Re: Two EPR questions
From: seratend (ser_monmail_at_yahoo.fr)
Date: 11/17/04
- Next message: Caroline Thompson: "Re: Another EPR question"
- Previous message: alistair: "Re: sources of gravity"
- In reply to: Ilja Schmelzer: "Re: Two EPR questions"
- Next in thread: Ilja Schmelzer: "Re: Two EPR questions"
- Reply: Ilja Schmelzer: "Re: Two EPR questions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:14:40 +0000 (UTC)
"Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote in message news:<cncbrf$esn$1@beech.fernuni-hagen.de>...
> "Blake Winter" <blake.winter@houghton.edu> schrieb
> > Oz <oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote
> > Right, that's why hidden variables are disproven by the violations of
> > Bell inequalities - at least, naive hidden variables are.
>
> Sorry, Bohmian mechanics is a hidden variable theory. And a
> quite simple one. That simple that Einstein has considered it
> too simple.
>
> > By naive
> > hidden variables, I mean that if we still want hidden variables we've
> > got to either violate causality (either by violations of relativistic
> > locality, or else by having closed causal loops), or else we've got to
> > have a nontrivial topology.
>
> Bohmian mechanics has, indeed, hidden causal influences in a hidden
> preferred frame.
Bohmian Mechanics is mainly QM with the observable position and an
extra motion equation (q(t)). The observable Q may be expressed in any
relativistic frame and thus BM q(t). So I really do not see the
preferred frame.
All the problems of causality with BM comes from the interpretation of
q(t). As long as we cannot get information about q(t) from an
experiment different from what a QM Position measurement gives, we can
question the interpretation of q(t) and the deductions based on this
interpretation (requirement of a preferred frame?).
>
> Of course, some people do not like hidden preferred frames and hidden
> variables in general. But sometimes the argumentation is quite absurd:
> The preferred frame is rejected (in special relativity) because it is
> hidden.
> Bohmian mechanics is rejected because it has a preferred frame, which
> does not agree with relativistic ideology. And hidden variable theories
> in general are rejected for the same reason, because the violation of Bell's
> inequality proves that they need a preferred frame.
>
It is one interpretation of q(t) that may require a preferred frame. I
a not sure this is the topic that BM is not widely used (even if I
don't know what is "widely").
But I can say why I am not using BM: BM adds to QM the motion of
q(t). As long as q(t)cannot add new information that can be tested
(relatively to QM),I don't want to spend time in computing q(t). It is
very difficult and I still have to compute psi(q,t) to get q(t). In
QM, I just need psi(q,t). In both cases, I have the same results (i.e.
testable and usable information). This is very pragmatic.
>
> But if we combine these arguments, it appears that the argument against
> hidden variables is that it uses hidden variables. Because there is no
> other argument against the preferred frame.
>
Well, I can say because they are untestable variables, I surely can
select the interpretation and the hidden variable that is compatible
or not with a hidden preferred frame concept.
> Thus, accepting this argument means preserving Einstein causality
> even in a situation where it can be logically proven to be false.
>
Logically is based on one interpretation context. So first, we should
question the interpretation consistency.
Seratend.
- Next message: Caroline Thompson: "Re: Another EPR question"
- Previous message: alistair: "Re: sources of gravity"
- In reply to: Ilja Schmelzer: "Re: Two EPR questions"
- Next in thread: Ilja Schmelzer: "Re: Two EPR questions"
- Reply: Ilja Schmelzer: "Re: Two EPR questions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
