gradient of the wave’s phase and moves accordingly
This interaction between the particle and the pilot wave is enough to explain the interference — because the pilot wave encodes the whole experimental setup (slit positions, screen, etc).
⸻
Does This Match Experimental Results?
Yes — exactly. Bohmian mechanics reproduces all predictions of standard quantum mechanics.
• Same interference patterns.
• Same entanglement results.
• Same Bell inequality violations.
The math of the wave is exactly the same — the difference is interpretational:
Bohm says the particle is always there, and the wave guides it.
⸻
So Why Isn’t This the Mainstream View?
Good question. Mostly:
1. It’s explicitly nonlocal
• The pilot wave must instantly adjust across all space when entangled systems are involved.
• This seems to violate special relativity — but remember, no usable information is sent faster than light.
2. It’s philosophically realist and deterministic
• That made it unfashionable during the mid-20th century “shut up and calculate” era.
• Some dislike that it requires a preferred foliation of time (a hidden absolute frame).
3. It’s ontologically heavy
• You’re doubling the ontology: particle + wave.
• Many physicists prefer minimalist models.
But fundamentally: Bohmian mechanics is consistent, complete, and realist. And in your analogy, the aether is the pilot wave.
Final Takeaway
If you assume an “aether” that exists at all points and guides particles, and particles follow definite paths,
then yes — you’re describing Bohmian mechanics.
And yes — that interaction alone fully explains the double-slit experiment.
No need for wavefunction collapse
No need for observer-created reality
No need for particles to “split in half”
Just a real wave and a real particle — beautifully choreographed.
So no more weird shit with Bohmian mechanics? E.g. observer effect, etc.
Exactly — Bohmian mechanics removes the “weird shit” from quantum mechanics, at least in the sense of:
• No magical wavefunction collapse
• No particle existing in “both slits”
• No consciousness required
• No observer-created reality
• No randomness at a fundamental level
• No paradoxes about measurement outcomes
>Marxist ontobabble
No. Bohm was a Jew and a Marxist. all fields
>>16712724What’s it called when someone attacks a person’s character instead of directly addressing their argument?
Furthermore, without a pilot wave how do you explain the double slit experiment? A particles divides in half, goes through both slits, and then interacts with itself?
>>16712753>What’s it called when someone attacks a person’s character instead of directly addressing their argument?You have no argument. Your interpretation is laughed at by most physicists due to its unnecessary complexity violating Occam's Razor. The only reason that this interpretation exists is due to materialist *philosophy* espoused by Marxist Jews such as Bohm. Fucking philosophy.
>Furthermore, without a pilot wave how do you explain the double slit experiment? The particle exists in a state of superposition until observed.
>>16712766I'd say go back to your quantum physics class, but it's clear you've never attended one.
>>16712699 (OP)Well done, Marxist, well done. Now reconcile your theory with special relativity.
“violating Occam's Razor”
That’s a good one! Like Occam’s Razor is some kind of mathematical or philosophical proof. It says the simplest explanation is often the best. It’s a rule of thumb, not a truth. You know what violates Occam’s razor? Anything with a moderately complicated explanation.
>>16712854Hey guys, maybe the particle is surrounded by a medium that interacts with it?
Nah, you see according to Occam’s razor, that simple explanation is wrong. Clearly the particle exists in multiple states at the same time and then it magically and instantly snaps into a defined state whenever you look at it.
Your Occam’s argument fails in more ways than one!
>>16712699 (OP)Oh well thank goodness ChatGPT has confirmed your theory of everything. You should start asking it something challenging like deep metaphysical questions. You could be the messiah for all you know!
>>16712699 (OP)Gpt 4 SLOP never use the 4 series
>>16712860>the particle is surrounded by a medium that interacts with it?The "medium" in question is taking a mathematical abstraction (the wavefunction), turning it into a physical object, having it violate the speed of causality and having it lead to zero testable predictions.
>>16712860>Nah, you see according to Occam’s razor, that simple explanation is wrong. Clearly the particle exists in multiple states at the same time and then it magically and instantly snaps into a defined state whenever you look at it.The universe has no obligation to seem intuitive to you.
100 years ago you'd be kvetching about relativity and how it's not possible for time and length to be observer dependent.
Erik Weinstein vindicated. Apologize, /sci/.
>>16713063sorry pal. professor dave already debunked that fraud.
>>16713071That jew is never "bunked" in the first place and so does not need to be debunked.
another nobel price goes to chatgpt for proving the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. maybe it can figure out which bible translation is the right one so we can all go to heaven.
>>16712699 (OP)check out the hydrodynamic pilot wave by john bush
they do exactly this
>>16712699 (OP)>The aether is either stationaryWrong. Dumb nigger.
>flowing in all directionsWhat the fuck does that even mean?
>>16712699 (OP)If you can't even explain entanglement don't even try.
>>16714465take a piece of paper and fold it in half
now pierce it with a pen
unfold the paper
notice anything?
that's nonlocal entanglement in the aether
>>16714439>What the fuck does that even mean?It means someone got the dose of his meds wrong. Again.
