naa, for someone who doesn't study physics, he grasped the fundamentals. It was a philosophical physics talk anyway, something we need more of. Just because you are studying QM, don't gotta take the elitist position and dismiss someone who hasn't taken the classes as well.
@zieben64 Bohm's model is awesome! All the weirdnesses in the Copenhagen model, are automatically explained when you simply view the world as a quantum computer program, which is non-local at root.
As an interesting aside, this actually makes lots of sense considering quantum gravity and the holographic universe. The intervening space is really just an illusion, and so it makes sense why non-local variables would exist.
Just because you stand infront of books, it doesn't make you an expert on anything. You have no understanding of Quantum Mechanics or David Bohms theories.
Bohm dared to crossed that apparently dis-credited & disdained line of assigning prior cause to somewhere other then within the confines of the physical dimensions. The Aharonov–Bohm effect is one experiment that starts to demonstrate that VIEWPOINT influences the Quantum World. When looking at his work within the context of other seminal thinkers as Rupert Sheldrake & Fritoj Capra we see a new paradigm being created that is actually just the re-discovery of a forgotten truth.
Most Scientists & Mathematicians are trying to THINK their way out of that hole. They try to create space by using SYMBOLS when in fact the simpler truth is that there is another UNIVERSE that has a vast amount of space, greater than the Physical Universe: YOUR OWN UNIVERSE. The Physical realm is actually a BOUNDED FINITE SPACE while ONE'S OWN UNIVERSE is currently BOUNDED but INFINITE & has a Potentiality of being not only UN-bounded but re-asserting it's condition of UN-created as well.
The individualistic nature is revealed in Quantum mechanics to been the extension of a seamless web of energy that operates on a different system of rules then the one we observe with the humanoid eyes. The underlying web is a reflection of the innate creativity of the viewpoints involved in this game called the "physical realm". In fact the truth could be more stated that we are 4 dimensional beings who have forgotten that they have fallen into a 3 dimensional hole.
Physics searches for the prior cause prior cause prior cause. Quantum Mechanics starts to show what Spiritual Masters through the centuries have already known: the Prior cause does not lie within the physical realm but in the viewpoint of the observer. This "physical universe" is but a holographic projection of an agreed upon reality. The materialistic& separate nature of the physical universe is a consequence of the agreed upon reality of the participating viewpoints. It is of our own creation.
I'm pretty sure he's not saying "Gravity applies to everything." That is in itself an example of fragmentation. He's saying that the moon affects the orbit of Jupiter's moons.
You speak with such a remarkable, misguided, and utterly unearned sense of confidence. Which of his numerous books have you read? If none, you might want to accept the fact that no one has any reason to accept your criticisms as valid.
Hi mrCopper. You know, David Bohm as many other modern thinkers has been deeply influensed by Alfred Korzybski and his book science and sanity He is famus for saying "The map is not the territory" to really understand David Bohms view on theories, It's best to look up Korzybski and who he was on wikimedia or something? Good luck!
Like the quantum to understand literature we must see it as a whole not as its bits of words,sentences paragraphs, chapters, pages or even books. We must first read all the writing that have ever been written before we can truly understand what literature means. The whole is always greater than its parts.
But then the whole of literature can never be known or understood until the final book is finished when we will have a complete literary whole whose whole will be greater than its parts.
MrCropper certainly doesn't like Mr Bohm. Reasons may be hideous and dark. But he certainly has tried his best to make fun of Bohm. Hats off to his hard work that he put into making this video. Atleast he deserves something.
He tries to be sarcastic through out the videos, when he is quoting Bohm he thinks its funny, but alas his peanut brains are too small to realize that his inability to understand Bohm is his problem and not Bohm's.
So I didn't actually because you said "I know virtually nothing about Bohm" Then you started talking about him. I was wondering what your position on his thoughts are.
With all my respect Mr. MrCopper, your discourse shows a form of insanity seen only on TV fundamentalist shows...and what is worse you speak and argue as almost like someone who knows or makes sense, what a tragedy...I hope your nonsense won't cause too much damage.....sorry Mr. MrCrepper.....there are I'm sure better ways for you to waste your time!!
fragmentation is a product of education and ultimately conditioning.
Without any propoganda and belief manifested by religious sects of all denominations , truth is real and as plain as black and white.
Philosophy, physics or any analitical disection of phenomena is a pointless and time consuming waste of life and true energy, that only appears when all these theoretical and experimental concepts are laid to rest! Why waste this one way trip on trying to grasp the immensity of living and creatio
mrcropper, have you any idea how silly you look? I don't mean to be rude but bohm was a true thinker, the problem was their lacked intelligent questioning, which he had difficulty with. lets see some theories of your great thinking brain mrcropper before you try to pull appart things you obviously don't have a handler on
hey u mr. idiot. go to a kindergarten. your place is not here. how in the hell you think you can so easily discredit person like david bohm just like that. common man. get some life. u'd better go play some video games or help your mom out in the kitchen.that will be more worthwhile for you.
@SajadSaeedi At the risk of wasting my time might I suggest you take a moment to think in detail what information you object to when placing comments. It would be a smart move on your part to consider how intellegent thinking individuals are going to utilize your comments. So are you all about joining the juveniles in a childs game of name calling, or are you going to think about what you are putting on record for all to see?
For someone to go to such great effort to attempt to discredit another is questionable at best.
There must be a big payoff to perform such a task.
Also an indication that there is great value in his information to the point it could threaten some greedy entity that could pay for such a task to insure their own prosperity.
It would take a man of substantially more intellect to successfully critique someone of Bohm's stature. You should understand that Bohm is held in the highest regard as a scientist...a metaphysicist ? ... not so much !
I think this is not the way of criticizing a scientist like David Bohm who is deeply concerned about humanity and dialogue. I think he is a very successful and his ideas are universal. Even if you dont have to accept them all, they definitely deserve some respect.
"Supposed" double slit experiment? Have you actually done the experiment? Have you ever studied the equations which make the predictions of the double slit experiment?
You seem to have certain degree of intrinsic motivation regarding D. Bohm's work. I would kindly suggest you take the time to read "Wholeness & the Implicate Order". In this book D. Bohm thourghly explains l why abd how the general theory of relativity (Einstein) and Quantm Theory (Niels Bohr) point to undevided wholeness. Then he elaborates on the Implicate and Explicate orders as well as his most revolutionary and misunderstood concept, which is the holomovement.
You watch a few YouTube videos and think you are qualified to dispute a Physicist who worked with Einstein.. worked on the Manhattan Project, etc., etc.
I would strongly suggest furthering your study of David Bohm to his books - and doing so under no presumptions of his ideas. Good intentions, but perhaps premature results.
Not sure to understand what you mean when you say "Still not really getting why the particle would separate for two slits but not one". The physics is the same in both experiment, only the setup changes.
Who is saying the universe is one ? I'm not sure what this means anyway ...
''Without realism the strong realistic Einstein causality will be meaningless and undefined.''
That's not true, look out microcausality, this is how to define causality in QFT. Bohm interpretation cannot really be extanted to QFT by the way, some crackpot have tried and will always be trying, but there is some fundamental inconsistency that pop up in QFT.
If you want a good concrete example of causality in QM look for the Fermi two atom problem.
yes the theory predicts effects that move faster than the speed of light. These non observable effects can be seen only indirectly through violations of BT. Weak relativistic symmetry(All observable effects have relativistic symmetry) - this is all we can test with experiments - is not destroyed. Without realism the strong realistic Einstein causality will be meaningless and undefined.
Bohmian Mechanics is non-local, and insists upon it. I don't see why this is a complaint against Bohm, since non-locality was experimentally confirmed in 80s by Aspect.
Try to understand the implication of having signals that can transmit information faster then light, when special relativity forbids it and is tested on a daily basis (just like QM btw), you will see that it is quite a big problem.
Non-locality was for sure not tested experimentally, you're confusing non-locality with correlation, and correlation which is extremely useful in quantum computing cannot be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light.
"Try to understand the implication of having signals that can transmit information faster then light,"
I've never understood the reification of "information" in physics. Information isn't a thing or an object; it's a mental abstraction. How does physics define "information"?
Otherwise the usual pop science introduction to information usually start with Shannon's idea of information, namely that information is a surprise. With probability distribution you can quantify your lack of knowledge of some observable, and the gain of information is the quantity that sort of quantify the difference between the lack of information before and after events. Hope that helps.
Yes in Bohm interpretation, non-locality is instantaneous information whether you want it or not.
And if you say you understand Bohm interpretation so much better then I do, would you be kind enough to explain me how does he escape information flow faster than the speed of light ?
you're saying:"There exists no hidden variable theory[hvt] that can explain the experiments."
That's not correct. There are for example Bohmian mechanics(BM) and Nelsonian stochastics. Bell's theorem(BT) assumes the local realism of EPR. Therefore BT says that there exists no local realism hvt that can explain the experiments. BM rejects locality(strong Einstein causality) in favour of realism. Therefore BM can explain the experiments.
Locality, and therefore causality, is almost sacred in physics. If you give up locality, you're allowing information to flow at a speed greater than light, then you open a door to completely weird phenomenons that will never happen in experiments.
The problem with this interpretation is that you give up locality only when you want to; in other words we know for a fact that the universe is fundamentally causal and local, but in order to get realism at all price you fudge some inconsistency in there,give up locality from time to time without any particular reason other then you don't want to give up realism.
Not to mention that BM does not provide any mechanism or any explanation on how or on why information would flow instantaneously.
You're kidding right ? This paper is a joke, it has been rejected by peer review on physics today, and only posted on the arxiv. This 3 pages long essay contain one single equation and almost no scientific content., and it has accumulated zero citation. This is not science but only pseudo-intellectual crap !
sicjd -- I note that you haven't said one thing about the content of their argument. It's an article about the *philosophy* of science, which is why it doesn't consist of pages of equations. Or is philosophy now "pseudo-intellectual crap"?
Btw, the fact that the editors of that original magazine didn't want to print it proves nothing. Unless the argument from authority suddenly stopped being a logical fallacy.
Nowadays, philosophy has almost become a pseudo-intellectual crap, you are right ;) This is simply because there are a lot of very stupid people who are doing philosophy, because it does not require to be very smart as opposed to the hardcore physical sciences.
The fact that the editors or a peer review process rejected the paper is EXTREMELY relevant. Do you have any idea on the flow of papers from crackpots who claim to have found a unified theory of everything, of just some new reinterpretation of QM ? Those people are almost all of the same type; they have absolutely no background in physics. It is important for the progress of science to have an authority system which put non scientific paper to garbage, and your paper belong to that category.
Actually, it does, if you're going to do it correctly. Anyone can ignorantly blather about things, but doing philosophy or understanding it at least is not something anyone can do except when it comes to the most basics. You could say courses are dumbed down though....
Yes. Peer review can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. Did Tesla have peers? Did Newton have peers? No. Michael Crighton made a great observation on this. He said the word "consensus" should be forgotten about in science, it has nothing to do with science. All that matters is reality. The number of so-called "peers" who agree with an idea has nothing to do with its accuracy.
Peer review is crucial in science, it separates the crackpots from the real scienctist.
Tesla and Newton had peers review, just not has systematic peers review as we have today (Newton's mistakes were revealed because other scientists saw them, and Newton conceded when the mistake was indeed a mistake). But here is the problem, science has grown a lot since then, so we need to organize, and instead of having non-organize peers like Newton and Tesla we now have journal peer review.
@sicjd The pseudo intellectuals are the intellectuals of accepted mainstream science who seek to deny truth and only spit out rhetoric or dogma or whatever the right word is.
Hmm, my understanding of QM is that it focuses on the general laws and ignores the particular events, because they are so conceptually intractable. In other words, QM focuses only on mathematical formalisms and their general experimental predictions and leaves the explanation of what is actually going on in any particular instance up in the air...
You are quite right, QM needs no interpretation (there is a nice paper by the same title by Asher Peres and Chris Fuch if I remember correctly, you should look it up on the arxiv). If QM was in trouble, experimentalist would have told us by then. ;)
"You are quite right, QM needs no interpretation..."
Physicist Travis Norton has written an article in response to Fuchs and Perez stating why the current view of QM is itself a highly philosophical interpretation of the data. The name of the article is "Quantum Theory: Interpretation Cannot Be Avoided." You can find it in a Google search.
"If QM was in trouble, experimentalist would have told us by then."
Have you ever heard of Ptolemy? His calculations were used even AFTER Copernicus because his MATH was very accurate. But his theory (sun circles earth) was WRONG regardless of his mathematical accuracy.
I have heard of Ptolemy, it's a good point but I don't think the comparison is accurate here. The accuracy and the deep understanding that we have nowadays of QM cannot be compared to the very little observation and speculation of back then. Plus I think you got me all wrong; I totally agree that math is not all. But QM is a lot more than just math, it's a consistent and coherent explanation of the microscopic world. There exists no hidden variable theory that can explain the experiments.
When the plumber comes to my house, I don't tell him how to do his job because I don't know anything about what he is doing.
Perhaps you should do the same ! You clearly don't understand quantum mechanics, cosmology, string theory and so on. You should stick to you pseudo-intellectual crap and leave the physics to physicist.
For god sake you talk about entanglement and you clearly don't understand what it is! You say that modern cosmology is not based on evidence, ever heard of the CMB ?
naa, for someone who doesn't study physics, he grasped the fundamentals. It was a philosophical physics talk anyway, something we need more of. Just because you are studying QM, don't gotta take the elitist position and dismiss someone who hasn't taken the classes as well.
zieben64 1 month ago
@zieben64 Bohm's model is awesome! All the weirdnesses in the Copenhagen model, are automatically explained when you simply view the world as a quantum computer program, which is non-local at root.
As an interesting aside, this actually makes lots of sense considering quantum gravity and the holographic universe. The intervening space is really just an illusion, and so it makes sense why non-local variables would exist.
JohananRaatz 3 weeks ago
Just because you stand infront of books, it doesn't make you an expert on anything. You have no understanding of Quantum Mechanics or David Bohms theories.
ShkieshaAsantewa 1 month ago
Bohm dared to crossed that apparently dis-credited & disdained line of assigning prior cause to somewhere other then within the confines of the physical dimensions. The Aharonov–Bohm effect is one experiment that starts to demonstrate that VIEWPOINT influences the Quantum World. When looking at his work within the context of other seminal thinkers as Rupert Sheldrake & Fritoj Capra we see a new paradigm being created that is actually just the re-discovery of a forgotten truth.
KurtRussell1963 6 months ago
Most Scientists & Mathematicians are trying to THINK their way out of that hole. They try to create space by using SYMBOLS when in fact the simpler truth is that there is another UNIVERSE that has a vast amount of space, greater than the Physical Universe: YOUR OWN UNIVERSE. The Physical realm is actually a BOUNDED FINITE SPACE while ONE'S OWN UNIVERSE is currently BOUNDED but INFINITE & has a Potentiality of being not only UN-bounded but re-asserting it's condition of UN-created as well.
KurtRussell1963 6 months ago
The individualistic nature is revealed in Quantum mechanics to been the extension of a seamless web of energy that operates on a different system of rules then the one we observe with the humanoid eyes. The underlying web is a reflection of the innate creativity of the viewpoints involved in this game called the "physical realm". In fact the truth could be more stated that we are 4 dimensional beings who have forgotten that they have fallen into a 3 dimensional hole.
KurtRussell1963 6 months ago
Physics searches for the prior cause prior cause prior cause. Quantum Mechanics starts to show what Spiritual Masters through the centuries have already known: the Prior cause does not lie within the physical realm but in the viewpoint of the observer. This "physical universe" is but a holographic projection of an agreed upon reality. The materialistic& separate nature of the physical universe is a consequence of the agreed upon reality of the participating viewpoints. It is of our own creation.
KurtRussell1963 6 months ago
I'm pretty sure he's not saying "Gravity applies to everything." That is in itself an example of fragmentation. He's saying that the moon affects the orbit of Jupiter's moons.
AlanShore4god 7 months ago
3700 gigantic hits please kill yourself.
davefrom2001 9 months ago
missing the point with 100 percent this numbskull
he is also lying wildly or an idiot
davefrom2001 9 months ago
missing the point with 100 percent this numbskull
davefrom2001 9 months ago
You speak with such a remarkable, misguided, and utterly unearned sense of confidence. Which of his numerous books have you read? If none, you might want to accept the fact that no one has any reason to accept your criticisms as valid.
11889music 10 months ago
Your Image about Yourself is the source of all your actions! But no one's image is the Actuality!
human2011able 11 months ago
so your aaying that individuals MUST support a military industrial complex right?
zezt 11 months ago
UTTER NONSENSE
DJBUBBLEGOOSE 1 year ago
Hi mrCopper. You know, David Bohm as many other modern thinkers has been deeply influensed by Alfred Korzybski and his book science and sanity He is famus for saying "The map is not the territory" to really understand David Bohms view on theories, It's best to look up Korzybski and who he was on wikimedia or something? Good luck!
sahaja66 1 year ago
You sound like a robot. David Bohm sounds like a human.
bvssvni 1 year ago
Like the quantum to understand literature we must see it as a whole not as its bits of words,sentences paragraphs, chapters, pages or even books. We must first read all the writing that have ever been written before we can truly understand what literature means. The whole is always greater than its parts.
But then the whole of literature can never be known or understood until the final book is finished when we will have a complete literary whole whose whole will be greater than its parts.
derekjanet 1 year ago
MrCropper certainly doesn't like Mr Bohm. Reasons may be hideous and dark. But he certainly has tried his best to make fun of Bohm. Hats off to his hard work that he put into making this video. Atleast he deserves something.
He tries to be sarcastic through out the videos, when he is quoting Bohm he thinks its funny, but alas his peanut brains are too small to realize that his inability to understand Bohm is his problem and not Bohm's.
I feel for MrCropper, may god be with him.
djniser 1 year ago
So I didn't actually because you said "I know virtually nothing about Bohm" Then you started talking about him. I was wondering what your position on his thoughts are.
P.S. Sorry about the nasty comment before.
GillianTom 1 year ago
You're a jerk and idiot.
GillianTom 1 year ago
With all my respect Mr. MrCopper, your discourse shows a form of insanity seen only on TV fundamentalist shows...and what is worse you speak and argue as almost like someone who knows or makes sense, what a tragedy...I hope your nonsense won't cause too much damage.....sorry Mr. MrCrepper.....there are I'm sure better ways for you to waste your time!!
(PS. from someone who actually met David Bohm)
tantalico 1 year ago
fragmentation is a product of education and ultimately conditioning.
Without any propoganda and belief manifested by religious sects of all denominations , truth is real and as plain as black and white.
Philosophy, physics or any analitical disection of phenomena is a pointless and time consuming waste of life and true energy, that only appears when all these theoretical and experimental concepts are laid to rest! Why waste this one way trip on trying to grasp the immensity of living and creatio
fusionhar 1 year ago
You're such an idiot, Mr. Cropper.
1Void0Infinity1 1 year ago
mrcropper, have you any idea how silly you look? I don't mean to be rude but bohm was a true thinker, the problem was their lacked intelligent questioning, which he had difficulty with. lets see some theories of your great thinking brain mrcropper before you try to pull appart things you obviously don't have a handler on
Karlemids 1 year ago
hey u mr. idiot. go to a kindergarten. your place is not here. how in the hell you think you can so easily discredit person like david bohm just like that. common man. get some life. u'd better go play some video games or help your mom out in the kitchen.that will be more worthwhile for you.
qcon81 1 year ago
It is so typical of this fool. Making videos about things he admits he knows nothing about...
It is horrific to think this guy is allowed to 'teach' children.
Drastam 1 year ago
the guy's a fuckin nextlevel weirdo. what a cunt
SajadSaeedi 1 year ago
@SajadSaeedi At the risk of wasting my time might I suggest you take a moment to think in detail what information you object to when placing comments. It would be a smart move on your part to consider how intellegent thinking individuals are going to utilize your comments. So are you all about joining the juveniles in a childs game of name calling, or are you going to think about what you are putting on record for all to see?
TheKindwar 1 year ago
For someone to go to such great effort to attempt to discredit another is questionable at best.
There must be a big payoff to perform such a task.
Also an indication that there is great value in his information to the point it could threaten some greedy entity that could pay for such a task to insure their own prosperity.
Eagles can fly on their own.
Scoundrels must bring others down to thier level.
TheKindwar 1 year ago
It would take a man of substantially more intellect to successfully critique someone of Bohm's stature. You should understand that Bohm is held in the highest regard as a scientist...a metaphysicist ? ... not so much !
jonnylazer 2 years ago
straw man, if you going to criticize him, at least quote him correctly so you can be sure your critique is relevant...
BrandonEM09 2 years ago 5
I think this is not the way of criticizing a scientist like David Bohm who is deeply concerned about humanity and dialogue. I think he is a very successful and his ideas are universal. Even if you dont have to accept them all, they definitely deserve some respect.
Monotarkan 2 years ago 2
"Supposed" double slit experiment? Have you actually done the experiment? Have you ever studied the equations which make the predictions of the double slit experiment?
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
what a joke...videos about one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, by a man who knows nothing about him or physics.
Cropper outdoes himself again.
siddhaam 2 years ago 6
Knowing very little is not the way to go with Bom's work. He has very unique ideas. Succinct youtube videos are only an overview.
His books on quantum physics and relativity are highly revered, highly accessible.
His own work with the Implicate Order is very interesting, very subtle thinking. All of his essays are meticulous, and well articulated.
Recordings of his university lectures are very insightful.
I suggest you get to know Bohm before making any more video on his thinking.
abyssquick 2 years ago 26
Comment removed
MrRob8200 2 years ago
Dear MrCooper,
You seem to have certain degree of intrinsic motivation regarding D. Bohm's work. I would kindly suggest you take the time to read "Wholeness & the Implicate Order". In this book D. Bohm thourghly explains l why abd how the general theory of relativity (Einstein) and Quantm Theory (Niels Bohr) point to undevided wholeness. Then he elaborates on the Implicate and Explicate orders as well as his most revolutionary and misunderstood concept, which is the holomovement.
MrRob8200 2 years ago 2
You watch a few YouTube videos and think you are qualified to dispute a Physicist who worked with Einstein.. worked on the Manhattan Project, etc., etc.
Get a life! & read book while your at it.
zenlama 2 years ago 24
great speaker
goodsirknight 2 years ago
You should be a YouTube partner. Do you know anything about the program?
loktkey 3 years ago
You are a kind man to take the time to teach others.
Thank you so much, you represent more than most the potential of YouTube.
loktkey 3 years ago
I know the late David Bohm's friend and Physicist F.David Peat, I am an anarchist.
In fact I appear in David Peats book Gentle Action (2008)!
FacultyZ 3 years ago
I would strongly suggest furthering your study of David Bohm to his books - and doing so under no presumptions of his ideas. Good intentions, but perhaps premature results.
AgentLogik 3 years ago 5
What causes two electrons to become entangled?
nine9s 3 years ago
"What causes two electrons to become entangled?"
All right, forget that question. Still not really getting why the particle would separate for two slits but not one.
Saying "the universe is one" doesn't really explain anything to me. "How" and "why" still have no answers.
nine9s 3 years ago
Not sure to understand what you mean when you say "Still not really getting why the particle would separate for two slits but not one". The physics is the same in both experiment, only the setup changes.
Who is saying the universe is one ? I'm not sure what this means anyway ...
sicjd 3 years ago
''Without realism the strong realistic Einstein causality will be meaningless and undefined.''
That's not true, look out microcausality, this is how to define causality in QFT. Bohm interpretation cannot really be extanted to QFT by the way, some crackpot have tried and will always be trying, but there is some fundamental inconsistency that pop up in QFT.
If you want a good concrete example of causality in QM look for the Fermi two atom problem.
sicjd 3 years ago
Dear sicjd,
yes the theory predicts effects that move faster than the speed of light. These non observable effects can be seen only indirectly through violations of BT. Weak relativistic symmetry(All observable effects have relativistic symmetry) - this is all we can test with experiments - is not destroyed. Without realism the strong realistic Einstein causality will be meaningless and undefined.
Greetings,
MirrorMatch
MirrorMatch 3 years ago
There is a really good SEP article on Bohmian Mechanics. It's the first link if you google "Bohmian Mechanics."
NotSoConventionalW 3 years ago
Bohmian Mechanics is non-local, and insists upon it. I don't see why this is a complaint against Bohm, since non-locality was experimentally confirmed in 80s by Aspect.
NotSoConventionalW 3 years ago
Try to understand the implication of having signals that can transmit information faster then light, when special relativity forbids it and is tested on a daily basis (just like QM btw), you will see that it is quite a big problem.
Non-locality was for sure not tested experimentally, you're confusing non-locality with correlation, and correlation which is extremely useful in quantum computing cannot be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light.
sicjd 3 years ago
"Try to understand the implication of having signals that can transmit information faster then light,"
I've never understood the reification of "information" in physics. Information isn't a thing or an object; it's a mental abstraction. How does physics define "information"?
nine9s 3 years ago
Well classical and quantum information are both very broad field, and very mathematical so I'm not sure where to start.
It usually help if you know something about the microscopic character of entropy. Do you know something in that area ?
sicjd 3 years ago
Comment removed
sicjd 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Otherwise the usual pop science introduction to information usually start with Shannon's idea of information, namely that information is a surprise. With probability distribution you can quantify your lack of knowledge of some observable, and the gain of information is the quantity that sort of quantify the difference between the lack of information before and after events. Hope that helps.
sicjd 3 years ago
Yes in Bohm interpretation, non-locality is instantaneous information whether you want it or not.
And if you say you understand Bohm interpretation so much better then I do, would you be kind enough to explain me how does he escape information flow faster than the speed of light ?
sicjd 3 years ago
Dear sicjd,
you're saying:"There exists no hidden variable theory[hvt] that can explain the experiments."
That's not correct. There are for example Bohmian mechanics(BM) and Nelsonian stochastics. Bell's theorem(BT) assumes the local realism of EPR. Therefore BT says that there exists no local realism hvt that can explain the experiments. BM rejects locality(strong Einstein causality) in favour of realism. Therefore BM can explain the experiments.
Greetings,
MirrorMatch
MirrorMatch 3 years ago
Sorry I should have said : " there exists no hidden variable theory that is causal that can explain the experiments "
This is one of many things I have in mind when I say that BM fails the relativistic upgrade.
sicjd 3 years ago
Locality, and therefore causality, is almost sacred in physics. If you give up locality, you're allowing information to flow at a speed greater than light, then you open a door to completely weird phenomenons that will never happen in experiments.
sicjd 3 years ago
The problem with this interpretation is that you give up locality only when you want to; in other words we know for a fact that the universe is fundamentally causal and local, but in order to get realism at all price you fudge some inconsistency in there,give up locality from time to time without any particular reason other then you don't want to give up realism.
Not to mention that BM does not provide any mechanism or any explanation on how or on why information would flow instantaneously.
sicjd 3 years ago
"If you give up locality, you're allowing information to flow at a speed greater than light, then you open a door to completely weird phenomenons"
Not in Bohm's interpretation.
MrCropper 3 years ago
@sicjd Yes they will and also so what?
GillianTom 1 year ago
I don't intend to, and by the way you haven't refuted any sentence from the Peres-Fuch paper.
sicjd 3 years ago
You're kidding right ? This paper is a joke, it has been rejected by peer review on physics today, and only posted on the arxiv. This 3 pages long essay contain one single equation and almost no scientific content., and it has accumulated zero citation. This is not science but only pseudo-intellectual crap !
sicjd 3 years ago
sicjd -- I note that you haven't said one thing about the content of their argument. It's an article about the *philosophy* of science, which is why it doesn't consist of pages of equations. Or is philosophy now "pseudo-intellectual crap"?
Btw, the fact that the editors of that original magazine didn't want to print it proves nothing. Unless the argument from authority suddenly stopped being a logical fallacy.
nine9s 3 years ago
Nowadays, philosophy has almost become a pseudo-intellectual crap, you are right ;) This is simply because there are a lot of very stupid people who are doing philosophy, because it does not require to be very smart as opposed to the hardcore physical sciences.
sicjd 3 years ago
The fact that the editors or a peer review process rejected the paper is EXTREMELY relevant. Do you have any idea on the flow of papers from crackpots who claim to have found a unified theory of everything, of just some new reinterpretation of QM ? Those people are almost all of the same type; they have absolutely no background in physics. It is important for the progress of science to have an authority system which put non scientific paper to garbage, and your paper belong to that category.
sicjd 3 years ago
You still have not refuted a single sentence in that paper.
nine9s 3 years ago
Actually, it does, if you're going to do it correctly. Anyone can ignorantly blather about things, but doing philosophy or understanding it at least is not something anyone can do except when it comes to the most basics. You could say courses are dumbed down though....
Moragauth 3 years ago
Ya, because remembering lots of things well and functioning like a robot is truly admirable and noteworthy.
regresseur 3 years ago
"it has been rejected by peer review"
Most important ideas in science are stoutly resisted by unthinking numbskulls like yourself.
MrCropper 3 years ago 4
Says who ? Some guy with absolutely no background in science ? Like I said, don't tell your plumber how to do his job ....
sicjd 3 years ago
Yes. Peer review can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. Did Tesla have peers? Did Newton have peers? No. Michael Crighton made a great observation on this. He said the word "consensus" should be forgotten about in science, it has nothing to do with science. All that matters is reality. The number of so-called "peers" who agree with an idea has nothing to do with its accuracy.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago 2
Peer review is crucial in science, it separates the crackpots from the real scienctist.
Tesla and Newton had peers review, just not has systematic peers review as we have today (Newton's mistakes were revealed because other scientists saw them, and Newton conceded when the mistake was indeed a mistake). But here is the problem, science has grown a lot since then, so we need to organize, and instead of having non-organize peers like Newton and Tesla we now have journal peer review.
sicjd 3 years ago
@MrCropper you're a self-righteous idiot. go fuck yourself.
suitabledude 9 months ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrCropper Mr Cropper out of curiosity, have you seen my video on Bohm's Implicate Order model yet?
watch?v=Jzfj4R52Q6I
I really think he was on to something.
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
@sicjd The pseudo intellectuals are the intellectuals of accepted mainstream science who seek to deny truth and only spit out rhetoric or dogma or whatever the right word is.
GillianTom 1 year ago
Hmm, my understanding of QM is that it focuses on the general laws and ignores the particular events, because they are so conceptually intractable. In other words, QM focuses only on mathematical formalisms and their general experimental predictions and leaves the explanation of what is actually going on in any particular instance up in the air...
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
You are quite right, QM needs no interpretation (there is a nice paper by the same title by Asher Peres and Chris Fuch if I remember correctly, you should look it up on the arxiv). If QM was in trouble, experimentalist would have told us by then. ;)
sicjd 3 years ago
"You are quite right, QM needs no interpretation..."
Physicist Travis Norton has written an article in response to Fuchs and Perez stating why the current view of QM is itself a highly philosophical interpretation of the data. The name of the article is "Quantum Theory: Interpretation Cannot Be Avoided." You can find it in a Google search.
nine9s 3 years ago
"If QM was in trouble, experimentalist would have told us by then."
Have you ever heard of Ptolemy? His calculations were used even AFTER Copernicus because his MATH was very accurate. But his theory (sun circles earth) was WRONG regardless of his mathematical accuracy.
MrCropper 3 years ago
I have heard of Ptolemy, it's a good point but I don't think the comparison is accurate here. The accuracy and the deep understanding that we have nowadays of QM cannot be compared to the very little observation and speculation of back then. Plus I think you got me all wrong; I totally agree that math is not all. But QM is a lot more than just math, it's a consistent and coherent explanation of the microscopic world. There exists no hidden variable theory that can explain the experiments.
sicjd 3 years ago
Not to mention that I never really liked those arguments; if you want to argue about QM well let's talk about QM, not about old celestial mechanic.
sicjd 3 years ago
When the plumber comes to my house, I don't tell him how to do his job because I don't know anything about what he is doing.
Perhaps you should do the same ! You clearly don't understand quantum mechanics, cosmology, string theory and so on. You should stick to you pseudo-intellectual crap and leave the physics to physicist.
For god sake you talk about entanglement and you clearly don't understand what it is! You say that modern cosmology is not based on evidence, ever heard of the CMB ?
sicjd 3 years ago 4
its best to listen to MrCropper as you would a standup comic.
his style is hilarious.
love ya MrCropper !
alovelytime 3 years ago
Yeah I have to agree, he takes himself so seriously this is pretty funny !
sicjd 3 years ago