Probabilistic vs Pilot-Wave view of Quantum Physics | WIRED

Posted on by

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/

Interesting. I’ve always had issues with the probabilistic view, and I like the pilot wave (Bohmian) view. It makes more sense in my head. That doesn’t mean it’s right, of course, but just saying – I find it more elegant and satisfactory. It doesn’t require magic.

It’s important to realise that both views are of the same quantum physics. Feynman said “no one truly understands quantum mechanics”.

I reckon it’s worthwhile putting way more research into the pilot-wave view again, as it may well be able to help resolve other related issues such as the unified theory. Different perspectives often help to do that (and that’s even the case if they’re wrong!)

Also consider this tidbit:

In a groundbreaking experiment, the Paris researchers used the droplet setup to demonstrate single- and double-slit interference. They discovered that when a droplet bounces toward a pair of openings in a damlike barrier, it passes through only one slit or the other, while the pilot wave passes through both. Repeated trials show that the overlapping wavefronts of the pilot wave steer the droplets to certain places and never to locations in between — an apparent replication of the interference pattern in the quantum double-slit experiment that Feynman described as “impossible … to explain in any classical way.” And just as measuring the trajectories of particles seems to “collapse” their simultaneous realities, disturbing the pilot wave in the bouncing-droplet experiment destroys the interference pattern.

10 Scientific Ideas That Scientists Wish You Would Stop Misusing

Posted on by

http://io9.com/10-scientific-ideas-that-scientists-wish-you-would-stop-1591309822

Many ideas have left the world of science and made their way into everyday language — and unfortunately, they are almost always used incorrectly. We asked a group of scientists to tell us which scientific terms they believe are the most widely misunderstood. Here are ten of them.

Carbon Tax in Canada

Posted on by

Just in case you thought that Canada is on Abbott’s wavelength – that may be the case in terms of Canada’s current prime minister and some of its actions on the federal level.

But let me show you this, straight from the website of the Ministry of Finance of the Canadian province of British Columbia. It is actually very similar to what Australia currently has, with the proceeds from its tax given back to families, pensioners and the clean energy fund, among others.
By the way, the British Columbian government is of Liberal/Conservative flavour.

Source: http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/carbon_tax.htm

Overview of the revenue-neutral carbon tax

B.C. continues to be a leader in climate action by having a carbon tax.

The revenue-neutral carbon tax was implemented on July 1, 2008, and the final scheduled increase took effect on July 1, 2012.

The initial tax rate was relatively low and has increased gradually to allow families and businesses time to reduce their emissions. The tax is also intentionally broadly based and paid by all those who consume fossil fuels in the province.

The tax puts a price on carbon to

  • encourage individuals, businesses, industry and others to use less fossil fuel and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions;
  • send a consistent price signal;
  • ensure those who produce emissions pay for them; and
  • make clean energy alternatives more attractive.

The carbon tax is revenue neutral, meaning every dollar generated by the tax is returned to British Columbians through reductions in other taxes.