Science > Physics > Bohmians/Modified Bohmians Admit rho = /w/^2 Often False
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
24 Aug 2005 01:03:23 AM |
| Object: |
Bohmians/Modified Bohmians Admit rho = /w/^2 Often False |
From Osher Doctorow
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Bohmians/Modified Bohmians Admit rho = /w/^2 Often False
Copyright By Owner Osher Doctorow Ph.D.
First Published 2005
My recent thread on Neumaier of U. Vienna (who has contributed to
sci.physics.research as late as 2004, the last time I looked) is even
further strengthened by the admission of Bohmians and
Modified Bohmians in the research literature that rho = /w/^2 is often
false, where rho is the distribution of the coordinates of the wave
function w. For example, Detlef Durr, Sheldon Goldstein, and Nino
Zanghi of Rutgers (a major pro-Bohmian bastion so to speak) in their
"Quantum equilibrium and the origin of absolute uncertainty,"
quant-ph/0308038-9 v1 6 Aug 2003, admit this on page 18 of their paper,
except for the qualification that it often seems to be false because
(in my words) the whole universe isn't being considered. The Bohmians
are great at extricating themselves by referring to a mystical "whole
universe," somewhat analogous to the mystical Plurality/Humanity which
is so highly revered but never encountered by any Individual except in
the instantiation of particular Individuals.
Bohm in his later life took refuge in Hindu/Buddhism mysticism (his
followers deny the word "mysticism") despite the fact that Hindu and
Tibetan Buddhist philosophy at least are Nonmaterialist and so cannot
strictly speaking worship a Plurality of material objects any more than
they can worship an Individuality of material objects. Some of his
followers and modifiers continue to be found in India, and in the
latter category is Tulsi Dass of Chennai Mathematical Institute India
in "Dynamical probability, particle trajectories and completion of
traditional quantum mechanics," quant-ph/0505190 v1 25 May 2005, which
tries to modify Bohm and Nelson's stochastic mechanics but uses Durr et
al 2003 (cited above) or its 1992 version 0308038-9]
for intermediate or connecting results.
Be prepared for philosophical handwaving in both papers. Durr et al
are way worse, devoting 75 pages to trying to get "their feet out of
their mouths" as I might uncharitably characterize them if I weren't so
courteous. Their Section 1 is an Introduction, Section 2 is "Reality
and the role of the wave function," while Section 3 is "Bohmian
mechanics," Section 4 is "The problem of quantum equilibrium" (starting
to lose their balance?), Section 5 is "The effective wave function,"
(shades of Steven Weinberg, for whom there is reality, effective
reality, and I suppose ineffective reality though he fortunately
manages to forget these in adhering closely to Elementary Particle
Physics), Section 6 is "The fundamental conditional probability
formula" (where guess what - all is "rescued" by turning the wave
function essentially into conditional probability which is the frozen
non-speaking intolerant distant relative of Probable Influence in
practice), Section 7 is "Empirical Distributions" in which Pluralities
come to the rescue again, Section 8 is "Multitime experiments: the
problem" in which foot-in-the-mouth gets deeper in one way of
describing it, Section 9 is "Random systems," (if you can't describe
it, randomize it, preferably with a dose of chaos too - which of course
is done too elsewhere), Section 10 is "Multitime distributions,"
Section 11 is "Absolute uncertainty" where we learn that we can't
contradict Bohm (in my words), Section 12 is "Knowledge and
nonequilibrium" (this by theorists who seem to follow a mystic),
Section 13 is "Quantum equilibrium and thermodynamic (non)equilibrium,"
(in case of total loss of bearings, throw in thermodynamics a la
Stephen Hawking, which is usually good for another few dozen papers),
Section 14 is "Global equilibrium beneath nonequilibrium," (wheels
within wheels), and on and on.
As a postscript or epilogue, they have an Appendix on random points,
and I have an epilogue on the University of California: why do at least
2 branches have a mathematical obsession with conditional probability?
You can figure that one out as homework.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Bohmians/Modified Bohmians Admit rho = /w/^2 Often False |
24 Aug 2005 01:10:55 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
I have no idea why my last post appeared in column format since I typed
it in regular format exactly as I always do.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Bohmians/Modified Bohmians Admit rho = /w/^2 Often False |
24 Aug 2005 01:49:03 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Now I've seen everything. I had typed an analysis of some of Dass as
my third post in this thread, and our young cat jumped on the keyboard,
erasing the post. This cat has been a "problem cat", given to us by
the neighbor across the street who also gave us a "problem dog" (the
only one out of 4 dogs which is certifiably insane and a big bully as
well). The cat is the closest thing to a "random motion" animal that
I've seen in recent years. The non-problem animals (4 cats total, now
down to 2 by 2 deaths, and 3 non-problem dogs) didn't come from the
neighbor across the street. I'll have to figure out the probability
of this :>)
Dass (2005) has some good points, as does every theory except anti-life
and pro-Violence theories (more or less), but the paper is more
interesting for its criticism of Bohm, Nelson, and Bell than for
anything substantially "positive". In fact, Dass manages to throw in
chaos in an effort to rescue Bohm in part by modifiation! I should
mention that Dass' criticism of Bohm and Nelson is somewhat similar to
that of most convicts' mothers (arguably) criticizing their children -
muted or rounded off or dulled, so to speak. However, Dass strongly
criticizes Bell's "overenthusiastic" support of Bohm. Bell was an odd
character. He wrote a book on Pierre De Fermat, one of the greatest
Creative Geniuses of all time, but I suspect that what interested Bell
was the fact that Fermat was French (Bell was Irish). Take a look at
various books on Irish history, especially 19th and 20th century Irish
history, to see why the Republic of Ireland and France have a lot in
common that has nothing to do with the scientific method (which itself
is surprising - but that's another story).
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
