Double Slit Experiment. Obviously there is, since consensus in science is built around evidence. Where there is no evidence, there is no orthodoxy. The correct interpretation of QM is still up for grabs, but that doesn't mean that any theory is as good as any other. One example is that God selects outcomes of quantum events. — Kenosha Kid
Once again, if there was evidence, you would make it to the headlines. The only evidence so far is the evidence for the non-existence of
local hidden variables. And these are exactly the ones
not needed for hidden variables. God may even select outcomes by means of hidden variables. Would explain nicely weird coincidences, though more down-to-Earth explanations could do just as well.
That is the evidence, since in hidden variables theories like Bohmian mechanics, it _should_ have a dipole moment: two charges separated by space makes a dipole. — Kenosha Kid
That's why Bohmian mechanics isn't adequate. An adequate formulation doesn't predict an observable dipole moment. A smeared out electron, as suggested by the standard interpretation, implies an expanding negatively charged structure which can't collapse. A negatively charged extended structure only expands (in empty space). A measurement causes collapse though.
This should cause EM radiation, which isn't observed in a double slit experiment with electrons, like there is no electric moment observed for s-orbitals in atoms.
This shows that both in your example (there has to be a time-dependent electric moment), as well as in mine (there should be an EM field), QFT hasn't been taken into consideration, which for bound systems is rather complicated.
An EM field exists whether it's static or moving. That's what charge ensures. Where do you get this stuff? Hearing Brownian motion come up makes me think you're just grabbing at physics concepts at random in order to keep speaking for the sake of speaking. — Kenosha Kid
At random? If you can't see the connection with hidden variables then I can only conclude you don't understand hidden variables. The medium in which the particle flows represents the wavefunction which litterally makes the Brownian move erratically and seemingly randomly. But the motion is determined by the medium. Metaphors, my dear... Don't take it literally. And certainly not randomly, which you only use here to belittle my argument. If you would see the connection it's not random, but if you don't see it than it looks random indeed. I'm not sure what's the tenth red herring about speaking for the sake of speaking is about.
But there ia no continuous flow of current.
— Cartuna
Orbital angular momentum? Spin? — Kenosha Kid
I'm not speaking here about the electron in a hydrogen atom. I'm saying that for a time varying EM field to appear, a continuous flow of charge is needed. An electron in an s-orbital has no angular momentum, and to associate spin with a continuous flow of current flies in the face of all modern conceptions of spin. The spin of an electron isn't related to a continuous flow of current (which only goes to show that the concept of a point particle isn't sufficient). An electron hopping around in the s-orbital will not produce a measurable electric dipole. If the hopping is fast enough. It would be a great test though to see if hidden variables are really there.
:smile: