Hacker News Reader

Comment by 6d6b73 | Hacker News Reader

Slightly unrelated question but does anyone knows how quantum computing will change if Copenhagen interpretation is invalid and instead De Broglie–Bohm theory proves to be correct?

View on HN

It's irrelevant. Interpretations try to create a model that explains why something acts the way it does. Under pilot wave theory, quantum particles act the same way they would under the Copenhagen interpretation.

I was under the impression that those theories agree about their predictions. Their relative merits come down to how well they explain things and how well those explanations jive with existing science.

So either:

- I'm wrong, and some phenomenon exists that can differentiate the theories.

- The only thing about quantum computing that will change if the Copenhagen interpretation falls out of favor is the contents of the textbooks

From what I've read (admittedly not enough) Pilot Wave theory is very deterministic and have some other weird quantities for example the observer does not really affect the result of double-slit experiment (if I understand correctly)

The Copenhagen interpretation is trivially invalid in the sense that it is incomplete: it doesn't provide a clear definition of what a "measurement" is.

The De Broglie-Bohm interpretation doesn't have this problem, because it does not distinguish between quantum interactions and "measurements"; they are one and the same.

Thank you for asking this. I've been wondering about it for several years. My assumption has always been that if the latter is correct, then some kind of exponential increase in time to get a solution would be involved. I'd love someone who actually knows something about physics to give an answer that's understandable to people who haven't studied the subject since high school 30 years ago.

Not at all. Interpretations are interpretations, not changes to the mathematical mechanisms.

I have to disagree. EM drive is theoretically impossible with Copenhagen interpretation but with Pilot Wave not only it's possible but we can improve its efficiency. It would make sense that similar situation is possible with quantum computing.

How does pilot wave theory make violating conservation of momentum possible?

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-a-weird-new-ide...

Quickly looked at what is written in other articles by these authors, and it's total BS. Sadly that these 'research' made it way to sciencealert.com.

We have no idea why the EM drive works. It doesn't seem to make any sense as it seems to violate conservation of momentum, but experiments have the ultimate say.

Pilot wave theory is actually a small change to the mathematical model in QM, but it is one which never affects anything that you can measure in the lab.

It is correct to say that all interpretations lead to the same predictions, but not actually correct to say they're the same mathematical model.

It wouldn't change at all. Interpretations of quantum mechanics are just that, interpretations. They don't change the results.

Yes, but if one interpretation is deterministic and one probabilistic doesn't it mean that the mechanics will change, and what we currently think is how quantum computers could work, will potentially make them faster/slower/impossible?

Pilot wave just moves the quantum magic/weirdness/conspiracy to a particle whose trajectory we cant see, that "rides" the pilot wave in a manner that grossly violates our notions of cause and effect. Under pilot wave theory, you can still build the same computer, but the explanation for the magic efficiency is explained in terms of the magical movements of the rider particle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com