| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Potte" |
| Date: |
24 Aug 2005 02:49:25 PM |
| Object: |
Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
Sometime in 2002.
Uncle Al wrote:
"Bohm spewed at length about hidden variables. Bohm was discredited."
Frank Heymann replied:
"Uncharacteristically, Uncle Al is spewing crap.
Bohm's hidden variables interpretation of QM has not
been discredited by anybody. I am less certain about his
ideas on "implicate order". Uncle Al will enjoy reading
"The Undivided Universe" by Bohm and Hiley
--------------------------
Who is right guys? And why?
Potte
.
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
25 Aug 2005 06:12:13 AM |
|
|
A purely philosophical problem with Bohm's theory is that it contains the
Schroedinger state vector, uncollapsed, and hence contains many-worlds. All
experimental outcomes, and their diverging macroscopic consequences into the
indefinite future, are encoded in the quantum potential. Presumably one is
supposed to identify just one outcome as real, but I was never quite clear
why one would do this. One seems to recover quasi-classical reality only by
assuming that only that part of the theory is real.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spriggs" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
29 Aug 2005 05:37:19 PM |
|
|
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
A purely philosophical problem with Bohm's theory is that it contains the
Schroedinger state vector, uncollapsed, and hence contains many-worlds. All
experimental outcomes, and their diverging macroscopic consequences into the
indefinite future, are encoded in the quantum potential. Presumably one is
supposed to identify just one outcome as real,
Why? They can all be equally real with just one of them being
experienced by us now.
but I was never quite clear
why one would do this. One seems to recover quasi-classical reality only by
assuming that only that part of the theory is real.
-- Ben
--
I don't know who you are Sir, or where you come from,
but you've done me a power of good.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zigoteau" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
25 Aug 2005 07:36:28 AM |
|
|
Hi, Ben,
A purely philosophical problem with Bohm's theory is that it contains the
Schroedinger state vector, uncollapsed, and hence contains many-worlds.
There have been quite a few conclusions from philosophy over the years
that have turned out to be totally wrong. Why don't you just come out
and say that you don't like many-worlds? I myself don't like it a lot.
It does seem quite profligate. But then, even the classical universe is
quite profligate.
All experimental outcomes, and their
diverging macroscopic consequences into the
indefinite future, are encoded in the quantum potential.
This is what our best theory to date says. The challenge is there to
find an alternative fitting the data as well, without any of the
downsides.
Presumably one is supposed to identify just one outcome
as real, but I was never quite clear
why one would do this.
Why not just relax and accept that you can never be aware of everything
that is out there?
One seems to recover quasi-classical reality only by
assuming that only that part of the theory is real.
And why do we need to recover quasi-classical reality?
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
27 Aug 2005 04:02:12 PM |
|
|
Zigoteau wrote:
Hi, Ben,
A purely philosophical problem with Bohm's theory is that it contains the
Schroedinger state vector, uncollapsed, and hence contains many-worlds.
There have been quite a few conclusions from philosophy over the years
that have turned out to be totally wrong. Why don't you just come out
and say that you don't like many-worlds?
Because I *do* like many-worlds. :-)
I'm judging Bohm's theory on the basis of what it tries to achieve, not on
the basis of what I think quantum mechanics should look like. Basically I'm
claiming that it doesn't achieve its apparent goal of describing quantum
mechanics as classical mechanics with a new interaction, because the new
interaction doesn't (as far as I can tell) depend on the classical variables
at all, but on the whole Schroedinger wave.
I actually like the mathematics of Bohm's derivation a lot -- I think it's a
useful way of viewing Schroedinger's equation -- but I don't think it merits
the philosophical trappings that people have put on it.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zigoteau" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
28 Aug 2005 04:05:10 PM |
|
|
Hi, Ben,
Why don't you just come out
and say that you don't like many-worlds?
Because I *do* like many-worlds. :-)
I'm judging Bohm's theory on the basis of what it tries to achieve, not on
the basis of what I think quantum mechanics should look like. Basically I'm
claiming that it doesn't achieve its apparent goal of describing quantum
mechanics as classical mechanics with a new interaction, because the new
interaction doesn't (as far as I can tell) depend on the classical variables
at all, but on the whole Schroedinger wave.
Yes, in many ways the Bohm theory is quite unsatisfying. However, it is
a theory in which hidden variables complement the wavefunction of a
quantum theory, and its predictions are totally consistent with those
of the quantum theory. It disproves the idea that there is no way out
of the current quantum cul-de-sac.
I actually like the mathematics of Bohm's derivation a lot -- I think it's a
useful way of viewing Schroedinger's equation -- but I don't think it merits
the philosophical trappings that people have put on it.
Right on. I don't think you can blame Bohm for that.
Every now and then it is worthwhile checking whether someone has come
up with a new twist which would make it Lorentz invariant. I still have
not gotten totally up to speed with Eugene Stefanovich's slant on QFT.
I have reached the point that I can grasp the gist of what he is trying
to do, and it seems eminently sensible so far. The interest for de
Broglie-Bohm theory is Eugene's claim that all interactions in his
revised theory are instantaneous, which would allow a Bohm
superstructure on top. I have not yet reached the point that I can see
that that follows from his formalism.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zigoteau" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
24 Aug 2005 04:04:18 PM |
|
|
Hi, Potte,
Uncle Al wrote:
"Bohm spewed at length about hidden variables. Bohm was discredited."
Franz Heymann replied:
"Uncharacteristically, Uncle Al is spewing crap.
Bohm's hidden variables interpretation of QM has not
been discredited by anybody. I am less certain about his
ideas on "implicate order". Uncle Al will enjoy reading
"The Undivided Universe" by Bohm and Hiley
Who is right guys? And why?
Maybe neither of them is right.
There's nothing wrong with Bohm's theory as far as it goes. Where
experimental results are concerned, there is a formal proof that it
gives exactly the same predictions for the statistics of measurements
as Schroedinger's multiparticle wave equation. In addition to the
statistics of measurements, Bohm's theory goes further and predicts
what the results of individual experiments will be, if you can control
the initial conditions accurately enough. Schroedinger's equation says
nothing about the results of individual experiments. What Bohm's theory
certainly is, is a demonstration that hidden-variable theories cannot
be ruled out of court, as a lot of quantum mystics believed they had
proved. Bohm's theory is a existence proof by construction and consigns
all these impossibility proofs to the garbage bin. As such it deserves
great credit.
Schroedinger's equation is perfectly adequate to explain all of
chemistry, but it does have problems when particle speeds approach the
speed of light. It is derived from the Newtonian Hamiltonian for
systems of electrons and nuclei, and is not Lorentz invariant. Since it
seems reasonable to most of us these days to accept Einstein's
relativity principle, Bohm's theory needs patching up. However the Bohm
and Hiley book does not manage it. Th authors do admit that Lorentz
invariance is a worthy goal to aim at, and can achieve it for a system
consisting of one particle, but at last count the universe had about
1e80 particles.
So in that sense Bohm's theory has been discredited, but then, every
single other quantum theory suffers from a grave difficulty of one sort
or another. So I wouldn't worry about it overly.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
28 Aug 2005 02:03:52 AM |
|
|
Potte wrote:
Sometime in 2002.
Uncle Al wrote:
"Bohm spewed at length about hidden variables. Bohm was discredited."
Frank Heymann replied:
"Uncharacteristically, Uncle Al is spewing crap.
Bohm's hidden variables interpretation of QM has not
been discredited by anybody. I am less certain about his
ideas on "implicate order". Uncle Al will enjoy reading
"The Undivided Universe" by Bohm and Hiley
--------------------------
Who is right guys? And why?
Heymann obviously. Bohm interpretation does not violate any known laws
of physics or experiments.
Potte
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
24 Aug 2005 02:58:34 PM |
|
|
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
.
|
|
|
| User: "Potte" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
24 Aug 2005 05:51:37 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
EPR_paradox is "local" hidden variable and it is
discredited by Aspect experiment, I know that.
But there is another hidden variable called
"non-local" hidden variable. Note the distinction.
One may say the Kochen Specker Theorem disproves it.
Not so. Say there is a signal that can travel
at 1 billion light years per second. The two
entangled pair can be connected by this superluminal
link such that when the superposition is destroyed
(or the wave function is collapsed), the link is
established.
Of course it is possible that their connection is
instantenously and no non-local signal is sent. But
I want proof of this that's why I'm asking if Bohm
Hidden Variable has been discredited. Note Bohm
stuff depends on non-local connection.
I read somewhere about double slit producing false
result if Bohm model is used. Do you or anyone
remember this and can share the reference. Thanks.
Potte
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zigoteau" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
25 Aug 2005 02:26:29 AM |
|
|
Hi, Potte,
EPR_paradox is "local" hidden variable and it is
discredited by Aspect experiment,
The EPR paradox was not discredited, it was resolved, in favor of QM.
I know that.
But there is another hidden variable called
"non-local" hidden variable. Note the distinction.
This does not make much sense. Do you understand your own question?
One may say the Kochen Specker Theorem disproves it.
Not so. Say there is a signal that can travel
at 1 billion light years per second. The two
entangled pair can be connected by this superluminal
link such that when the superposition is destroyed
(or the wave function is collapsed), the link is
established.
The link?
Of course it is possible that their connection is
instantenously and no non-local signal is sent. But
I want proof of this that's why I'm asking if Bohm
Hidden Variable has been discredited. Note Bohm
stuff depends on non-local connection.
I read somewhere about double slit producing false
result if Bohm model is used. Do you or anyone
remember this and can share the reference. Thanks.
No. The double-slit diffraction experiment can be explained
nonrelativistically, and the predictions of the Bohm theory in this
case are provably absolutely identical to those of nonrelativistic QM.
There is no way the Bohm model can be "disproved" by a measurement of
this sort.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zigoteau" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
25 Aug 2005 03:19:18 AM |
|
|
PS
I was unfamiliar with the Kochen-Specker theorem before reading your
post, and I have just read some stuff about it. The actual proof is
reather detailed and I will not be in a position for some time to say
anything definite about it. Nevertheless I can immediately make two
categorical statements.
My first reaction is that the classes of theories proved to be
incompatible by the KS theorem must be so tightly defined as to exclude
either the Bohm HV theorem on the one hand or Schroedinger's
nonrelativistic wave equation on the other. There is no possibility of
doubt that the Bohm hidden-variable theory predicts measurement
statistics which are absolutely identical to SNRWE.
The second reaction is that the proof is full of words like ontology,
and lots of operators whose action is not entirely clear. I suspect
that, in common with a lot of QM burble, common words are used with
meanings different to their everyday ones, and perhaps even several
different meanings. A lot of the Copenhagen Interpretation literature
ends up approving of the point of view of East Asian religions, which
hold up as a final goal the attainment of a state called nirvana or
satori. The proponents are very evasive, and refuse to give a
definition of the term, but when you analyze the contexts in which it
is used, it in fact boils down to the cessation of rational thought.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zigoteau" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
25 Aug 2005 05:29:30 AM |
|
|
Hi again, Potte,
The Kochen-Specker theorem was published in 1967. Could I draw your
attention to an extract from the following PDF file:
http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/bohmech.pdf
"Thus the widespread idea that in a realistic quantum theory all
quantum observables should possess actual values, which is in fact
impossible by the Kochen-Specker theorem, was from the outset not as
reasonable at it may have appeared, but rather was based on taking
operators as observables too seriously: an attitude, almost implicit in
the word "observable", that can be called "naive realism about
operators".
There is another relevant file on the same site about what Bell in fact
proved:
http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/bbt.pdf
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zigoteau" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
25 Aug 2005 05:59:39 AM |
|
|
.. . . and while you're about it, check out the following website:
http://www.intercom.net/~tarababe/Foundations.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Potte" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
25 Aug 2005 06:55:55 PM |
|
|
Zigoteau wrote:
Hi again, Potte,
The Kochen-Specker theorem was published in 1967. Could I draw your
attention to an extract from the following PDF file:
http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/bohmech.pdf
"Thus the widespread idea that in a realistic quantum theory all
quantum observables should possess actual values, which is in fact
impossible by the Kochen-Specker theorem, was from the outset not as
reasonable at it may have appeared, but rather was based on taking
operators as observables too seriously: an attitude, almost implicit in
the word "observable", that can be called "naive realism about
operators".
There is another relevant file on the same site about what Bell in fact
proved:
http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/bbt.pdf
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
I am reviewing Bohm works. I think his stuff is elegant. What
he says basically is that there is no indetermism. He proposes
a pilot wave that dictate them all and also non-local. By
this he suggested the idea of an implicate order (or source
of the non-local reality). AT least his model doesn't require
space to be an illusion but more rich. This is logical because
we can't just throw away the incredible energy of the quantum
vacuum and pretend it doesn't exist (just like what Traveler
is doing). A book of Bohm which I didn't read yet (forgot to)
in my library called "Wholeness and Implicate Order" has the
following idea.
In the double slit. So which path does the electron take, left
or right slit. In Bohm theory. It would go to one but because
of the pilot wave which is connected to the so called quantum
"potentials" and wave function. It can guide the particle
to interfere at the detector. This also means that when we
use a monitor to determine "which path". The interference at
the detector would be lost because the pilot wave gets affected
and loses its secretive default.
This is more logical that plan QM where no physical thing
can be visualized. Just use mathematical tool they say. This
is akin to religion. Science should involve knowing the physical
mechanism. Remember when Lorentz propose that length can
shorten because of passing thru the aether. Einstein discovered
the mechanism of relativity and corrected the fact that it is
due to relativity that is why length gets shorted and not
the aether. So knowing the physical mechanism is important as
proven by Einstein.
Anyway. I'll read up Bohm Book. I think it makes sense out of
everything. Unless you dig into Many Worlds Interpretation
which is more unlikely and others including time reversing
waves, etc.
Potte
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zigoteau" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
26 Aug 2005 03:14:40 AM |
|
|
Hi, Potte,
I am reviewing Bohm works. I think his stuff is elegant. What
he says basically is that there is no indetermism. He proposes
a pilot wave that dictate them all and also non-local. By
this he suggested the idea of an implicate order (or source
of the non-local reality). AT least his model doesn't require
space to be an illusion but more rich. This is logical because
we can't just throw away the incredible energy of the quantum
vacuum and pretend it doesn't exist (just like what Traveler
is doing). A book of Bohm which I didn't read yet
Read the book by all means. I have the book, have read it, and know
where (some of) its skeletons are buried.
(forgot to)
in my library called "Wholeness and Implicate Order" has the
following idea.
In the double slit. So which path does the electron take, left
or right slit. In Bohm theory. It would go to one but because
of the pilot wave which is connected to the so called quantum
"potentials" and wave function. It can guide the particle
to interfere at the detector. This also means that when we
use a monitor to determine "which path". The interference at
the detector would be lost because the pilot wave gets affected
and loses its secretive default.
Apart from a few quibbles about your phraseology, I like this bit of
the Bohm theory, too.
This is more logical that plan QM where no physical thing
can be visualized. Just use mathematical tool they say. This
is akin to religion. Science should involve knowing the physical
mechanism. Remember when Lorentz propose that length can
shorten because of passing thru the aether. Einstein discovered
the mechanism of relativity and corrected the fact that it is
due to relativity that is why length gets shorted and not
the aether. So knowing the physical mechanism is important as
proven by Einstein.
Absolutely. I am unhappy with current quantum theory, too. But then,
Eleaticus is unhappy with relativity theory. The universe cares little
for our happiness. In the grand scheme of things, our unhappiness is a
lot less acute than that of a Buenos Aires street kid shot dead by
police as if he were vermin. The fact is that current QFT gives results
in good agreement with experiment.
Anyway. I'll read up Bohm Book. I think it makes sense out of
everything. Unless you dig into Many Worlds Interpretation
which is more unlikely and others including time reversing
waves, etc.
I approve. Read, mark, learn and inwardly digest. Above all, look
critically for weakness in the argument. And in future, why not read
the book before making statements about its contents? You are being
naive in assuming that Bohm's theory overcomes the philosophical
difficulties many people have with MWI. As Ben correctly points out,
the Bohm theory contains the wavefunction, and the wavefunction
contains both live-cat and dead-cat regions. It's just that the
particle lines only go through one of them.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
25 Aug 2005 08:55:31 PM |
|
|
Potte wrote:
This is more logical that plan QM where no physical thing
can be visualized. Just use mathematical tool they say. This
is akin to religion.
Much more modest. It's saying "we know these mathematical tools work".
Now, culture of "and don't try to figure anything else out" is indeed
nihilist or know-nothing, but that's going beyond saying "we know these
tools work, beyond that is getting on shaky ground".
Science should involve knowing the physical
mechanism. Remember when Lorentz propose that length can
shorten because of passing thru the aether. Einstein discovered
the mechanism of relativity and corrected the fact that it is
due to relativity that is why length gets shorted and not
the aether. So knowing the physical mechanism is important as
proven by Einstein.
Odd. I think most people would read it just the other way. _Lorentz_
attempted to demonstrate a physical mechanism, Einstein in effect just
posited the symmetry (of course the thing is generally presented as
being more complicated than that).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Potte" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
25 Aug 2005 09:31:44 PM |
|
|
Edward Green wrote:
Potte wrote:
This is more logical that plan QM where no physical thing
can be visualized. Just use mathematical tool they say. This
is akin to religion.
Much more modest. It's saying "we know these mathematical tools work".
Now, culture of "and don't try to figure anything else out" is indeed
nihilist or know-nothing, but that's going beyond saying "we know these
tools work, beyond that is getting on shaky ground".
Science should involve knowing the physical
mechanism. Remember when Lorentz propose that length can
shorten because of passing thru the aether. Einstein discovered
the mechanism of relativity and corrected the fact that it is
due to relativity that is why length gets shorted and not
the aether. So knowing the physical mechanism is important as
proven by Einstein.
Odd. I think most people would read it just the other way. _Lorentz_
attempted to demonstrate a physical mechanism, Einstein in effect just
posited the symmetry (of course the thing is generally presented as
being more complicated than that).
Remember Lorentz Transformation which is a set of algebraic
formula that describe distances between two points and the
rates that clock ticks as measured by different observers
being related to each other. This was written a year before
Einstein published his work. Lorentz and Fitzgerald used
it to explain how light could travel thru seemingly empty space...
because the apparatus measuring the light speed was
squashed in length due to its motion thru a mysterous "aether".
Einstein with his famous SR in 1905 explained that it is not
necessary. Everything is relative. Lorentz-Fitzgerald length
contraction occurs but for the wrong reason... not because
there is aether but because of relativity.
So you see how important it is to know the physical mechanism.
We ought to get to the bottom of Quantum Mechanics if we
want to understand more subtle mechanics of reality. This
is why mainstream physicists are at a dead end when asked
to explain other realities. Because the mathematical tools in QM
blinds them and desensitize them to more detail exploration.
It's like a cover pulled over their eyes to shield them from the
truth. I understand though that without understanding or figuring
out the deeper mechanism. Physics can still progress. Quantum
computers, nano-machines can still be built. But you are shutting
further explorations.
Potte
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
25 Aug 2005 10:16:08 PM |
|
|
Potte wrote:
Edward Green wrote:
Odd. I think most people would read it just the other way. _Lorentz_
attempted to demonstrate a physical mechanism, Einstein in effect just
posited the symmetry (of course the thing is generally presented as
being more complicated than that).
Remember Lorentz Transformation which is a set of algebraic
formula that describe distances between two points and the
rates that clock ticks as measured by different observers
being related to each other.
I'd prefer to think of them simply as coordinate transforms:
x,t -> x',t'
The point of the transforms is that physical law just happens to look
exactly the same in the new coordinates as in the old coordinates:
that's the symmetry.
This was written a year before
Einstein published his work. Lorentz and Fitzgerald used
it to explain how light could travel thru seemingly empty space...
because the apparatus measuring the light speed was
squashed in length due to its motion thru a mysterous "aether".
The mechanism I was thinking of was Lorentz's attempt to explain length
contraction by the detailed dynamics of moving electrons. I happen to
think he was on the right track (even if he renounced his own ideas),
with the following caveates:
(1) it was only an element of the thesis/antithesis pair, of which
Einstein's approach was perhaps the other half
(2) it was further flawed by ignorance of quantum mechanics
I'm not saying Lorentz was right, but that he was by no means
completely wrong. Seen from a particular frame of reference, length
contraction is physically real, and must be accountable under the
expression of the microscopic laws in that reference frame. The
symmetry wrt choice of rest frame is antithetical to this approach but
not annihilatory.
Einstein with his famous SR in 1905 explained ...
1905... 1905... Hey! It's the centenary! When were the firworks? I
seem to have missed the party again.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Potte" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
25 Aug 2005 08:57:37 AM |
|
|
Zigoteau wrote:
Hi, Potte,
EPR_paradox is "local" hidden variable and it is
discredited by Aspect experiment,
The EPR paradox was not discredited, it was resolved, in favor of QM.
EPR logic is simply that there is value before the separation much
like coins put in envelope, what faces the front of the envelope
is already there. Einstein tried to debunk QM. But what Aspect
and others found out is that before measurement there is
no value as they are in superposition. Einstein doesn't
agree this is so because it has to travel
superluminally. Bohr answer is just treat it as one system.
Remember the Copenhagen Interpretation put the causal
mechanism under the rag. So is there a non-local signal
non-photonic so non-relativity incompatible or are they
for all intent and purposes instantenous.
I know that.
But there is another hidden variable called
"non-local" hidden variable. Note the distinction.
This does not make much sense. Do you understand your own question?
Yes. EPR is local hidden varible where the spins are already
determined before they are sent. In "non-local" hidden
variable. It is possible there is no value before measurement.
However upon measurement, a non-local communication takes
place where it convey the status of the spin.
One may say the Kochen Specker Theorem disproves it.
Not so. Say there is a signal that can travel
at 1 billion light years per second. The two
entangled pair can be connected by this superluminal
link such that when the superposition is destroyed
(or the wave function is collapsed), the link is
established.
The link?
non-photonic non-relativitic incompatible signal that
mediate the photon entanglement. This is assuming it
is not instantaneous. If it is instantaneous. Space
must be illusion. What maintains the illusions. Why
didn't it appear to us as illusion.
Of course it is possible that their connection is
instantenously and no non-local signal is sent. But
I want proof of this that's why I'm asking if Bohm
Hidden Variable has been discredited. Note Bohm
stuff depends on non-local connection.
I read somewhere about double slit producing false
result if Bohm model is used. Do you or anyone
remember this and can share the reference. Thanks.
No. The double-slit diffraction experiment can be explained
nonrelativistically, and the predictions of the Bohm theory in this
case are provably absolutely identical to those of nonrelativistic QM.
There is no way the Bohm model can be "disproved" by a measurement of
this sort.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
I'll dig up the reference where they mention that quantum
potential can be dislocated in the double slit experiment.
Anyway. How do you understand Bohm Hidden Variables. Are
the entangled photons in superposition with no values
before measurement. Is the communication non-local or
instantanous? What do you think Bohm say about it? Let's
be clear about this first.
Potte
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zigoteau" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
25 Aug 2005 11:20:34 AM |
|
|
Hi, Potte,
EPR logic is simply that there is value before the separation much
like coins put in envelope, what faces the front of the envelope
is already there. Einstein tried to debunk QM. But what Aspect
and others found out is that before measurement there is
no value as they are in superposition. Einstein doesn't
agree this is so because it has to travel
superluminally. Bohr answer is just treat it as one system.
Remember the Copenhagen Interpretation put the causal
mechanism under the rag. So is there a non-local signal
non-photonic so non-relativity incompatible or are they
for all intent and purposes instantenous.
Quantum mechanics is nonlocal. I can't say whether there is a signal.
But there is another hidden variable called
"non-local" hidden variable.
This does not make much sense. Do you understand your own question?
Yes. EPR is local hidden varible where the spins are already
determined before they are sent. In "non-local" hidden
variable. It is possible there is no value before measurement.
However upon measurement, a non-local communication takes
place where it convey the status of the spin.
I always thought EPR was a paper proposing an experiment. Aspect
performed the experiment, and the result was in accordance with the
predictions of QM and disagreed with Einstein's conception of reality.
Since then, various people have tried relaxing Einstein's requirements
one by one to see if they can come up with a realistic theory. Bohm's
attempt is one of the most successful.
The link?
non-photonic non-relativitic incompatible signal that
mediate the photon entanglement.
In QM there is no signal mediating the photon entanglement. In the dBB
theory there is no signal mediating the entanglement. At least, there
is not a signal in the sense that I understand signals. In both cases
the entanglement between 3D points P and Q comes about because there
are points of the Fock space of the state vector associated
simultaneously with P and Q. Is there a theory in which something
moves between P and Q, possibly at more than the speed of light?
This is assuming it
is not instantaneous. If it is instantaneous. Space
must be illusion.
Why?
What maintains the illusions. Why
didn't it appear to us as illusion.
Because it isn't an illusion?
I'll dig up the reference where they mention that quantum
potential can be dislocated in the double slit experiment.
Please.
Anyway. How do you understand Bohm Hidden Variables.
As additional structure tacked on to the Schroedinger wave equation.
Are the entangled photons in
superposition with no values before measurement.
I don't know what that means. "Superposition" refers to states that are
not eigenstates. I suspect that the Aspect experiment is not an
eigenstate at the most important stage of the proceedings.
Is the communication non-local or
instantanous?
Yes.
What do you think Bohm say about it? Let's
be clear about this first.
In the Bohm theory, the communication between points P and Q is exactly
the same as the communication between P and Q in the Schroedinger wave
equation. The Bohm theory is in fact the Schroedinger theory plus some
extra structure. The extra structure, the point particles, do exactly
what the wavefunction tells them. They do not influence the
wavefunction in any way and so cannot be considered to communicate. It
is the wavefunction that "communicates", if that is the right word, and
it communicates because it is an element of Fock space, and has
components which belong both to P and to Q. If you like, Fock space is
full of uncountably many "tunnels", between points possibly lightyears
apart.
Don't blame me, I only live here in this universe. It wasn't me what
done it, honest, Guv.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Potte" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
25 Aug 2005 04:52:39 PM |
|
|
Zigoteau wrote:
Hi, Potte,
EPR logic is simply that there is value before the separation much
like coins put in envelope, what faces the front of the envelope
is already there. Einstein tried to debunk QM. But what Aspect
and others found out is that before measurement there is
no value as they are in superposition. Einstein doesn't
agree this is so because it has to travel
superluminally. Bohr answer is just treat it as one system.
Remember the Copenhagen Interpretation put the causal
mechanism under the rag. So is there a non-local signal
non-photonic so non-relativity incompatible or are they
for all intent and purposes instantenous.
Quantum mechanics is nonlocal. I can't say whether there is a signal.
But there is another hidden variable called
"non-local" hidden variable.
This does not make much sense. Do you understand your own question?
Yes. EPR is local hidden varible where the spins are already
determined before they are sent. In "non-local" hidden
variable. It is possible there is no value before measurement.
However upon measurement, a non-local communication takes
place where it convey the status of the spin.
I always thought EPR was a paper proposing an experiment. Aspect
performed the experiment, and the result was in accordance with the
predictions of QM and disagreed with Einstein's conception of reality.
Since then, various people have tried relaxing Einstein's requirements
one by one to see if they can come up with a realistic theory. Bohm's
attempt is one of the most successful.
The link?
non-photonic non-relativitic incompatible signal that
mediate the photon entanglement.
In QM there is no signal mediating the photon entanglement. In the dBB
theory there is no signal mediating the entanglement. At least, there
is not a signal in the sense that I understand signals. In both cases
the entanglement between 3D points P and Q comes about because there
are points of the Fock space of the state vector associated
simultaneously with P and Q. Is there a theory in which something
moves between P and Q, possibly at more than the speed of light?
Let's say there is no signal being mediated between the
entangled pair. Let's say they are instantaneous. No matter
what maths you produced. There is a physial mechanism. Pls.
explain the physical mechanism. How can two photons located
1 million billion light years away (just an example remembering
Gibin and other modern day entanglement experiment should
signal exist require ten million times the speed of light) be
aware of each other and entangled. What physical mechanism
could allow this. This is my only concern for now.
Potte
This is assuming it
is not instantaneous. If it is instantaneous. Space
must be illusion.
Why?
What maintains the illusions. Why
didn't it appear to us as illusion.
Because it isn't an illusion?
I'll dig up the reference where they mention that quantum
potential can be dislocated in the double slit experiment.
Please.
Anyway. How do you understand Bohm Hidden Variables.
As additional structure tacked on to the Schroedinger wave equation.
Are the entangled photons in
superposition with no values before measurement.
I don't know what that means. "Superposition" refers to states that are
not eigenstates. I suspect that the Aspect experiment is not an
eigenstate at the most important stage of the proceedings.
Is the communication non-local or
instantanous?
Yes.
What do you think Bohm say about it? Let's
be clear about this first.
In the Bohm theory, the communication between points P and Q is exactly
the same as the communication between P and Q in the Schroedinger wave
equation. The Bohm theory is in fact the Schroedinger theory plus some
extra structure. The extra structure, the point particles, do exactly
what the wavefunction tells them. They do not influence the
wavefunction in any way and so cannot be considered to communicate. It
is the wavefunction that "communicates", if that is the right word, and
it communicates because it is an element of Fock space, and has
components which belong both to P and to Q. If you like, Fock space is
full of uncountably many "tunnels", between points possibly lightyears
apart.
Don't blame me, I only live here in this universe. It wasn't me what
done it, honest, Guv.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zigoteau" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
29 Aug 2005 04:14:10 AM |
|
|
Hi, Potte,
First, could I remind you that you have not yet dug up that reference
you promised me where "they mention that quantum potential can be
dislocated in the double slit experiment."
Let's say there is no signal being mediated between the
entangled pair. Let's say they are instantaneous. No matter
what maths you produced.
But it's all about maths.
There is a physial mechanism. Pls.
explain the physical mechanism.
I have, and you appear not to be interested in anything which is not
covered by your current intuition.
Could I just gently mention that when you are asking someone for a
favour, when you are asking someone to go to a certain amount of effort
to explain something that is actually in the public domain, it is just
a teensy bit irritating that you cannot yourself be bothered to make
the effort to write down all the letters in your words.
How can two photons located
1 million billion light years away (just an example remembering
Gibin and other modern day entanglement experiment should
signal exist require ten million times the speed of light)
Gribbin (if that is who you are referring to) writes books for a lay
audience which vastly oversimplify current scientific debates. In 1974,
he published a book called "The Jupiter Effect" predicting that when
Jupiter and Saturn came into alignment with Earth in 1980, there would
be violent earthquakes. There were no earthquakes. Caveat emptor.
be
aware of each other and entangled. What physical mechanism
could allow this. This is my only concern for now.
Current quantum mechanics describes such a mechanism. It was one of the
things that bothered Einstein about quantum mechanics. If you don't
want to learn the maths, then you will forever be unable to understand
what the problem is.
Cheers,
Zigoteau,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Potte" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
29 Aug 2005 05:49:24 AM |
|
|
Zigoteau wrote:
Hi, Potte,
First, could I remind you that you have not yet dug up that reference
you promised me where "they mention that quantum potential can be
dislocated in the double slit experiment."
Try this:
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0103/0103101.pdf
I read a message at sci.physics about the dislocations but
can't find the exact message although I saw some reference
about it. I'll keep searching tom. But maybe the above is
related to it.
Later,
Potte
Let's say there is no signal being mediated between the
entangled pair. Let's say they are instantaneous. No matter
what maths you produced.
But it's all about maths.
There is a physial mechanism. Pls.
explain the physical mechanism.
I have, and you appear not to be interested in anything which is not
covered by your current intuition.
Could I just gently mention that when you are asking someone for a
favour, when you are asking someone to go to a certain amount of effort
to explain something that is actually in the public domain, it is just
a teensy bit irritating that you cannot yourself be bothered to make
the effort to write down all the letters in your words.
How can two photons located
1 million billion light years away (just an example remembering
Gibin and other modern day entanglement experiment should
signal exist require ten million times the speed of light)
Gribbin (if that is who you are referring to) writes books for a lay
audience which vastly oversimplify current scientific debates. In 1974,
he published a book called "The Jupiter Effect" predicting that when
Jupiter and Saturn came into alignment with Earth in 1980, there would
be violent earthquakes. There were no earthquakes. Caveat emptor.
be
aware of each other and entangled. What physical mechanism
could allow this. This is my only concern for now.
Current quantum mechanics describes such a mechanism. It was one of the
things that bothered Einstein about quantum mechanics. If you don't
want to learn the maths, then you will forever be unable to understand
what the problem is.
Cheers,
Zigoteau,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zigoteau" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
29 Aug 2005 06:45:12 AM |
|
|
Hi, Potte,
Thanks for the reference. I haven't yet understood how Golshani and
Akhavan propose to prepare initial states with probability distribution
differing from |psi|^2, but wil read it again.
In that connection, have you seen:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0953-4075/37/18/N01
?
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Potte" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
29 Aug 2005 10:01:32 AM |
|
|
Zigoteau wrote:
Hi, Potte,
Thanks for the reference. I haven't yet understood how Golshani and
Akhavan propose to prepare initial states with probability distribution
differing from |psi|^2, but wil read it again.
In that connection, have you seen:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0953-4075/37/18/N01
?
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Will read it later. Thanks.
I think I found the thread I was talking about. It's in
sci.physics.research in the subject called "Bohmian mechanics
disproved" written January this year. Thread in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/f14aa8af9874ab37/33a0cfc592db34a2?lnk=st&q=bohmian+mechanics+potential+position&rnum=6&hl=en#33a0cfc592db34a2
Also related in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/d4162039fb4cd7c2/70941b7414c9181b?lnk=st&q=bohmian+mechanics+potential+position&rnum=3&hl=en#70941b7414c9181b
What do you make of it? You are the expert in Bohm hidden variable.
Potte
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zigoteau" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
29 Aug 2005 11:54:07 AM |
|
|
Hi, Potte,
I think I found the thread I was talking about. It's in
sci.physics.research in the subject called "Bohmian mechanics
disproved" written January this year. Thread in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/f14aa8af9874ab37/33a0cfc592db34a2?lnk=st&q=bohmian+mechanics+potential+position&rnum=6&hl=en#33a0cfc592db34a2
What do you make of it? You are the expert in Bohm hidden variable.
No, I'm clearly not, as I was unaware of Golshani's work, and must take
time to digest it. I'm interested in the questions, I understand a bit
about them, and I enjoy discussing them with other interested people,
who may point out important aspects I have not thought about. I have a
reasonable ***** detector, quite important in QM. I will tell you
when I do not believe something you've written, and try to give you the
reasons for my disbelief, although ideas do tend to be rather personal,
and debating differences of opinion is tricky at times. I would warn
you most strongly about accepting uncritically opinions that you read
on Usenet. I certainly do not want to be considered as an expert.
Heaven forbid!
Here's another relevant paper.
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/fulltext?format=application/pdf&identifier=oai:arXiv.org:quant-ph/9809006
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Potte" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
29 Aug 2005 05:00:25 PM |
|
|
Zigoteau wrote:
Hi, Potte,
I think I found the thread I was talking about. It's in
sci.physics.research in the subject called "Bohmian mechanics
disproved" written January this year. Thread in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/f14aa8af9874ab37/33a0cfc592db34a2?lnk=st&q=bohmian+mechanics+potential+position&rnum=6&hl=en#33a0cfc592db34a2
What do you make of it? You are the expert in Bohm hidden variable.
No, I'm clearly not, as I was unaware of Golshani's work, and must take
time to digest it. I'm interested in the questions, I understand a bit
about them, and I enjoy discussing them with other interested people,
who may point out important aspects I have not thought about. I have a
reasonable ***** detector, quite important in QM. I will tell you
when I do not believe something you've written, and try to give you the
reasons for my disbelief, although ideas do tend to be rather personal,
and debating differences of opinion is tricky at times. I would warn
you most strongly about accepting uncritically opinions that you read
on Usenet. I certainly do not want to be considered as an expert.
Heaven forbid!
Here's another relevant paper.
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/fulltext?format=application/pdf&identifier=oai:arXiv.org:quant-ph/9809006
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Many find it hard to hold the view of Bohmian Mechanics because it
requires
the concept of an omnipresent exotic "pilot wave" field and quantum
potential
that dictate the behavior and position of each electron in the
universe. Do
you think it is likely? But then Higgs field and bosons have not yet
been
detected. So if the pilot field exist. It should be as hard or harder
(or
even impossible) to detect than the higgs. Do you know what it will
take to
attempt to detect if pilot wave indeed exist? Anyway. A researcher
proposes
that magnetic monopole is the substance the pilot wave/field is made
of. Know
any counterarguments for this proposal (about magnetic monopole that
is)?
Potte
he pilot wave is allegedly an exotic field.
Physical instruments can't detect
it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
24 Aug 2005 05:57:32 PM |
|
|
Potte wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
EPR_paradox is "local" hidden variable and it is
discredited by Aspect experiment, I know that.
But there is another hidden variable called
"non-local" hidden variable. Note the distinction.
One may say the Kochen Specker Theorem disproves it.
Not so. Say there is a signal that can travel
at 1 billion light years per second.
Why 1 billion light years per second and not instantaneously?
The two
entangled pair can be connected by this superluminal
link such that when the superposition is destroyed
(or the wave function is collapsed), the link is
established.
How would one ever know?
Of course it is possible that their connection is
instantenously and no non-local signal is sent. But
I want proof of this that's why I'm asking if Bohm
Hidden Variable has been discredited. Note Bohm
stuff depends on non-local connection.
I read somewhere about double slit producing false
result if Bohm model is used. Do you or anyone
remember this and can share the reference. Thanks.
Potte
.
|
|
|
| User: "Potte" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
24 Aug 2005 06:50:35 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Potte wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
EPR_paradox is "local" hidden variable and it is
discredited by Aspect experiment, I know that.
But there is another hidden variable called
"non-local" hidden variable. Note the distinction.
One may say the Kochen Specker Theorem disproves it.
Not so. Say there is a signal that can travel
at 1 billion light years per second.
Why 1 billion light years per second and not instantaneously?
How can it be instantaneous.. unless you believe space
is an illusion? What creates the illusions? Do you
agree with Traveler (in case you know this dude).
Potte
The two
entangled pair can be connected by this superluminal
link such that when the superposition is destroyed
(or the wave function is collapsed), the link is
established.
How would one ever know?
Of course it is possible that their connection is
instantenously and no non-local signal is sent. But
I want proof of this that's why I'm asking if Bohm
Hidden Variable has been discredited. Note Bohm
stuff depends on non-local connection.
I read somewhere about double slit producing false
result if Bohm model is used. Do you or anyone
remember this and can share the reference. Thanks.
Potte
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Franck" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How? |
24 Aug 2005 07:13:50 PM |
|
|
"Potte" wrote
Sam Wormley wrote:
Potte wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
EPR_paradox is "local" hidden variable and it is
discredited by Aspect experiment, I know that.
But there is another hidden variable called
"non-local" hidden variable. Note the distinction.
One may say the Kochen Specker Theorem disproves it.
Not so. Say there is a signal that can travel
at 1 billion light years per second.
Why 1 billion light years per second and not instantaneously?
How can it be instantaneous.. unless you believe space
is an illusion? What creates the illusions? Do you
agree with Traveler (in case you know this dude).
I'm not really qualified to comment on what's been discussed so
far, but a generic solution is the particles are connected in a higher
dimension of space that is invisible to us.
So two people talking on the phone in the same room through a
satellite link will hear what's been said locally before the conversation
makes it from phone to phone.
--
Craig Franck
craig.franck@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
