On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:04:17 -0800 "jan carowan" <jancarowan at hotmail.com>
writes:
>
> 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.
That seems to be reasonably accurate depiction of the implications of Bohm's theory. He came to the view that the concept of information is one of the basic concepts of physics.
BTW the interpretation of the concept of the quantum potential became a point of contention between Bohm and Vigier. Vigier had proposed a mechanistic account of how the quantum potential guides the motion of a particle. He posited a subquantum fluid which would exchange energy and momentum with the particle and so in effect, push it along. Bohm, however, concluded that this approach would not do precisely because it seemed to give short shrift to nolocality.
>
>
> > >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.
Perhaps, Jim Heartfield should have joked that Bell would be read long after Bohr & Heisenberg were forgotten.
Jim F.
>
> OK. Thank you for the contribution.
>
> Yours, Jan
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
____________
> Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
> http://explorer.msn.com
>
________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.