Talk:Louis de Broglie

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

As discussed below, Louis de Broglie is the name he is known by in English (as is given in Wikipedia:Naming conventions). I added the move tag accordingly. Benplowman 20:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support move to Louis de Broglie. This is the name by which he is known in English. Andrewa 05:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support move to Louis de Broglie. Fully agree. However, all the links, many of which I recently changed, will have to be changed back. --Bduke 06:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It is used on the French Wikipedia article. If it is good enough there it is good enough here. --Bduke 22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That's interesting and does support the move. If the French don't use the full title, it's unlikely that the English will... It just reeks of being pretentiously overcorrect (=wrong). But no, the overriding consideration is the name as used in English, not in French. No change of vote. Andrewa 19:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: No, there's no need to change any links from articles. The resulting redirect will take care of these. Redirects will need to be changed, but there are only two of these, and one of these will be overwritten by the move anyway. So the only one that will need fixing is Prince Louis-Victor Pierre Raymond de Broglie. If you want to tidy up any other links, that's fine, but it's not essential. No change of vote. Andrewa 14:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, if Bduke's gone through systematically eliminating the masking so that other articles say Louis, 7th duc de Broglie, that clumsy usage should be changed back. But normal editing, by editors with any sense of style, should take care of that, as soon as there no longer is the attraction of a direct link. This is another reason not to go around removing single redirects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
      • It would certainly be good to change it back, for tidiness. But it's not essential or urgent in the way that, say, fixing double redirects is. Andrewa 01:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Not urgent, and where the full form is smooth and fluent prose, it should be left alone; but that will be rare. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support, but leave full form in first line. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree that the full form should stay in the lead sentence, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names: While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. See also Wikipedia:Lead section which probably should point to this particular convention but doesn't at present. No change of vote. Andrewa 01:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Louis, 7th duc de Broglie to Louis de Broglie as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Duke

If Louis de Broglie was a French duke, then it follows that his title wouldn't be the seventh (7th) duc de Broglie, but Louis, le septième (7ième) duc de Broglie. Does anyone think the same, or should the seventh (7th) be left there for English people? (this is, after all, English Wikipedia).--Clickheretologin 13:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

On the point raised here (although I support the change above), no. We are written in English, for English speakers. Including septième as well as seventh is redundant for readers who know French, and almost pointless for those who don't. Going to fr:Louis de Broglie suggests that the French don't use it either; and if they did, it would be there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"francisize" does not seem to be a common word, How about "gallicize" instead?

Neither. Since this guy is known for actually doing something, not just for holding a title, Wikipedia:Naming conventions says that the article should be the name by which he is best known in English: Louis de Broglie, or possibly Louis Victor de Broglie or [[Louis-Victor de Broglie. One or another of those spellings, of course, is used in the vast majority of the articles linking here, and I'd bet that almost all of them linking to the current article name were changed from something else at some time after this article was created. All the duke stuff, in both English and French, can appear in the intro, but it doesn't belong in the article name. Gene Nygaard 17:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

This article is poorly written. A complete rewrite may be necassary.Woldo 00:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The equation listed under Hidden thermodynamics deserves a lot more attention, in particular a proper name for this principal and a citation. This is a little known equation of huge importance! It explains the principal of least action--the foundation of all classical mechanics in terms of quantum statistical dynamics. Pulu (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Three pages

"His doctoral thesis is said to be three pages long"

These things are usually public, so this should be easy to check. Either "said to be" must go, or the entire sentence. Shinobu 13:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that claim made on the web, but it seems to be nothing but an urban legend. The published version of de Broglie's thesis, "Recherches sur la théorie des quanta" is 111 pages long. [1] -- Tim314 14:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've heard his name pronounced a thousand different ways (de BROGlee, de BROGHlee de BROlee, de BROY)... any Francophones out there want to clarify this for the rest of us? --24.147.86.187 15:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely, though, the "el" in his last name is pronounced (it is not silent). I think the given IPA pronunciation should be changed to include the "el". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.33.173 (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There is in fact no "el" sound ([l]) in the pronunciation of this name. --Iceager (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The article currently has [dəbʁœj], but the pronunciation in Standard French given by at least two French reference books on pronunciation is [dəbʁɔj] (approximately duh-BROY in English). I do understand why many French speakers would use [dəbʁœj], since the combination [œj] (as in feuille [fœj]) is more familiar to them than [ɔj], and also happens to be closer to the Piedmontese pronunciation for Breuj [brøj], the Piedmontese form of Broglie from which the French pronunciation derives. The corresponding Italian form Broglia is pronounced ['brɔʎa] in Italian; the Piedmontese and Italian forms are found in fr:Maison_de_Broglie#Prononciation (in French). I would correct the pronunciation in the article as [dəbʁɔj], but the pronunciation in the linked sound file is [dəbʁœj]. Should I give only [dəbʁɔj] as the correct pronunciation and remove the link to the sound file? Or should I give [dəbʁœj] as an alternative pronunciation? Is there a reliable outside source for the pronunciation [dəbʁœj] somewhere? --Iceager (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I added [dəbʁɔj] to the article and listed it first, but I've kept the previous pronunciation of [dəbʁœj] as an alternative. Even though I haven't found any sources for the latter, I don't doubt that it is what lots of French speakers actually use. Perhaps someone can find an outside source and add it to the article. --Iceager (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Was de Broglie Black?

I have looked at many of his pictures over the course of his life, and he looks biracial or part black. He features, and his hair texture brought me to question his racial make up. His hair is afro in texture. That is not at all typical of anyone that does not have African ancestry. Also he never married. It was commonplace for black people in his day, passing for white for success in their careers, not to marry, because what the child may look like when it is born.

Can anyone provide a picture of his mother and father? Or any evidence that he may be black? 76.118.226.39 (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)mke

This is complete nonsense as nobody cares whether he was or not. However, since he was a member of the French aristocracy as a Count, it is highly unlikely. --Bduke (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for adding detail about his theory to the article

If nobody objects during the next several days, I plan to add the following to the article.

"De Broglie's argument began with the supposition that 'the basic idea of quantum theory is the impossibility of considering an isolated fragment of energy without assigning a certain frequency to it.' The particles of radiation -- and of matter as well -- had a level of existence that was fundamentally a 'periodic process.' " Here is the footnote in case you can't read it back there. p. 277, Cropper, William H. Great Physicists: The Life and Times of Leading Physicists from Galileo to Hawking. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Thanks for your attention. Earththings (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

He is one of the man who have take No bel Prise in Only 5 years.

Bad paragraph...

The paragraph below makes a number of dubious claims, only some of which can be blamed on a poor translation from the French. Someone else clean it up or I will give it a try. Problems include but are not limited to:

1. Atomism has not been "ruined" by matter-waves; Wikipedia's article on 'Atoms' and on 'Atomism' indicates no such ruination.

2. The author is making unsubstantiated assertions when he argues that "a pure mathematical entity" gives matter merely an "appearance of wave behavior." This is hardly a settled scientific fact.

3. Changes in de Broglie's viewpoint are not accurately described.

4. The following statement is misleading at best: "The de Broglie-Bohm theory is today the only interpretation giving real status to matter-waves...." Objective collapse interpretations, including that of Penrose, give a real status to the wave function and such an entity can certainly be termed a "matter wave" in the sense that Bohm and de Broglie used it.

-------------From the current article: "From a philosophical viewpoint, this theory of matter-waves has contributed greatly to the ruin of the atomism of the past. Originally, de Broglie thought that real wave (i.e., having a direct physical interpretation) was associated with particles. In fact, the wave aspect of matter was formalized by a wavefunction defined by the Schrödinger equation, which is a pure mathematical entity having a probabilistic interpretation, without the support of real physical elements. This wavefunction gives an appearance of wave behavior to matter, without making real physical waves appear. However, until the end of his life de Broglie returned to a direct and real physical interpretation of matter-waves, following the work of David Bohm. The de Broglie-Bohm theory is today the only interpretation giving real status to matter-waves and representing the predictions of quantum theory. But, since it has some problems and doesn't go further in its predictions than the Copenhagen interpretation, it is little recognized by the scientific community."

Chrisman62 (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

de Broglie's Death

How did he die? And where? 65.185.171.242 (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

de Broglie's wave mechanics

de Broglie's wave mechanics is not de Broglie-Bohm theory, nor is it a precursor of it. They are very different in terms of the physical wave. In de Broglie's wave mechanics, and associated double solution theory, there is a physical wave which guides (i.e. pilots) the particle and a statistical wave function which is for making predictions of experiments. The statistical wave function does not physically exist. In de Broglie-Bohm theory the wave function physically exists. de Broglie-Bohm theory should be referred to as Bohmian mechanics as de Broglie's theories are very different and de Broglie disagreed with the notion of a physical wave function. Mpc755 (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the wp:SYNTH, pending discussion. I have also removed your unsourced content at Double-slit experiment, pointing to here. - DVdm (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

de Broglie's wave mechanics is the foundation of everything he did. I have removed the section having to do with the work by Steinberg. The work done with walking droplets is relevant as the MIT work ends with, "This physical picture is remarkably similar to an early model of quantum dynamics proposed by Louis de Broglie..." Mpc755 (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. User Mpc755 is blocked again, now for 5 days. - DVdm (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

In the off chance that constructive collaboration is possible, let me offer a few concerns and suggestions. While removing the weak measurement part is a good start (it was never clear from the references whether it was referring to the de Broglie-Bohm theory or a pre-Bohm de Broglie pilot wave theory), it still leaves a great deal of original synthesis that makes the addition unacceptable IMO. As I've said before, the inclusion of the Laughlin quote (I'm assuming from pg 121 in the cited book) is a classic example of WP:SYNTH. Here we have two statements from two sources (A) de Broglie talks about a hidden medium for his pilot wave theory and (B) Laughlin talks about space being like a piece of window glass, filled with a relativistic ether, combined in a way to suggest that (C) Laughlin's relativistic ether is de Broglie's hidden medium, a conclusion found in neither of the sources. To quote from WP:OR:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. ... "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Additionally the idea that a particle displaces this hidden medium and is analogous to the bow wave of a ship cannot be found in any of the cited refs (at least I can't find it) and hence cannot be included as it is original synthesis. The comments involving water droplet experiment could be reworked and included as a re-emergence of the idea, albeit not in a quantum system, but any attempt to push it as evidence that de Broglie's is the correct interpretation of QM is OR at this point since the that idea is not found in any of the cited reliable sources (also note, youtube is generally not a reliable source). Finally, it would really help if you could find a secondary source that discusses de Broglie's pilot wave theory, especially one that distinguishes it from the de Broglie-Bohm theory, as right now your edit relies entirely on a primary source, de Broglie's original paper putting forward this idea. A secondary source could solve most of the possible OR issues and provide the context needed to determine the due weight to give this subtopic. So to sum up, and hopefully make future discussion easier:

1. Inclusion of Laughlin quote looks like WP:SYNTH (A+B=C)
2. Displacement of hidden medium/bow wave analogy appears to be an original conclusion not found in the cited sources
3. Rework water droplet comments to remove hints of pushing the OR idea that de Broglie's pilot wave is the correct interpretation of QM
4. Find a good secondary source which discusses and puts in context de Broglie's pilot wave theory.

Did I miss anything guys? --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. See [2]. - DVdm (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add the following to this wiki page. Mpc755 (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

de Broglie's wave mechanics and double solution theory How de Broglie's wave mechanics differs from Bohmian mechanics de Broglie-Bohm theory should be referred to as Bohmian mechanics as de Broglie disagreed with Bohm in terms of what physically waves. In Bohmian mechanics there is only the Ψ wave which de Broglie insists is of statistical nature only; it does not physically exist. In de Broglie's double solution theory there is the physical u wave connected to and neighboring the particle which guides the particle and a statistical Ψ wave used to determine probabilistic results from experiments. de Broglie said the following in "Une tentative d'interprétation causale et non linéaire de la mécanique ondulatoire: la théorie de la double solution. Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1956." But, as I have said, since 1951 I have once again been wondering if, after all, my first idea was not the right one. Further reflections on this very difficult problem have led me to refine certain points of the original double-solution theory.[Preface VI] I have once more taken up the study of my former and earliest conceptions of Wave Mechanics without preconceived ideas of any sort and without any personal axe to grind. I may be wrong in wishing to go back to concepts that are clearer than those prevailing in theortetical physics at the present time. But I should like this line of thought, abandoned for some twenty-five years now and believed to lead to an impasse, to be carefully re-examined to see whether, on the contrary, it may not be the pathway that might lead to the true Microphysics of the Future.[Preface VII] Unfortunately the development of the theory of the Double Solution presented great mathematical difficulties. For that reason, when I was requested to present a paper on Wave Mechanics at the Solvay Physical Congress held in Brussels in October 1927, I contented myself with a presentation of my ideas in an incomplete and diluted form which I called the "pilot-wave theory". ... And I used the term "pilot-wave theory" for the theory limited to the postulation of the existence of the particle and the Ψ wave, with no futher reference to a wave containing a singularity. ... But the Ψ wave usually employed in Wave Mechanics cannot be a physical reality; its normalization is arbitrary; its propagation, in the general case, is supposed to take place in an obviously fictitious configuration space, and the success of its probabilistic interpretation shows clearly that it is merely a representation of probabilities dependent upon the state of our knowledge and suddenly modified by every new piece of information. So I saw clearly that the pilot-wave theory could not supply the interpretation I sought; it did not achieve the clearcut separation of the objective and subjective, which had been give up by Bohr and his disciples, but which it was necessary to maintain if I was to arrive at a concrete and causal interpretation of Wave Mechanics.[Pages 90-91] On the other hand, my original theory of the Double Solution, by distinguishing the Ψ wave, with its probabilistic and subjective character, from the singularity-wave (u), which was to be a description of objective reality, might possibly supply the more classical type of interpretation I was after. But I knew only too well that the theory of the double solution likewise involved numerous difficulties, especially when it came to the existence and form of singularity-waves and to their relation to the Ψ waves, or when one had to interpret in terms of singularity-waves interference experiments of the Young-slit type, etc.[Pages 91-92] During the summer of 1951, there came to my attention, much to my surprise, a paper by David Bohm which appeard subsequently in The Physical Review. In this paper Bohm went back to my theory of pilot-wave, considering the Ψ wave as physical reality. He made a certain number of interesting remarks on the subject, and in particular, he indicated the broad outline of a theory of measurement that seemed to answer the objections Pauli had made to my approach in 1927. My first reaction on reading Bohm's work was to reiterate, in a communication to the Comptes rendus de l' Academie des Sciences, the objects, insurmountable in my opinion, that seemed to render impossible any attribution of physical reality to the Ψ wave, and consequently, to render impossible the adoption of the pilot-wave theory.[Pages 92] de Broglie's description of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory When in 1923–1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles. For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity. —Louis de Broglie de Broglie's understanding of wave-particle duality was that the particle is a moving singularity with an associated wave. Any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous 'energetic contact' with a hidden medium de Broglie's understanding of wave-particle duality is that it is a hidden medium which waves. de Broglie's wave mechanics explanation for the behaviors in a double slit experiment While the founding fathers agonized over the question 'particle' or 'wave', de Broglie in 1925 proposed the obvious answer 'particle' and 'wave'. Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored. - J. S. Bell In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the hidden medium passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave guiding the particle. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave and the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling. Walking droplets Yves Couder and co-workers recently discovered a macroscopic pilot wave system in the form of walking droplets. This system exhibits behaviour of a pilot wave, heretofore considered to be reserved to microscopic phenomena. MIT researchers expand the range of quantum behaviors that can be replicated in fluidic systems, offering a new perspective on wave-particle duality. "Whatever the case may be in quantum mechanics, the statistics are an incomplete description of our fluid system and emerge from an underlying pilot-wave dynamics. This physical picture is remakably similar to an early model of quantum dynamics proposed by Louis de Broglie..." References

I have added some templates to make it stand out, and added a local reflist. Comments:

• The 1st paragraph (How de Broglie's wave mechanics differs from Bohmian mechanics) is entirely unsourced. See wp:secondary sources. The de Broglie quote is huge and goes essentially nowhere.
• The 2nd paragraph (de Broglie's description of quantum mechanics...) is a collection of two citations, flanked by unsourced conclusions. See wp:SYNTH
• The 3rd paragraph (How de Broglie's wave mechanics likely applies to a double slit experiment) is unsourced. See wp:NOR
• The 4th paragraph (Walking droplets - de Broglie's understanding of wave-particle duality in Macrophysics) is a collection of two citations. The title is wp:SYNTH.

Please do have a look at FyzixFighter's suggestions, and at the various policy pages pointed to. - DVdm (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• The 1st paragraph is sourced by the de Broglie quote. The de Broglie quote explains specifically why the 1st paragraph is accurate. What am I supposed to do if you can't understand this? Ask for mediation? Mpc755 (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• How are you able to read the de Broglie quotes and not understand it is the hidden medium which waves? It makes no sense to have to source what de Broglie clearly states. Mpc755 (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• What do you mean by sourced? de Broglie clearly states a moving particle has an associated wave. What do you think occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment when there is a physical particle and an associated physical wave? What do you think waves if not the hidden medium? Again, it just makes absolutely no sense to have to source what de Broglie clearly states. de Broglie is the source. Mpc755 (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Modified the title. Mpc755 (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do understand that you are requiring sources for what de Broglie himself clearly states. Your saying the de Broglie quote goes nowhere is completely missing the whole point. Mpc755 (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the issue that you just simply disagree with what de Broglie states and refuse to allow it to be posted on the Louis de Broglie wikipedia page? Is the issue your refusal to accept that there is a different understanding of a double slit experiment which is based upon physical reality? Mpc755 (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't put comments between other comments. I have moved them down. See WP:INDENT.

See wp:secondary sources as opposed to wp:primary sources. Don't go about harvesting quotes and then drawing your conclusions from them. If you find a scholarly secondary source that says what you want to add to the article, and others think it's ok, then you are in business.

Don't think mediation at this point. Wait for other contributors' input and try to think wp:consensus. - DVdm (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Added secondary source Mpc755 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't put a comment inside another comment. I have moved it down. See WP:INDENT. - DVdm (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me add another policy that would be relevant here: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", more specifically summed up relative to this situation in WP:QUOTEFARM. As DVdm has pointed out, what you (Mpc755) want to add is almost entirely a stringing together of quotes from de Broglie with your own synthesis of what the string of quotes mean. Essentially you have picked quotes to advance a viewpoint of what de Broglie theorized. It may be that your summation is correct, but the point is that we cannot verify if it is since all you've provided are cherry-picked pieces of a primary source. Let me put it another way that may (or may not) be helpful, if another editor were to come and present their own selection of quotes from de Broglie and argue a completely different interpretation of his theory, how would we choose what to put in the article? Hence the necessity of reliable, secondary sources. Secondary sources would also give us a way to determine the due weight to give to this addition.

It looks like the Bell quote might be a good start, though IMO summarizing Bell's comments rather than quoting directly, and backing up with other good secondary sources, would be better. That said, there may be a few points the de Broglie quotes could be used for, for example a statement along the lines "de Broglie believed that his theory was distinct from Bohm's pilot wave theory" could possibly be supported by citing the primary source, but again a secondary source would be preferable since it could sum up why and give an assessment on if de Broglie understood Bohm's theory correctly. Overall, keeping the salvageable pieces, this reduces the first three paragraphs/subsections to mainly a paraphrase of Bell's quote. Finally, a lot of this is already in the subsection Louis de Broglie#Matter and wave–particle duality (which, incidentally, also needs better sourcing).

For the 4th, again youtube is generally not considered a reliable source. I find the "Whatever the case..." quote irrelevant in general to the topic/subtopic of the article which is de Broglie and his QM theory. At best we can say that recently a macroscopic analog of de Broglie's theory has been demonstrated which exhibits QM-like behavior. I would also point out that the Hardesty ref seems to connect the experiment to the de Broglie-Bohm theory (see the topic tags at the bottom). --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Note @Mpc755: I have reverted this edit. Please don't edit content that was already replied to—see WP:REDACT. Can you continue here at the bottom in a new {{cot}}-{{cob}} section? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure.

Incorporating feedback from above. Mpc755 (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition

de Broglie's wave mechanics and double solution theory How de Broglie's wave mechanics differs from Bohmian mechanics de Broglie believed that his theory was distinct from Bohm's pilot wave theory. de Broglie-Bohm theory should be referred to as Bohmian mechanics as de Broglie disagreed with Bohm in terms of what physically waves. During the summer of 1951, there came to my attention, much to my surprise, a paper by David Bohm which appeard subsequently in The Physical Review. In this paper Bohm went back to my theory of pilot-wave, considering the Ψ wave as physical reality. He made a certain number of interesting remarks on the subject, and in particular, he indicated the broad outline of a theory of measurement that seemed to answer the objections Pauli had made to my approach in 1927. My first reaction on reading Bohm's work was to reiterate, in a communication to the Comptes rendus de l' Academie des Sciences, the objects, insurmountable in my opinion, that seemed to render impossible any attribution of physical reality to the Ψ wave, and consequently, to render impossible the adoption of the pilot-wave theory. —Louis de Broglie de Broglie's description of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory When in 1923–1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles. For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity. —Louis de Broglie de Broglie's understanding of wave-particle duality was that the particle is a moving singularity with an associated wave. Any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous 'energetic contact' with a hidden medium de Broglie's understanding of wave-particle duality is that it is a hidden medium which waves. de Broglie's wave mechanics explanation for the behaviors in a double slit experiment John Bell describes what occurs in a double slit experiment according to de Broglie's wave mechanics. While the founding fathers agonized over the question 'particle' or 'wave', de Broglie in 1925 proposed the obvious answer 'particle' and 'wave'. Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored. - J. S. Bell Another description of what occurs in a double slit experiment according to de Broglie's double-solution theory. The indivisible acron passes through one slit or the other, and the “pilot wave” through both slits. If the acron is detected right after one of the slits, then the theta wave from the other slit will follow its own way and should be possible to detect it. If not, both waves will interfere and the particle will be detected at the screen, where the intensity of the resulting wave is higher. In any case the wave-particle properties are always present, that is, they are not created by the observation process. The last interpretation is identical to de Broglie’s view, expounded during the the Solvay Conference in 1927, on the “pilot wave” idea that was taken as the basis of his double-solution theory The following is a more straight forward explanation of the two descriptions above. In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the hidden medium passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave guiding the particle. Strongly detecting the particle exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave and the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling. Walking droplets Yves Couder and co-workers recently discovered a macroscopic pilot wave system in the form of walking droplets. This system exhibits behaviour of a pilot wave, heretofore considered to be reserved to microscopic phenomena. MIT researchers expand the range of quantum behaviors that can be replicated in fluidic systems, offering a new perspective on wave-particle duality. This physical picture is remakably similar to an early model of quantum dynamics proposed by Louis de Broglie..." References

Took out "Whatever the case..." Mpc755 (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Added two secondary sources explaining what occurs in a double slit experiment according to de Broglie's wave mechanics and double solution theory Mpc755 (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed "Not done yet..." from above this proposed version. I would like to add the above to the de Broglie widipedia page Mpc755 (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Already your very first sentence ("de Broglie believed that his theory was distinct from Bohm's pilot wave theory.") is unsourced. I haven't looked at the remainder. Please have a careful read of FyzixFighter's comments—and at wp:NOR and wp:SYNTH. - DVdm (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you have a careful read of what FyzixFighter said. Where do you think I got that quote from? FyzixFighter said, "That said, there may be a few points the de Broglie quotes could be used for, for example a statement along the lines "de Broglie believed that his theory was distinct from Bohm's pilot wave theory" could possibly be supported by citing the primary source" Mpc755 (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops, bad copy/paste job, my apologies. That should have been:

Already your very first paragraph ("de Broglie-Bohm theory should be referred to as Bohmian mechanics as de Broglie disagreed with Bohm in terms of what physically waves.") is unsourced. Please have a careful read of FyzixFighter's comments—and at wp:NOR and wp:SYNTH - DVdm (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I DID have a careful read of FyzixFighter comments. Where do you think the ("de Broglie-Bohm theory should be referred to as Bohmian mechanics as de Broglie disagreed with Bohm in terms of what physically waves.") quote is from? Do you understand what "could possibly be supported by citing the primary source" means? Mpc755 (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)