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
    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 1 of 19 , Sep 13, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Carl,

      > 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 2 of 19 , Sep 13, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Johnathan,

        > > So you want to interpret MW much the same as BM. Like Travis said
        for
        > > 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
        moot
        > > >point, as Travis pointed out; Bell's greatest contribution to the
        > > >debate was to provide factual evidence for nonlocality. Every
        version
        > > >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.