Article Schrödinger’s blunder created the quantum measurement problem?

[C C]

Schrödinger’s blunder created the quantum measurement problem
https://iai.tv/articles/schroedingers-bl..._auid=2020

INTRO: Quantum mechanics is seen as challenging the idea that science provides objective descriptions of reality outside of our minds. The “measurement problem” seems to suggest that the act of observation creates the outcome that is observed.

But physicist Antony Valentini, whose Beyond the Quantum was hailed by Lee Smolin as “the best book written this century” on quantum mechanics, argues that this picture rests on an enormous blunder by Erwin Schrödinger.

After Louis de Broglie predicted the wave-like trajectories of particles, Schrödinger found the equation describing this. But whereas de Broglie envisaged particles riding on waves, Schrödinger kept the waves and threw away the particles.

That single decision birthed the measurement problem—and it was completely unnecessary. Resurrect de Broglie’s original particle-based theory, Valentini argues, and we can dispel quantum mystery... (MORE - details)

---

Solving the Schrödinger equation with imagination
https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/solving-th...magination

INTRO: A governing equation in quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation is, in practice, impossible to solve exactly. The mathematicians Éric Cancès, Mathieu Lewin, and Julien Toulouse have now proposed a radical reformulation of it, in order to study complex systems that resist exploration by theorists... (MORE - details)

[Syne]

...After Louis de Broglie predicted the wave-like trajectories of particles, Schrödinger found the equation describing this. But whereas de Broglie envisaged particles riding on waves, Schrödinger kept the waves and threw away the particles.

That single decision birthed the measurement problem—and it was completely unnecessary. Resurrect de Broglie’s original particle-based theory, Valentini argues, and we can dispel quantum mystery... (MORE - details)

Erwin Schrödinger's wave equation is preferred over Louis de Broglie's initial matter-wave concept because Schrödinger provided a complete differential equation that dictates how a wave function evolves dynamically over time and space, whereas de Broglie only proposed a kinematic relation for wavelength without a dynamical wave equation.
Key Differences and Advantages

Wave Equation vs. Wavelength Hypothesis: De Broglie introduced the brilliant hypothesis that particles have an associated wavelength, but he lacked a general wave equation to describe how these waves behave in various potentials. Schrödinger formulated a rigorous partial differential equation that incorporates potential energy and allows for exact solutions in physical systems like the hydrogen atom.

Handling Bound and Trapped States: De Broglie's basic relation works intuitively for free or scattering particles with a well-defined momentum, but struggles to describe bound states (such as electrons trapped in an atom's potential) where a single, simple wavelength does not properly capture the localized physics.

Dynamical Evolution: Think of de Broglie's relation as stating an internal property or a static condition of a moving particle, comparable to knowing a particle's basic dimensions, while Schrödinger's equation acts like Newton's second law, governing the actual dynamics and time-evolution of the system.
- gemini

[confused2]

The de Broglie-Bohm theory, or pilot wave theory proposes (surprise!) a pilot wave as well as a particle .. a pilot wave that guides its particle and can (potentially) fill all space but which requires no energy to create.. is specific to the particle it is 'guiding' and vanishes without trace when the particle is detected .. which sounds like nonsense to me. Schrödinger's idea is hardly any more sensible .. the particle isn't really anywhere unless it is detected .. but there's just the particle .. no bonus field .. the particle is the field and the field is the particle. Detect the particle and the field vanishes because .. well.. there was only ever the one thing. Just how the field 'collapses' instantly over great distances isn't easy to get to grips with but at least there's only one thing to try to explain (and fail miserably).