Many Worlds vs. the Pilot Wave (Re: Bohm vs. Bohm's pilot wave)
> > What one must remember is the central problem in making BMrelativistic
> > is that it is non local.difficult
> 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 notjust
> 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
itâs very nature smacks of Lorentzâs ether. Iâm not
sure however which is worse and that is believing in matter-energy we
canât observe (let alone define) or a substance âthat the
laws of physics conspire to prevent us identifying it
experimentallyâ which is what Bell said in describing
Lorentzâs ether in âSpeakableâ when he was
discussing the merits of the Lorentz approach.
Now my weakness in all this is that Iâm 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 Lorentzâs 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 âphilosophy and styleâ. To put it another way I would
say it is a difference of scientific methods, with Einsteinâs
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 Iâm not saying that we should therefore leave
Einsteinâs 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 Iâm 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 inmind
> when I say that the real problem is not just to relativize BM, but towhether
> 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 Lorentzâs ether it has physics conspire to prevent
itâs 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
Einsteinâs 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 QMâs case in the development of the relativistic model.
Then why would this not still be a viable option for BM?
> I couldn't agree more. Nonlocality only shows up when you requireCorrect me if Iâm wrong for I believe that you are claiming that the
> wave particle duality. It's clear that the usual wave functions are
> local (that is, Schroedinger's equation is a local differential
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 isnât as well?
> > So you want to interpret MW much the same as BM. Like Travis saidfor
> > the reasons you have in mind that seems the long way around things.It could be also viewed as being somewhat deceptive. You did say he was
> > 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.
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
>> >It's the same equation in both cases. But this is something of amoot
> > >point, as Travis pointed out; Bell's greatest contribution to theversion
> > >debate was to provide factual evidence for nonlocality. Every
> > >of QM with any hope at all of being correct must incorporateTrue it is the same equation, however BM says it is resultant of a true
> > >nonlocality; and all of the major interpretations do.
aspect of reality and QM treats it as the signature of action of the
particle(s). Thatâs like looking at a shadow and ignoring its
source. I know you canât deny that this is a distinct difference
with serious implications.
> > I would submit that it truly was Einstein with "EPR" thatYou know that Newton said this in the context of being a insult to Hook,
> > 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.
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 didnât 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:
âA dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant may see farther
than a giant himself.â
As we know Newton wasnât born until 1643.
> I don't mean to devalue EPR by not mentioning it. As you say, the fullAbsolutely, Amen.
> 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.