The particle's characteristics ARE the wavefunction - or to say it another way, the wavefunction is the only real characteristic a particle has.
When I run a quantum mechanics simulation at work, I might afterwards calculate the particle positions or some other classical characteristic of the system. But I need those characteristics only because I'm trying to get a classical model of the system. The system itself, when it's running, doesn't do any of that. It interacts wavefunction-to-wavefunction. As far as we know, that's how the universe works.
Yeah you're right, but in the De Broglie-Bohm theory the wavefunction is calculated, and then the movements of the particles are calculated on top. So from a computational perspective it's strictly harder.
> As far as I know not in the De-Broglie-Bohm theory
As a physicist I am telling you should not conclude that the De-Broglie-Bohm theory is tell you anything different than what comicjk said.
> The particle's characteristics ARE the wavefunction
This kind of statement is normally said to stress the fact that the best evidence and experiments indicate quantum mechanics accurately describe the physical world and even parts like superposition(single particle double slit experiment, tunneling etc) that defy more classical intuitions.
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.
> 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.
"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."
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.
Is it possible that the calculations you are performing afterwards are what is causing the waveform interactions to have definitive results? In other words, could the waveform interactions cause the waveforms to become coupled and cause the entire system to exist in a superposition until such time as a classical measurement is made?
When I run a quantum mechanics simulation at work, I might afterwards calculate the particle positions or some other classical characteristic of the system. But I need those characteristics only because I'm trying to get a classical model of the system. The system itself, when it's running, doesn't do any of that. It interacts wavefunction-to-wavefunction. As far as we know, that's how the universe works.