Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How?

Zigoteau wrote:
> Hi, Potte,
>
>
> > EPR logic is simply that there is value before the separation much
> > like coins put in envelope, what faces the front of the envelope
> > is already there. Einstein tried to debunk QM. But what Aspect
> > and others found out is that before measurement there is
> > no value as they are in superposition. Einstein doesn't
> > agree this is so because it has to travel
> > superluminally. Bohr answer is just treat it as one system.
> > Remember the Copenhagen Interpretation put the causal
> > mechanism under the rag. So is there a non-local signal
> > non-photonic so non-relativity incompatible or are they
> > for all intent and purposes instantenous.
>
>
> Quantum mechanics is nonlocal. I can't say whether there is a signal.
>
>
> > > > But there is another hidden variable called
> > > > "non-local" hidden variable.
> > > This does not make much sense. Do you understand your own question?
> >
> > Yes. EPR is local hidden varible where the spins are already
> > determined before they are sent. In "non-local" hidden
> > variable. It is possible there is no value before measurement.
> > However upon measurement, a non-local communication takes
> > place where it convey the status of the spin.
>
>
> I always thought EPR was a paper proposing an experiment. Aspect
> performed the experiment, and the result was in accordance with the
> predictions of QM and disagreed with Einstein's conception of reality.
> Since then, various people have tried relaxing Einstein's requirements
> one by one to see if they can come up with a realistic theory. Bohm's
> attempt is one of the most successful.
>
>
> > > The link?
> > non-photonic non-relativitic incompatible signal that
> > mediate the photon entanglement.
>
>
> In QM there is no signal mediating the photon entanglement. In the dBB
> theory there is no signal mediating the entanglement. At least, there
> is not a signal in the sense that I understand signals. In both cases
> the entanglement between 3D points P and Q comes about because there
> are points of the Fock space of the state vector associated
> simultaneously with P and Q. Is there a theory in which something
> moves between P and Q, possibly at more than the speed of light?

Let's say there is no signal being mediated between the
entangled pair. Let's say they are instantaneous. No matter
what maths you produced. There is a physial mechanism. Pls.
explain the physical mechanism. How can two photons located
1 million billion light years away (just an example remembering
Gibin and other modern day entanglement experiment should
signal exist require ten million times the speed of light) be
aware of each other and entangled. What physical mechanism
could allow this. This is my only concern for now.

Potte




>
>
> > This is assuming it
> > is not instantaneous. If it is instantaneous. Space
> > must be illusion.
>
>
> Why?
>
>
> > What maintains the illusions. Why
> > didn't it appear to us as illusion.
>
>
> Because it isn't an illusion?
>
>
> > I'll dig up the reference where they mention that quantum
> > potential can be dislocated in the double slit experiment.
>
>
> Please.
>
>
> > Anyway. How do you understand Bohm Hidden Variables.
>
>
> As additional structure tacked on to the Schroedinger wave equation.
>
>
> > Are the entangled photons in
> > superposition with no values before measurement.
>
>
> I don't know what that means. "Superposition" refers to states that are
> not eigenstates. I suspect that the Aspect experiment is not an
> eigenstate at the most important stage of the proceedings.
>
>
> > Is the communication non-local or
> > instantanous?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> > What do you think Bohm say about it? Let's
> > be clear about this first.
>
>
> In the Bohm theory, the communication between points P and Q is exactly
> the same as the communication between P and Q in the Schroedinger wave
> equation. The Bohm theory is in fact the Schroedinger theory plus some
> extra structure. The extra structure, the point particles, do exactly
> what the wavefunction tells them. They do not influence the
> wavefunction in any way and so cannot be considered to communicate. It
> is the wavefunction that "communicates", if that is the right word, and
> it communicates because it is an element of Fock space, and has
> components which belong both to P and to Q. If you like, Fock space is
> full of uncountably many "tunnels", between points possibly lightyears
> apart.
>
> Don't blame me, I only live here in this universe. It wasn't me what
> done it, honest, Guv.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Zigoteau.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How?
    ... EPR is local hidden varible where the spins are already ... > However upon measurement, a non-local communication takes ... In QM there is no signal mediating the photon entanglement. ... is not a signal in the sense that I understand signals. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: genes and language (Homer, Richard Dawkins)
    ... replies to me? ... > every means of getting such help may be called language. ... > tail and give other body signals. ... > All those signals together may be called communication. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: genes and language (Homer, Richard Dawkins)
    ... replies to me? ... > every means of getting such help may be called language. ... > tail and give other body signals. ... > All those signals together may be called communication. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: entanglement in light from stars
    ... > I was wondering weather instant communication between very distant ... We change state of photons that come our ... that are entanglement pairs to ours. ... entangled pairs of photons would have to be equidistant between sender ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: entanglement in light from stars
    ... >I was wondering weather instant communication between very distant ... We change state of photons that come our ... that are entanglement pairs to ours. ...
    (sci.physics.research)