Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Many Worlds vs. the Pilot Wave (Re: Bohm vs. Bohm's pilot wave)

Expand Messages
  • Phil Warnell
    Travis, ... relativistic ... difficult ... just ... First I point out that in my second post that I had established that I felt that it was self evident that
    Message 1 of 19 , Sep 13, 2006

      > > What one must remember is the central problem in making BM
      > > is that it is non local.
      > This is a step backwards from what Jonathan said earlier (which was
      > absolutely correct). The basic problem is not simply that it is
      > to make BM relativistic because it is non-local. That would be not
      > difficult, but (it seems) impossible.

      First I point out that in my second post that I had established that I
      felt that it was self evident that there was a problem with our
      understanding of space, time or perhaps both for that matter. I think
      this way for in addition to the problems that have plagued QM for years
      in meshing with GR we have the added difficulty of GR explaining both
      galactic rotational speeds and the increasing expansion rate of the
      universe as a whole without invoking the need to add in non
      experimentally observed phenomena as in dark matter and dark energy. You
      take that with the implications of BM where one has a wave that in its
      propagation affects particles but at the same time is not counter
      affected by the particles themselves and you end with something that by
      it’s very nature smacks of Lorentz’s ether. I’m not
      sure however which is worse and that is believing in matter-energy we
      can’t observe (let alone define) or a substance “that the
      laws of physics conspire to prevent us identifying it
      experimentally” which is what Bell said in describing
      Lorentz’s ether in “Speakable” when he was
      discussing the merits of the Lorentz approach.

      Now my weakness in all this is that I’m a principle man. That is
      I favour theories that are derived from principles or axioms if you
      prefer. Einstein in regards to SR had two. The first being is that there
      is no preferred frame of reference. The second being that the laws of
      physics will appear the same for all observers. When these two are
      taken as a givens the Lorentz invariance is thus forced to emerge. In
      the Lorentz’s case the invariance is mandated by what is gathered
      by observation while still fitting within a preconceived existing
      framework. Bell contends that the differences are to be viewed as that
      of “philosophy and style”. To put it another way I would
      say it is a difference of scientific methods, with Einstein’s
      being a mainly deductive process based on and thus derived from
      premise(s) and Lorentz;s a largely inductive inspired process mandated
      by the weight of empirical evidence drawing on and remaining committed
      to prior accepted notions.

      Now I’m not saying that we should therefore leave
      Einstein’s theories left untouched. What I am suggesting is that
      in the way Einstein might put it, as he did when discussing QM, that we
      should expect that aspects of SR are going to persist in any theory that
      replaces it. It may be that one of his two premises are wrong or limited
      in scope such as there being no preferred reference frame. But the one
      where physics will appear the same for all observers looks like it might
      persist in any completion. In fact, standard QM in a way behaves like
      this. That is there is no observer which can know the position and the
      velocities of a particles simultaneously. Which of course has it the
      same for all. Now I’m aware I am guilty of speaking some of the
      unspeakables, yet I have done so in the style and vernacular that
      Einstein used to express his theory. This however is of course for the
      most part the same as what you express, but from my own view point and
      that is of premise.

      > So... the point is just to concretize what kind of thing I have in
      > when I say that the real problem is not just to relativize BM, but to
      > figure out (in light of Bell) what it *means* to "relativize" and
      > we should be doing this at all (or, instead, something else).

      I concur and yet I would like to add a twist as in reference to the
      anything at all or the something else. That is to examine the non local
      nature of the world that Bell exposed as being a aspect of reality.
      Like Lorentz’s ether it has physics conspire to prevent
      it’s detection by experiment. That is it fails to be present
      itself in terms of direct observation as is the ether. What I mean by
      this is that it does not reveal its existence by being able to be used
      to transfer (meaningful) information at greater then light speeds
      (instantaneous if you will). For as Bell inferred if you remove
      Einstein’s postulate and therein allow a preferred reference
      frame then the ether is thus revealed in as it is then the only
      remaining option. In a similar fashion if in BM you remove the
      (randomly induced) even distribution of particles, as Valentini
      suggests, then this non local aspect of space-time becomes evident as
      you could then transfer meaningful information faster then light. My
      point being is that this world of Valentini is not our world for ours is
      the one where faster then light phenomena do not exist in a meaningful
      way and thus can be ignored as is Lorentz ether. Another way to state it
      is that the ether is to SR as non local is to QM. Both exist in the
      general case and yet are not meaningful in the special one and thus can
      to some extent be ignored. As I related to Jonathan this is what was
      done in QM’s case in the development of the relativistic model.
      Then why would this not still be a viable option for BM?

      -Phil Warnell
    • Phil Warnell
      Carl, ... Correct me if I’m wrong for I believe that you are claiming that the world is (at any level) local and not non local. Also, I seem to understand
      Message 2 of 19 , Sep 13, 2006

        > I couldn't agree more. Nonlocality only shows up when you require
        > wave particle duality. It's clear that the usual wave functions are
        > local (that is, Schroedinger's equation is a local differential
        > equation).

        Correct me if I’m wrong for I believe that you are claiming that the
        world is (at any level) local and not non local. Also, I seem to
        understand that wave-particle duality which is simply a
        misinterpretation according to BM is the sole reason for this. Then
        how do you avoid the fact that BM is also non local or do you claim
        that it isn’t as well?

        -Phil Warnell
      • Phil Warnell
        Johnathan, ... for ... It could be also viewed as being somewhat deceptive. You did say he was a friend:-) Seriously, I myself has had little success with
        Message 3 of 19 , Sep 13, 2006

          > > So you want to interpret MW much the same as BM. Like Travis said
          > > the reasons you have in mind that seems the long way around things.
          > > Perhaps we should learn from nature in terms of its economy. I would
          > > rather go straight to the point.

          > Indeed. However, it has been my experience that you can often
          > accomplish more by taking someone willingly along a longer route than
          > by trying to shove them along the more direct one.

          It could be also viewed as being somewhat deceptive. You did say he was
          a friend:-) Seriously, I myself has had little success with such
          tactics. For one thing you must come across as if you truly think MW or
          what you call MW ala Bohm is a reasonable explanation. This is where I
          would fail, for anyone with reasonable perception could see right
          through me. The uncontrollable and persistent grin would be a dead
          give away.

          >> >It's the same equation in both cases. But this is something of a
          > > >point, as Travis pointed out; Bell's greatest contribution to the
          > > >debate was to provide factual evidence for nonlocality. Every
          > > >of QM with any hope at all of being correct must incorporate
          > > >nonlocality; and all of the major interpretations do.

          True it is the same equation, however BM says it is resultant of a true
          aspect of reality and QM treats it as the signature of action of the
          particle(s). That’s like looking at a shadow and ignoring its
          source. I know you can’t deny that this is a distinct difference
          with serious implications.

          > > I would submit that it truly was Einstein with "EPR" that
          > > at first put us onto the fact that QM was non local, "spooky
          > > action at a distance".

          > "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of
          > Giants." - Isaac Newton.

          You know that Newton said this in the context of being a insult to Hook,
          implicating that he was diminutive of stature . Newton was a man of
          first order in two things, one as a genius and the other a tyrant. Until
          recently I didn’t realize he was also a plagiarist for a liitle
          while back I came across a quote of Robert Burton (1577 - 1640) a famous
          English philosopher. It reads:

          “A dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant may see farther
          than a giant himself.”

          As we know Newton wasn’t born until 1643.

          > I don't mean to devalue EPR by not mentioning it. As you say, the full
          > implications of Bell's inequality aren't obvious until you consider
          > them in the context of EPR. But Bell is the one who took the final
          > steps necessary to prove that no QM model can escape nonlocality, and
          > thus deserves credit for having done so.

          Absolutely, Amen.

          -Phil Warnell
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.