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 forums@fqxi.org 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.

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

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Eric Reiter**: *on* 8/16/12 at 7:20am UTC, wrote I never understood Bohmian pilot waves associated with a particle. What...

**Georgina Parry**: *on* 3/30/09 at 5:09am UTC, wrote from the article, "instead particles really are particles that occupy a...

**Eckard Blumschein**: *on* 3/10/09 at 17:06pm UTC, wrote In Einstein's words, 'elements of reality' are 'free creations of the...

**Brian Beverly**: *on* 3/7/09 at 3:29am UTC, wrote I recently graduated with a physics degree and I found several parts I...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 3/2/09 at 18:34pm UTC, wrote Hi , Thanks for your clear answer , interesting point of vue Regards ...

**Don Limuti (www.zenophysics.com)**: *on* 2/28/09 at 6:44am UTC, wrote Responding to Steve Durfourny, Steve thanks for visiting zenophysics.com...

**Roumen Tsekov**: *on* 2/26/09 at 20:33pm UTC, wrote Recently, I introduced a Bohm-Langevin equation describing the quantum...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 2/25/09 at 13:22pm UTC, wrote Well ,ok I visisted your site ,interesting ,really ,beatifull reality...

FQXi FORUM

January 22, 2019

"Bohmian mechanics does away with fluffy notions of wave-particle duality—

instead particles really are particles that occupy a definite position in space, re-gardless of whether or not they have been observed. On the subatomic scale, however, their motions are guided by a pilot wave, which isn’t a physical wave but rather a wave through a high- dimensional mathematical space.

One of the inescapable facts about objects at the quantum scale is that particles can become entangled such that one can instantaneously affect its partner far away, without the mediation of anything in between. Einstein called this “spooky action at a distance” and rejected it since it seems to be incompatible with his theory of relativity. The most pressing problem the physicists are now working on is to resolve this incompatibility, using the Bohmian version of quantum mechanics."

If particles can become truly entangled, it would seem there is a continuous element. So what if quanta are not completely self defined, but are a function of various factors, such as drips of water are similarly sized due to surface tension, gravity, etc. Then if you combine them and separate out two drops, they are mixed. Now applying that model to, say, photons, than light would be a continuum, but measuring it causes it to quantize as "drops" of light that are naturally all of the same energy, just as drops of water tend to be the same size. So light expanding away from a star would be like a bubble of expanding energy, as opposed to a wave through some other medium. For one thing, it would explain why light from incredibly distant sources remains so clear, given all the gravitational forces, redshifting, etc. that might distort the path of individual photons traveling that amount of distance. So light as particles would actually be the first stage of gravitational collapse and particlization, where the continuous becomes discrete. Now applying this to the concept of "spooky action at a distance, what you are measuring amounts to two points on the same expanding "bubble," even though they/it might be traveling along fiber optic lines. ?

report post as inappropriate

instead particles really are particles that occupy a definite position in space, re-gardless of whether or not they have been observed. On the subatomic scale, however, their motions are guided by a pilot wave, which isn’t a physical wave but rather a wave through a high- dimensional mathematical space.

One of the inescapable facts about objects at the quantum scale is that particles can become entangled such that one can instantaneously affect its partner far away, without the mediation of anything in between. Einstein called this “spooky action at a distance” and rejected it since it seems to be incompatible with his theory of relativity. The most pressing problem the physicists are now working on is to resolve this incompatibility, using the Bohmian version of quantum mechanics."

If particles can become truly entangled, it would seem there is a continuous element. So what if quanta are not completely self defined, but are a function of various factors, such as drips of water are similarly sized due to surface tension, gravity, etc. Then if you combine them and separate out two drops, they are mixed. Now applying that model to, say, photons, than light would be a continuum, but measuring it causes it to quantize as "drops" of light that are naturally all of the same energy, just as drops of water tend to be the same size. So light expanding away from a star would be like a bubble of expanding energy, as opposed to a wave through some other medium. For one thing, it would explain why light from incredibly distant sources remains so clear, given all the gravitational forces, redshifting, etc. that might distort the path of individual photons traveling that amount of distance. So light as particles would actually be the first stage of gravitational collapse and particlization, where the continuous becomes discrete. Now applying this to the concept of "spooky action at a distance, what you are measuring amounts to two points on the same expanding "bubble," even though they/it might be traveling along fiber optic lines. ?

report post as inappropriate

All theories are models that "fit" more or less well with nature as it evolves. To some extent they are all swindles.

But some are elegant swindles that we like.

The determinism of quantum mechanics is probabilistic.

The determinism of Bohmian mechanics involves pilot waves.

The determinism of Zeno Physics (my personal swindle) has real determinism! :) Check out this exercise in speculative model making, it is some fun.

report post as inappropriate

But some are elegant swindles that we like.

The determinism of quantum mechanics is probabilistic.

The determinism of Bohmian mechanics involves pilot waves.

The determinism of Zeno Physics (my personal swindle) has real determinism! :) Check out this exercise in speculative model making, it is some fun.

report post as inappropriate

John about "spooky action on distance" we publish with Italian physicist Fiscaletti an interesting article in Physics Essays.

It seems that space itself is an immediate information and energy transfer medium.

see on file attached

yours amrit

attachments: 1_Non_locality_and_the_Symmetrized_Quantum_Potential_.pdf

report post as inappropriate

It seems that space itself is an immediate information and energy transfer medium.

see on file attached

yours amrit

attachments: 1_Non_locality_and_the_Symmetrized_Quantum_Potential_.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Hi dear Don Limuti ,

What is your Zeno Theory ,please could you explain me ?

Kinds Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

What is your Zeno Theory ,please could you explain me ?

Kinds Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Well ,ok

I visisted your site ,interesting ,really ,beatifull reality .The gravity and its wave lenghts ...of course

Congratulations .

Steve

report post as inappropriate

I visisted your site ,interesting ,really ,beatifull reality .The gravity and its wave lenghts ...of course

Congratulations .

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Recently, I introduced a Bohm-Langevin equation describing the quantum Brownian motion and published in Int. J. Theor. Phys. 48(2009)630 and arXiv: 0803.4409. The predictions of my model differ from the orthodox theory of quantum Brownian motion and could be used for discrimination between the Bohmian and Copenhagen interpretations of quantum mechanics.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Responding to Steve Durfourny,

Steve thanks for visiting zenophysics.com ... and the kind remarks. Let me try to answer your question and make it pertinent to this thread. Sorry I am not as timely as I should be on this.

1. Zeno physics is a reformulation of clasical physics so that Zeno's paradoxes are avoided. When this is done quantum mechanics and gravity fall out naturally (in my humble opinion).

2. Zeno's paradoxes on motion are avoided with one postulate: Matter is always moving by hopping, that is by appearing and reapearing. This hopping is defined by deBroglie's equation: wavelength=h/mv. Where the wavelength is the distance of the hop.

3. So, why do I say that Zeno physics is more deterministic that other theories? Let's us examine an electron.

3a. Quantum mechanics says the electron's position and monentum cannot be know simultaneously. This is formulated in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

3b. Zeno physics says that an electron is always hopping and thus a continuous velocity for the electron does not make any sense. No probability is involved. How the electron moves is completely determined by the deBroglie equation.

I am under no illusion that Zeno physics is very speculative (and probably flat out wrong on some of its theories). But the new space-time diagram and plots of particles and how they move is worth checking out.

Thanks again.

report post as inappropriate

Steve thanks for visiting zenophysics.com ... and the kind remarks. Let me try to answer your question and make it pertinent to this thread. Sorry I am not as timely as I should be on this.

1. Zeno physics is a reformulation of clasical physics so that Zeno's paradoxes are avoided. When this is done quantum mechanics and gravity fall out naturally (in my humble opinion).

2. Zeno's paradoxes on motion are avoided with one postulate: Matter is always moving by hopping, that is by appearing and reapearing. This hopping is defined by deBroglie's equation: wavelength=h/mv. Where the wavelength is the distance of the hop.

3. So, why do I say that Zeno physics is more deterministic that other theories? Let's us examine an electron.

3a. Quantum mechanics says the electron's position and monentum cannot be know simultaneously. This is formulated in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

3b. Zeno physics says that an electron is always hopping and thus a continuous velocity for the electron does not make any sense. No probability is involved. How the electron moves is completely determined by the deBroglie equation.

I am under no illusion that Zeno physics is very speculative (and probably flat out wrong on some of its theories). But the new space-time diagram and plots of particles and how they move is worth checking out.

Thanks again.

report post as inappropriate

I recently graduated with a physics degree and I found several parts I liked which resonated with me:

1)

“Students in quantum mechanics classes around the world are told that if they just swallow that big, nasty, quantum-mechanical pill, it will all make sense.”

Pill?

I think they mean a quantum-mechanical suppository.

2)

“If students are bothered by this kind of question, they’re given the impression it’s because they’re just not smart enough or sophisticated enough to understand the real depth of quantum mechanics,”

My professors never gave me that feeling; they knew quantum was hard and confusing so they encouraged their students to muscle through it. However, several textbooks and authors still give me that impression.

I do have some questions on Bohmian mechanics:

1)

What textbooks and articles do the best job of describing this idea? I would like to see as many derivations as I can.

2)

What convinced Goldstein to abandon the stochastic mechanics approach? How was the random element cut-out? If it is analgous to the coin-tossing example (hidden variables) then is it non-local too?

3)

What exactly is the pilot wave? It sounds like it is related to the probability distribution, is it like erf(x)...? If so then how was the stochastic approach abandoned?

report post as inappropriate

1)

“Students in quantum mechanics classes around the world are told that if they just swallow that big, nasty, quantum-mechanical pill, it will all make sense.”

Pill?

I think they mean a quantum-mechanical suppository.

2)

“If students are bothered by this kind of question, they’re given the impression it’s because they’re just not smart enough or sophisticated enough to understand the real depth of quantum mechanics,”

My professors never gave me that feeling; they knew quantum was hard and confusing so they encouraged their students to muscle through it. However, several textbooks and authors still give me that impression.

I do have some questions on Bohmian mechanics:

1)

What textbooks and articles do the best job of describing this idea? I would like to see as many derivations as I can.

2)

What convinced Goldstein to abandon the stochastic mechanics approach? How was the random element cut-out? If it is analgous to the coin-tossing example (hidden variables) then is it non-local too?

3)

What exactly is the pilot wave? It sounds like it is related to the probability distribution, is it like erf(x)...? If so then how was the stochastic approach abandoned?

report post as inappropriate

In Einstein's words, 'elements of reality' are 'free creations of the mind'. On the other hand, Einstein believed into a deeper-lying theoretical framework when he spoke of objective reality. Accordingly, we may expect paradoxes due to incompatibilities between different points of view.

There are several cases where a mathematical model is correct and complete but not appropriate to its application.

Let me start with the joke of more people leaving a room and than it contains.

My second example are so called ideal filter. They are non-causal. A non-causal system may exhibit an output before the input.

As long as the theory of signals and systems is logically explained to students step by step, they do not tend to complain much. However, B. Girod and R. Rabenstein admitted serious problems in their textbook 'Einfuehrung in die Systemtheory': Students have to persist. I see a main obstacle for understanding some consequences from the lacking insight that already our usual notion of time implies double redundancy.

While R. Feynman is famous for explaining very clever, he is perhaps even more known for having uttered:Quantum mechanics is impossible to understand. Shouldn't we suspect the reason for that in not yet correctly resolved questions?

In so far, I would like to agree with the article.

Being just an old engineer, no physicist, I naively try and translate the essence of =exp(ipx) roughly into

. I wonder because Fourier or cosine transform turns a discrete function of t into a continuous function of f and vice versa. What about spin, I realized the first maximum not at -1/2 or +1/2 but at +1/2 or +3/2.

Once again: I am not a physicist, and I am not a mathematician, too.

Nonetheless, engineers like me understand that a pound sugar never exactly equals a second pound sugar. Numbers are something ideal. It is easy to choose the number 2. However, it is impossible to give 2.000... with actually infinite accuracy. I see a main problem already in the notions of one and zero.

Mathematicians prefer to consider these problems and Buridan's donkey outside mathematics. Well, this might even be correct if mathematics understands itself like a gamble with arbitrarily set rules. Application in particular in physics requires to reveal and honestly delete inconsistencies at its roots. I refer to Cantor's obviously and admitted by Fraenkel untenable definition of a set.

One must not take two mutually excluding points of view at a time. The same applies with Schroedinger's cat.

Orthogonal variables mutually exclude and complement each other as also do discrete and continuous ones. As long as we look at a function of t, its envelope is imaginary.

What about S. Goldstein, I found most frequently quoted Physica Today 51-3, 42 (1998); 51_4, 38 (1998).

report post as inappropriate

There are several cases where a mathematical model is correct and complete but not appropriate to its application.

Let me start with the joke of more people leaving a room and than it contains.

My second example are so called ideal filter. They are non-causal. A non-causal system may exhibit an output before the input.

As long as the theory of signals and systems is logically explained to students step by step, they do not tend to complain much. However, B. Girod and R. Rabenstein admitted serious problems in their textbook 'Einfuehrung in die Systemtheory': Students have to persist. I see a main obstacle for understanding some consequences from the lacking insight that already our usual notion of time implies double redundancy.

While R. Feynman is famous for explaining very clever, he is perhaps even more known for having uttered:Quantum mechanics is impossible to understand. Shouldn't we suspect the reason for that in not yet correctly resolved questions?

In so far, I would like to agree with the article.

Being just an old engineer, no physicist, I naively try and translate the essence of =exp(ipx) roughly into

. I wonder because Fourier or cosine transform turns a discrete function of t into a continuous function of f and vice versa. What about spin, I realized the first maximum not at -1/2 or +1/2 but at +1/2 or +3/2.

Once again: I am not a physicist, and I am not a mathematician, too.

Nonetheless, engineers like me understand that a pound sugar never exactly equals a second pound sugar. Numbers are something ideal. It is easy to choose the number 2. However, it is impossible to give 2.000... with actually infinite accuracy. I see a main problem already in the notions of one and zero.

Mathematicians prefer to consider these problems and Buridan's donkey outside mathematics. Well, this might even be correct if mathematics understands itself like a gamble with arbitrarily set rules. Application in particular in physics requires to reveal and honestly delete inconsistencies at its roots. I refer to Cantor's obviously and admitted by Fraenkel untenable definition of a set.

One must not take two mutually excluding points of view at a time. The same applies with Schroedinger's cat.

Orthogonal variables mutually exclude and complement each other as also do discrete and continuous ones. As long as we look at a function of t, its envelope is imaginary.

What about S. Goldstein, I found most frequently quoted Physica Today 51-3, 42 (1998); 51_4, 38 (1998).

report post as inappropriate

from the article,

"instead particles really are particles that occupy a definite position in space, regardless of whether or not they have been observed. On the subatomic scale, however, their motions are guided by a pilot wave, which isn’t a physical wave but rather a wave through a high- dimensional mathematical space."

Why not a physical wave? Why must it be a "wave through high-dimensional mathematical space?Is it because the aether has such a bad reputation?

The Prime quaternion model proposes that sub atomic particles such as electrons and protons oscillate directly along the 4th dimension disappearing into themselves and into afore space, that is space further ahead along the 4th dimension, so that they vanish from visible 3D space and then reappear.Their elusive nature in 3D space being due their changed position in 3D space when they reappear.

In my opinion the particle's behaviour makes sense when they are considered as moving in within 4 spatio-energetic dimensions of space. That is within space comprised of 3 vector spatio-energetic,1 scalar spatio-energetic, without imposition of subjective or historical time,rather than 3n+1 space-time

The oscillation of these particles also sets up tidal forces in the objective reality of the "Vacuum" or Void which has unknowable substance, because we receive no data about it across the Prime Reality interface.These tidal forces give charge for an electron and proton and the interaction of these tidal forces can explain electro static attraction and repulsion and the strong nuclear force.

As the particles only have a part time existence in visible 3D space when they are separated in visible 3D space they may retain a connection in afore space. Take two squares of cardboard and place on top of each other. Slide the top square off, until only one corner is overlapping a corner of the bottom square. Now if the bottom square is flipped over the top square can be flipped over too. (A little glue or tape makes the demonstration more convincing unless the manoeuvre is practised.) This shows that only a small connection is needed for one square to affect the other. The squares represent the particles being separated in 3D space but a small connection remaining along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension.

report post as inappropriate

"instead particles really are particles that occupy a definite position in space, regardless of whether or not they have been observed. On the subatomic scale, however, their motions are guided by a pilot wave, which isn’t a physical wave but rather a wave through a high- dimensional mathematical space."

Why not a physical wave? Why must it be a "wave through high-dimensional mathematical space?Is it because the aether has such a bad reputation?

The Prime quaternion model proposes that sub atomic particles such as electrons and protons oscillate directly along the 4th dimension disappearing into themselves and into afore space, that is space further ahead along the 4th dimension, so that they vanish from visible 3D space and then reappear.Their elusive nature in 3D space being due their changed position in 3D space when they reappear.

In my opinion the particle's behaviour makes sense when they are considered as moving in within 4 spatio-energetic dimensions of space. That is within space comprised of 3 vector spatio-energetic,1 scalar spatio-energetic, without imposition of subjective or historical time,rather than 3n+1 space-time

The oscillation of these particles also sets up tidal forces in the objective reality of the "Vacuum" or Void which has unknowable substance, because we receive no data about it across the Prime Reality interface.These tidal forces give charge for an electron and proton and the interaction of these tidal forces can explain electro static attraction and repulsion and the strong nuclear force.

As the particles only have a part time existence in visible 3D space when they are separated in visible 3D space they may retain a connection in afore space. Take two squares of cardboard and place on top of each other. Slide the top square off, until only one corner is overlapping a corner of the bottom square. Now if the bottom square is flipped over the top square can be flipped over too. (A little glue or tape makes the demonstration more convincing unless the manoeuvre is practised.) This shows that only a small connection is needed for one square to affect the other. The squares represent the particles being separated in 3D space but a small connection remaining along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension.

report post as inappropriate

I never understood Bohmian pilot waves associated with a particle. What makes the wave? Consider the simple case of the double slit experiment. If it was a bow-shock wave emitted from the particle, more of that wave would go through the same slit the particle would go through, and the interference pattern that would add up from that model would not match experiment. It is clear to me physicists are just 'hung up' on particles. What goes across space must be a wave. Then what makes the particle-like detection effect?

It is not that difficult. The oldest alternative or predecessor to quantum mechanics was the loading theory, but it was never understood and was given a bad-rap in our textbooks. The loading theory can work but it requires re-thinking our past experiments on its terms. Also, I developed the loading theory. I have analyzed many experiments with this theory, but obviously not all of them, and it works.

More important, I have been performing experiments since ~2001 that support the loading theory and contradict quantum mechanics. After 10 years of developing the experiment and searching for artifacts, there are no artifacts. The experiments give you a choice: you either give up conservation of energy, or the quantized absorption of quantum mechanics. We uphold energy conservation, and QM is demonstrated to fail in a very fundamental way, for the first time.

Please see FQXI 2012 essay: A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory.

Thank you; Eric Reiter

report post as inappropriate

It is not that difficult. The oldest alternative or predecessor to quantum mechanics was the loading theory, but it was never understood and was given a bad-rap in our textbooks. The loading theory can work but it requires re-thinking our past experiments on its terms. Also, I developed the loading theory. I have analyzed many experiments with this theory, but obviously not all of them, and it works.

More important, I have been performing experiments since ~2001 that support the loading theory and contradict quantum mechanics. After 10 years of developing the experiment and searching for artifacts, there are no artifacts. The experiments give you a choice: you either give up conservation of energy, or the quantized absorption of quantum mechanics. We uphold energy conservation, and QM is demonstrated to fail in a very fundamental way, for the first time.

Please see FQXI 2012 essay: A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory.

Thank you; Eric Reiter

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.