Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

February 20, 2018

ARTICLE: The Emperor's New Swindle [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Arjen Dijksman wrote on Oct. 5, 2008 @ 19:53 GMT
It's encouraging to see that physicists still work on common sense interpretations of QM like the Bohmian version. Tackling the issue of entanglement is not easy. Shouldn't it be worthwhile first to clear the principles of QM in the Bohmian version? Like: how does the state vector relate to the particle, how could we represent planck's quantum of action...?

report post as inappropriate

reasonmclucus wrote on Nov. 4, 2008 @ 09:32 GMT
Physicists have become too obsessed with the idea that everything must be "quantum" something, including gravity. Quantum behavior involves individual particles that are disorganized. Gravity involves groups of particles that are organized.

Looking at the concept of other dimensions with different characteristics than the traditional Euclidean dimensions is more likely to produce a Unified Field Theorem than is quantum physics.

report post as inappropriate

Salviati wrote on Nov. 24, 2008 @ 19:13 GMT
An ultimate evidence for quantum entanglement would be a quantum computer that fulfills huge promises.

So far, I do not exclude the possibility that apparent symmetry and EPR can be alternatively explained just as consequences of inappropriate mathematics, cf. /M283.html .

An analysis in terms of cosine transform shows that h_bar is not necessarily related to the imaginary unit.

John v. Neumann admitted in 1935 having lost his belief in Hilbert space. Already in 1932, Hermann Weyl did not have an explanation for PCT symmetries. Who is interested in more details and more recent arguments?

report post as inappropriate

John Campbell wrote on Jan. 1, 2009 @ 21:59 GMT
Very interesting article. It is satisfying to know some researchers are pursuing alternate paths to 'explain' quantum mechanics. A theory that baffles everyone as to what it means is limited.

This theory must of course be supported, in preference to its competitors, by empirical evidence if we are to give it credence. The fact that it emerged from a different mathematical approach than that used by Bohm may be suggestive but adds little real support.

In the article we have this quote: 'If we know all these variables, then the equations of Bohmian mechanics can tell us how particles will move.....'

Is there an example where we know any of the variables that supposedly quide the pilot wave?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 19, 2009 @ 16:11 GMT
reasonmclucus....... You say .....Gravity involves groups of particles that are organized,sure !

Of course ,the complexity is incredible because the number of combinations is important.

It will interesting to do the link with the Spheroidal comportment ,mathematically ,physically and evolution....


report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.