IBM and some street gang in New Jersey called the PEAR's already have got patents on some kind of Bell's theorm-theorem input device.
Tom
jan carowan wrote:
> However, in the 1970s
> >when Christopher Philippidis who had been a graduate
> >student of Bohm, pursued reaearch aimed at calculating
> >the shape of the quantum potential. He then applied
> >these calculations to a consideration of the Ehrenberg-
> >Siday-Aharonov-Bohm (ESAB) effect. Whereas, the
> >conventional interpretation of QM took this effect as
> >indicating the existence of nonlocality, within
> >Bohm's causal interpretation of QM, this effect is explicalble
> >in terms of the quantum potential which while modified
> >by the presence of an electrical field is not diminished
> >by distance.
>
> Mr Farmelant,
> Yet the mystery does not dissipate. the quantum potential and the guide wave
> generates apparently moves a photon (or any other particle) without exerting
> anything we would recognize as force. But if a guide wave cannot exert a
> force, then how do photons respond to it? Are we to assume that the photon
> receives and "interprets" this guiding information?! And if one wants to
> insist that the photon behaves like a simple classical particle, responding
> only to the quantum potential and guide wave as its specific location, then
> one has to conclude that the guide wave itself carries information from
> every part of the apparatus. the guide wave must in fact explore all parts
> of an apparatus at once , so as to be abel to relay the necessary
> information to the particle.
>
> > >Einstein presumed that sense experience can be
> > > understood in
> > > terms of an idea of some external reality whose spatially separated
> > > parts
> > > are independent realities, in the sense that they depend on each
> > > other only
> > > via connections that respect space time separation in the usual way:
> >
> >Bohm came to the conclusion that Einstein's assumptions
> >on this did indeed have to be modified. A return to classical
> >physics was forever forclosed but that Einstein's quest for
> >a casual interpretation of quantum mechanics was
> >not thereby (contrary to Bohr & Heisenberg) ruled out.
>
> Well, I certainly cannot rule anything out. Do remember that this debate
> began with Mr Heartfield's declaration that the criterion for objectivity
> must be more than intersubjectivity; this is a difficult, though not
> impossible view, to sustain in light of the findings of quantum mechanics,
> the most profound of of which is Bell's Theorem. Perhaps you will tell Mr
> Heartfield that he has revealed himself to be a complete faker in joking
> that Bell would be read long after Einstein has been forgotten.
>
> > >
> > > instaneous connections are excluded. But the existence of such a
> > > reality
> > > lying behind the world of observed phenomena is precisely what
> > > Bell's
> > > theorem--not the Tao of physics--proves to be impossible.
> >
> >Bell, himself BTW saw Bohm's hidden varaibles theory as
> >being nonlocal just as he saw conventional QM. His own
> >work on this subject owed much to Bohm
>
> OK. Thank you for the contribution.
>
> Yours, Jan
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________________
> Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com