News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012) by wolfgke on Sunday October 16, 2016 @08:51PM (#12722003)
> De-Broglie-Bohm theory includes the same set of non-intuitive behaviors that all valid interpretations of quantum mechanics have, in other words it is not testable different from other interpretations.

There exist opinions that disagree:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Broglie%E2%80%...

"In 2016, Pisin Chen and Hagen Kleinert argued that the Copenhagen interpretation and the De Broglie–Bohm theory yield different results for the ratio of peak intensities in the double-slit experiment. They concluded that they are thus not mathematically equivalent."

> http://www.ejtp.com/articles/ejtpv13i35p1.pdf

Re:Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012) by davorak on Monday October 17, 2016 @12:51AM (#12722763)
Thanks for the citation, I had not seen that recent paper(2016).

Pisin Chen and Hagen Kleinert say that De-Broglie-Bohm theory does not agree with experimental results or the rest of quantum mechanics.

This is surprising since there evidence of this is from a 1979 paper, their citation [15]

[15] C. Philippidis, C. Dewdney and B. J. Hiley, Il Nuovo Cimento 52B, 15 (1979)

can be found online(republished) at: http://www.pbx-brasil.com/FisQuan/Notas/Area01/semana041/pap...

I would want to do some additional research before agreeing with Pisin Chen and Hagen Kleinert that the De-Broglie-Bohm theory has been experimentally disproven.

Other then combining the existing research double checking the numerical simulation and algorithms in [15] would be my approach.

Pisin Chen and Hagen Kleinert paper seems to lack such an examination which would have made for a more conclusive argument.