>>12927822>>12927831so if it goes through one slit, it makes no more waves around the other, so no more waves to interfile with the other way
>In this hypothetical “gedanken” version of the double-slit experiment, the particles, before arriving at the slitted barrier, have to pass to one side or the other of a central dividing wall. In standard quantum mechanics, this wall can be very long, and it won’t matter, because the wave function representing the possible paths of a particle will simply go both ways around the wall, pass through both slits, and interfere. But in de Broglie’s picture, and likewise in the bouncing-droplet experiments, the driving force of the whole operation — the particle — can go only one way or the other, losing contact with the part of the pilot wave that passes to the other side of the wall. Unsustained by the particle or droplet, the wavefront disperses long before reaching its slit, and there’s no interference pattern. The Danish researchers verified these arguments with computer simulations.also seems like it was failed to be deomonstraited a few times, not that rules it out
http://math.mit.edu/~bush/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Pucci-Slits-2017.pdf>>12927840hmmm
standard model
>consider phonons in a crystal lattice. -- However, this approach has serious issues. For one thing the "phononic" observables are still not going to play a symmetric role with the atomic positions. For another, the phonon number will not be integer*! This shows it hardly makes sense to talk about phonon trajectories>in Bohmian QFT the fields become the fundamental observables, making it inconsistent with nonrelativistic Bohmian QM. -- it also fails to be Lorentz invarianthttps://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26898/quasiparticles-in-bohmian-mechanicsit just doesn't feel right. electrons are in the "uncertainty" of a bassel function, it doesn't mean it's "riding" it like a wave, and when you look deeper, it itself is a wave.
