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