| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
| Date: |
21 Mar 2005 01:37:30 PM |
| Object: |
determinism, Bohm, Bell |
I was just reading:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
"
The "problem" and "difficulty" to which Bell refers above is the conflict
between the predictions of quantum theory and what can be inferred, call
it C, from an assumption of locality in Bohm's version of the EPR
argument, a conflict established by Bell's inequality. C happens to
concern the existence of a certain kind of hidden variables, what
might be called local hidden variables, but this fact is of little
substantive importance. What is important is not so much the identity
of C as the fact that C is incompatible with the predictions of quantum
theory. The identity of C is, however, of great historical
significance: It is responsible for the misconception that Bell proved
that hidden variables are impossible, a belief until recently almost
universally shared by physicists, as well as for the view, even now
almost universally held, that what Bell's result does is to rule out
local hidden variables, a view that is misleading.
Here again is Bell, expressing the logic of his two-part demonstration
of quantum nonlocality, the first part of which is Bohm's version of
the EPR argument:
Let me summarize once again the logic that leads to the impasse.
The EPRB correlations are such that the result of the experiment
on one side immediately foretells that on the other, whenever the
analyzers happen to be parallel. If we do not accept the intervention
on one side as a causal influence on the other, we seem obliged to
admit that the results on both sides are determined in advance anyway,
independently of the intervention on the other side, by signals from
the source and by the local magnet setting. But this has implications
for non-parallel settings which conflict with those of quantum
mechanics. So we cannot dismiss intervention on one side as a causal
influence on the other. (Bell 1987, p. 149)
"
It seems to say the Bell's inequality and Aspect's
experiment more or less prove nonlocality but
that it does not disprove hidden variables.
Am I reading that right?
Is the author correct?
It seems Bell was a proponent of Bohm.
It seems that Bohm said that a particle actually
has a certain position and momentum even
if it can not be determined with certainty.
Is 'hidden determinism' viable?
Is it true that we can't prove that the universe
is not deterministic?
Is it true that we can't disprove that there is
a hidden mechanism that determines exactly,
say, when a radioactive nucleus will decay?
--
rb
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: determinism, Bohm, Bell |
22 Mar 2005 04:21:39 AM |
|
|
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
I was just reading:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
"
The "problem" and "difficulty" to which Bell refers above is the
conflict
between the predictions of quantum theory and what can be inferred,
call
it C, from an assumption of locality in Bohm's version of the EPR
argument, a conflict established by Bell's inequality. C happens to
concern the existence of a certain kind of hidden variables, what
might be called local hidden variables, but this fact is of little
substantive importance. What is important is not so much the identity
of C as the fact that C is incompatible with the predictions of
quantum
theory. The identity of C is, however, of great historical
significance: It is responsible for the misconception that Bell
proved
that hidden variables are impossible, a belief until recently almost
universally shared by physicists, as well as for the view, even now
almost universally held, that what Bell's result does is to rule out
local hidden variables, a view that is misleading.
Here again is Bell, expressing the logic of his two-part
demonstration
of quantum nonlocality, the first part of which is Bohm's version of
the EPR argument:
Let me summarize once again the logic that leads to the impasse.
The EPRB correlations are such that the result of the experiment
on one side immediately foretells that on the other, whenever the
analyzers happen to be parallel. If we do not accept the intervention
on one side as a causal influence on the other, we seem obliged to
admit that the results on both sides are determined in advance
anyway,
independently of the intervention on the other side, by signals from
the source and by the local magnet setting. But this has implications
for non-parallel settings which conflict with those of quantum
mechanics. So we cannot dismiss intervention on one side as a causal
influence on the other. (Bell 1987, p. 149)
"
It seems to say the Bell's inequality and Aspect's
experiment more or less prove nonlocality but
that it does not disprove hidden variables.
Am I reading that right?
Is the author correct?
It seems Bell was a proponent of Bohm.
It seems that Bohm said that a particle actually
has a certain position and momentum even
if it can not be determined with certainty.
Is 'hidden determinism' viable?
Is it true that we can't prove that the universe
is not deterministic?
Is it true that we can't disprove that there is
a hidden mechanism that determines exactly,
say, when a radioactive nucleus will decay?
--
rb
I read that excellent site as well.
It seems to say the Bell's inequality and Aspect's
experiment more or less prove nonlocality but
that it does not disprove hidden variables.
Right. Bohm's theory is a hidden variable theory. So a nonlocal
hidden variable theory can work.
I'm a random internet bozo, but what I gathered from the article was
that Bohm and QED were more or less a tie from a philosophical
perspective, but QED was easier to calculate with.
Is it true that we can't prove that the universe
is not deterministic?
I think you'd have to show that a contradiction arose if it was
deterministic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: determinism, Bohm, Bell |
22 Mar 2005 10:30:13 AM |
|
|
<frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111486899.749802.289840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
I was just reading:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
"
The "problem" and "difficulty" to which Bell refers above is the
conflict
<snip>
mechanics. So we cannot dismiss intervention on one side as a causal
influence on the other. (Bell 1987, p. 149)
"
It seems to say the Bell's inequality and Aspect's
experiment more or less prove nonlocality but
that it does not disprove hidden variables.
Am I reading that right?
Is the author correct?
It seems Bell was a proponent of Bohm.
It seems that Bohm said that a particle actually
has a certain position and momentum even
if it can not be determined with certainty.
Is 'hidden determinism' viable?
Is it true that we can't prove that the universe
is not deterministic?
Is it true that we can't disprove that there is
a hidden mechanism that determines exactly,
say, when a radioactive nucleus will decay?
--
rb
I read that excellent site as well.
It seems to say the Bell's inequality and Aspect's
experiment more or less prove nonlocality but
that it does not disprove hidden variables.
Right. Bohm's theory is a hidden variable theory. So a nonlocal
hidden variable theory can work.
I'm a random internet bozo,
:) Same here, I guess I have to admit.
but what I gathered from the article was
that Bohm and QED were more or less a tie from a philosophical
perspective, but QED was easier to calculate with.
Is it true that we can't prove that the universe
is not deterministic?
I think you'd have to show that a contradiction arose if it was
deterministic.
Right. And it seem that has not been done.
It seems that many, as I had, mistakenly believe
that the uncertainty principle and Bell/Aspect disprove
hidden variables and determinism.
It seems Bell/Aspect prove nonlocality but do
not disprove hidden variables.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory
(Admittedly less authoritative than Stanford but
corroborating it.)
Contrary to popular opinion QM has not proven
that Einstein was wrong when he
said, "God does not throw dice."
I have the impression that Bell set out to prove
hidden variables/the determinism of Bohm.
It appears that he didn't do that but helped prove
nonlocality. Admirable but not his whole goal.
The field is still open. It is interesting.
Maybe hidden variables will be found.
Maybe they will be disproven.
Maybe it could be proven that hidden variables
cannot be proven or disproven.
That would also be quite interesting.
--
rb
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: determinism, Bohm, Bell |
22 Mar 2005 10:22:20 PM |
|
|
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
I was just reading:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
"
The "problem" and "difficulty" to which Bell refers above is the
conflict
between the predictions of quantum theory and what can be inferred,
call
it C, from an assumption of locality in Bohm's version of the EPR
argument, a conflict established by Bell's inequality. C happens to
concern the existence of a certain kind of hidden variables, what
might be called local hidden variables, but this fact is of little
substantive importance. What is important is not so much the identity
of C as the fact that C is incompatible with the predictions of
quantum
theory. The identity of C is, however, of great historical
significance: It is responsible for the misconception that Bell
proved
that hidden variables are impossible, a belief until recently almost
universally shared by physicists, as well as for the view, even now
almost universally held, that what Bell's result does is to rule out
local hidden variables, a view that is misleading.
Here again is Bell, expressing the logic of his two-part
demonstration
of quantum nonlocality, the first part of which is Bohm's version of
the EPR argument:
Let me summarize once again the logic that leads to the impasse.
The EPRB correlations are such that the result of the experiment
on one side immediately foretells that on the other, whenever the
analyzers happen to be parallel. If we do not accept the intervention
on one side as a causal influence on the other, we seem obliged to
admit that the results on both sides are determined in advance
anyway,
independently of the intervention on the other side, by signals from
the source and by the local magnet setting. But this has implications
for non-parallel settings which conflict with those of quantum
mechanics. So we cannot dismiss intervention on one side as a causal
influence on the other. (Bell 1987, p. 149)
"
It seems to say the Bell's inequality and Aspect's
experiment more or less prove nonlocality but
that it does not disprove hidden variables.
Am I reading that right?
Is the author correct?
It seems Bell was a proponent of Bohm.
It seems that Bohm said that a particle actually
has a certain position and momentum even
if it can not be determined with certainty.
Is 'hidden determinism' viable?
Is it true that we can't prove that the universe
is not deterministic?
Is it true that we can't disprove that there is
a hidden mechanism that determines exactly,
say, when a radioactive nucleus will decay?
--
rb
xxein: Determinism has degrees that are or are not yet known to our
present science. Iow, what we don't know will lend credence to PAST
belief as we make excuses for the case of quantum theories vs.
Relativity.
We wish a foundation and grasp at it instead of impartially exploring
it. Each case (theory) is already the belief of the investigator and
it is almost impossible to consider that which might exibit an
alienation between them or a new theory from scratch that might unite
them. We seem to live within a sort of hazy belief.
So, we have Relativity, Quantum and such as String theories. Each are
analogous to the way we might want to think. But there is only one
reality and we seem inept as to figuring it out.
Our fault is in the selection of context. Despite the successes of the
actions within the context, It may not be the universal context at all.
In such a (our vs. universal) sense, there ARE hidden variables. We
don't know enough and put all measurement into its correct context.
What 'matter' does a neutrino percieve (loosly speaking)? Compare that
to brick vs. windshield. Energy lumps that are local and become
intrinsic to themselves compared to others of the same kind or fashion,
will be a separate identity until the energies of the constituent
energy groupings pass a threshold. The unification we seek is one we
cannot find with the restricted macro-belief-measurements of today's
contexts. But the neutrino is not suceptible to our beliefs of
context.
Math is math, but it is also contextual. We give context and
conception to a brick that is not the same as that for a neutrino. Why
not? Why can't we realize that it is all basically the same situation
for energy~mass?
We may look for patterns and call it physics, but we don't look deep in
the right direction. We are haunted with/by past belief.
We can measure energies to a scale small enough to almost put it into a
universal context, yet we still adhere to the thinking of the
macro-bricks. We have let ourselves lazy-up to the easy differentiation
instead of the actual.
We are willing to admit a certain lack of knowledge for the genome and
yet proclaim mastery of all else that comprises it.
We apply a context to what we think and that limits the reality of it
all. Quite simple in the disregard of the integrated all.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: determinism, Bohm, Bell |
22 Mar 2005 10:26:27 PM |
|
|
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
I was just reading:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
"
The "problem" and "difficulty" to which Bell refers above is the
conflict
between the predictions of quantum theory and what can be inferred,
call
it C, from an assumption of locality in Bohm's version of the EPR
argument, a conflict established by Bell's inequality. C happens to
concern the existence of a certain kind of hidden variables, what
might be called local hidden variables, but this fact is of little
substantive importance. What is important is not so much the identity
of C as the fact that C is incompatible with the predictions of
quantum
theory. The identity of C is, however, of great historical
significance: It is responsible for the misconception that Bell
proved
that hidden variables are impossible, a belief until recently almost
universally shared by physicists, as well as for the view, even now
almost universally held, that what Bell's result does is to rule out
local hidden variables, a view that is misleading.
Here again is Bell, expressing the logic of his two-part
demonstration
of quantum nonlocality, the first part of which is Bohm's version of
the EPR argument:
Let me summarize once again the logic that leads to the impasse.
The EPRB correlations are such that the result of the experiment
on one side immediately foretells that on the other, whenever the
analyzers happen to be parallel. If we do not accept the intervention
on one side as a causal influence on the other, we seem obliged to
admit that the results on both sides are determined in advance
anyway,
independently of the intervention on the other side, by signals from
the source and by the local magnet setting. But this has implications
for non-parallel settings which conflict with those of quantum
mechanics. So we cannot dismiss intervention on one side as a causal
influence on the other. (Bell 1987, p. 149)
"
It seems to say the Bell's inequality and Aspect's
experiment more or less prove nonlocality but
that it does not disprove hidden variables.
Am I reading that right?
Is the author correct?
It seems Bell was a proponent of Bohm.
It seems that Bohm said that a particle actually
has a certain position and momentum even
if it can not be determined with certainty.
Is 'hidden determinism' viable?
Is it true that we can't prove that the universe
is not deterministic?
Is it true that we can't disprove that there is
a hidden mechanism that determines exactly,
say, when a radioactive nucleus will decay?
--
rb
xxein: If my last post appears multiple times, blame Google groups or
whomever. I just post until it says it is posted.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: determinism, Bohm, Bell |
22 Mar 2005 11:49:43 PM |
|
|
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
I was just reading:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
"
The "problem" and "difficulty" to which Bell refers above is the conflict
between the predictions of quantum theory and what can be inferred, call
it C, from an assumption of locality in Bohm's version of the EPR
argument, a conflict established by Bell's inequality. C happens to
concern the existence of a certain kind of hidden variables, what
might be called local hidden variables, but this fact is of little
substantive importance. What is important is not so much the identity
of C as the fact that C is incompatible with the predictions of quantum
theory. The identity of C is, however, of great historical
significance: It is responsible for the misconception that Bell proved
that hidden variables are impossible, a belief until recently almost
universally shared by physicists, as well as for the view, even now
almost universally held, that what Bell's result does is to rule out
local hidden variables, a view that is misleading.
Here again is Bell, expressing the logic of his two-part demonstration
of quantum nonlocality, the first part of which is Bohm's version of
the EPR argument:
Let me summarize once again the logic that leads to the impasse.
The EPRB correlations are such that the result of the experiment
on one side immediately foretells that on the other, whenever the
analyzers happen to be parallel. If we do not accept the intervention
on one side as a causal influence on the other, we seem obliged to
admit that the results on both sides are determined in advance anyway,
independently of the intervention on the other side, by signals from
the source and by the local magnet setting. But this has implications
for non-parallel settings which conflict with those of quantum
mechanics. So we cannot dismiss intervention on one side as a causal
influence on the other. (Bell 1987, p. 149)
"
It seems to say the Bell's inequality and Aspect's
experiment more or less prove nonlocality but
that it does not disprove hidden variables.
Am I reading that right?
Is the author correct?
It seems Bell was a proponent of Bohm.
It seems that Bohm said that a particle actually
has a certain position and momentum even
if it can not be determined with certainty.
Is 'hidden determinism' viable?
Is it true that we can't prove that the universe
is not deterministic?
Is it true that we can't disprove that there is
a hidden mechanism that determines exactly,
say, when a radioactive nucleus will decay?
Given that we can generate a decay event at will, seems that the
answer is obvious, eh? If that U-238 atom waits around for nature to
send a slow neutron its way, then there might seem to be a random
element involved, but then this is random only in the sense that it is
too complicated to calculate in advance. The event is however no more
random than the purposeful bombardment with neutrons in the controlled
fission reaction. Bell was either full of it, or his premises were
nonsense. I'm in favor of the latter. No experiment has ever proven
FTL communication, and the first one that does will immediately
invalidate SR, and causality. OTOH, without causality, there would be
no cause for inequality that Bell suggested, because given truly
random interchanges it would be impossible to express the argument in
mathematical terms. No algorithm can provide random output, which is
why the C64 random generator caught such hell from critics; it was
provably not-so-random.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: determinism, Bohm, Bell |
23 Mar 2005 06:46:00 AM |
|
|
RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3ace1mF68pc1rU1
@individual.net:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
I was just reading:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
"...
It seems Bell was a proponent of Bohm.
It seems that Bohm said that a particle actually
has a certain position and momentum even
if it can not be determined with certainty.
Is 'hidden determinism' viable?
Is it true that we can't prove that the universe
is not deterministic?
Is it true that we can't disprove that there is
a hidden mechanism that determines exactly,
say, when a radioactive nucleus will decay?
Given that we can generate a decay event at will, seems that the
answer is obvious, eh? If that U-238 atom waits around for nature to
send a slow neutron its way, then there might seem to be a random
element involved, but then this is random only in the sense that it is
too complicated to calculate in advance. The event is however no more
random than the purposeful bombardment with neutrons in the controlled
fission reaction. Bell was either full of it, or his premises were
nonsense. I'm in favor of the latter. No experiment has ever proven
FTL communication, and the first one that does will immediately
invalidate SR, and causality. OTOH, without causality, there would be
no cause for inequality that Bell suggested, because given truly
random interchanges it would be impossible to express the argument in
mathematical terms. No algorithm can provide random output, which is
why the C64 random generator caught such hell from critics; it was
provably not-so-random.
Since free neutrons only have a half life of about 11 seconds, your
conjecture would imply that an isolated U-238 atom would NEVER fission.
It would also imply that, as the fission neutrons are too high in energy to
cause fission, normally, that a mass of U-238 enclosed in a material that
absorbs ALL neutrons, reflecting none and allowing none to enter from the
outside, such a mass would not display any decays.
I suspect this can be tested experimentally and would prove to be wrong.
It also may be that random 'thermal movements in the neucleus' of
'unstable' atoms occasionally arrange the protons and neutrons in a
configuration such that splitting (fission) represents a LOWER energy state
than remaining together, so the neucleus splits.
Of course, a passing neutrino might just as well 'kick things off'.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: determinism, Bohm, Bell |
23 Mar 2005 07:46:11 AM |
|
|
bz wrote:
RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3ace1mF68pc1rU1
@individual.net:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
I was just reading:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
"...
It seems Bell was a proponent of Bohm.
It seems that Bohm said that a particle actually
has a certain position and momentum even
if it can not be determined with certainty.
Is 'hidden determinism' viable?
Is it true that we can't prove that the universe
is not deterministic?
Is it true that we can't disprove that there is
a hidden mechanism that determines exactly,
say, when a radioactive nucleus will decay?
Given that we can generate a decay event at will, seems that the
answer is obvious, eh? If that U-238 atom waits around for nature to
send a slow neutron its way, then there might seem to be a random
element involved, but then this is random only in the sense that it is
too complicated to calculate in advance. The event is however no more
random than the purposeful bombardment with neutrons in the controlled
fission reaction. Bell was either full of it, or his premises were
nonsense. I'm in favor of the latter. No experiment has ever proven
FTL communication, and the first one that does will immediately
invalidate SR, and causality. OTOH, without causality, there would be
no cause for inequality that Bell suggested, because given truly
random interchanges it would be impossible to express the argument in
mathematical terms. No algorithm can provide random output, which is
why the C64 random generator caught such hell from critics; it was
provably not-so-random.
Since free neutrons only have a half life of about 11 seconds, your
conjecture would imply that an isolated U-238 atom would NEVER fission.
It would also imply that, as the fission neutrons are too high in energy to
cause fission, normally, that a mass of U-238 enclosed in a material that
absorbs ALL neutrons, reflecting none and allowing none to enter from the
outside, such a mass would not display any decays.
I suspect this can be tested experimentally and would prove to be wrong.
It also may be that random 'thermal movements in the neucleus' of
'unstable' atoms occasionally arrange the protons and neutrons in a
configuration such that splitting (fission) represents a LOWER energy state
than remaining together, so the neucleus splits.
Of course, a passing neutrino might just as well 'kick things off'.
Yes, I suspect that some particle, or even em field node, must pass
through or near to the nucleus in order to provide the distortion that
gives the atoms the choice of another energy state (or configuration).
Slow neutrons seem to do the trick well, but I wouldn't rule out other
causes.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
