I try not to spam YouTube links — YouTube is evil and linking isn’t exactly providing content. But I’m not in a position to check this guy’s math and likewise for the expected results of a baryon-baryon collision. Sigh. Still, this short and engaging video is as tractable and as interesting as another one about pilot waves made perhaps ten years ago. Shush now, we’re talking about the pendulum video here:
If you’re having a hard time putting together just how these pendula are actually put together, the word he should have mentioned is “torque”. You’re welcome.
Also, here’s the one on pilot waves, er I mean driven bouncing droplets of oil:
Finally, I had to use an alternate browser to make this second video pop up. Curiouser and curiouser.
I have to wonder if the pilot wave theory is compatible with Bell’s Theorem. I’m thinking it is not. Pilot waves are too uncomfortably close to hidden variables, which are manifestly incompatible with Bell’s Theorem.
Knowing next to nothing about any of this, I asked the internet.
http://scholarpedia.org/article/Bell%27s_theorem#Historical_background
The internet said (and I quote):
> John Bell’s interest in non-locality was triggered by his analysis of the problem of hidden variables in quantum theory and in particular by his learning about the de Broglie–Bohm1 “pilot-wave” theory (aka “Bohmian mechanics”2). Bell wrote that David “Bohm’s 1952 papers on quantum mechanics were for me a revelation. The elimination of indeterminism was very striking. But more important, it seemed to me, was the elimination of any need for a vague division of the world into ‘system’ on the one hand, and ‘apparatus’ or ‘observer’ on the other.”3
> In particular, learning about Bohm’s “hidden variables”4 theory helped Bell recognize the invalidity of the various “no hidden variables” theorems (by John von Neumann and others) which had been taken almost universally by physicists as conclusively establishing something like Niels Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. Bohm’s pilot-wave theory was a clean counterexample, i.e., a proof-by-example that the theorems somehow didn’t rule out what they had been taken to rule out.
> This led Bell to carefully scrutinize those theorems. The result of this work was his paper “On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics”.
And so on.
Sounds like you’re over the target zone.