1. Cocoa Butter - Organic & Fair Trade Certified
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. **NEW** BL11 - Orange, Red & Infrared Therapy Body Light
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Charcoal Soap - For Deep Cleansing
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Orange & Red Light Therapy Device - LGS1
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Organic Cocoa Powder
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Metabasoap - Handcrafted Soap
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  7. Cascara Sagrada Powder From Farmalabor In Italy
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  8. **NEW Mini Body Light** MBL1 - Orange & Red Light Therapy Mini Body Light
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice

Bohmian Mechanics Validated Once Again

Discussion in 'Scientific Studies' started by haidut, May 20, 2016.

  1. haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    15,910
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    I posted a number of threads on David Bohm and is "alternative" version of quantum mechanics (QM), which is deterministic and non-local (very long distance interaction) - i.e. properties of the world Peat has often written about, albeit more in the context of biochemistry and health.
    Bohmian mechanics did not become as popular as other versions of QM such as the Many Worlds Interpretation, and the Copenhagen Interpretation. One of the main reasons is that a paper was published in 1992 that said if Bohmian mechanics is true then elementary particles will have behavior so bizarre it would be "surreal". But life is stranger than fiction, and so it seems that the argument of this 1992 paper have been invalidated experimentally, thus rekindling interest in Bohmian mechanics, especially after the other recent experiments at MIT seemingly proving Bohm right.
    The implications of Bohmian mechanics are very similar to the Electric Universe Theory (EUT). There is global order in the entire Universe where the position and future of every particles is affected by every other particle in the Universe. Also, some processes in the Universe operate at speeds much faster than the speed of light. Almost like the scalar waves the EUT discusses.

    New Support for Alternative Quantum View | Quanta Magazine

    "...In the Bohmian view, nonlocality is even more conspicuous. The trajectory of any one particle depends on what all the other particles described by the same wave function are doing. And, critically, the wave function has no geographic limits; it might, in principle, span the entire universe. Which means that the universe is weirdly interdependent, even across vast stretches of space. The wave function “combines — or binds — distant particles into a single irreducible reality,” as Sheldon Goldstein, a mathematician and physicist at Rutgers University, has written."

    "...But not everyone feels that way, and over the years the Bohm view has struggled to gain acceptance, trailing behind Copenhagen and, these days, behind Many Worlds as well. A significant blow came with the paper known as “ESSW,” an acronym built from the names of its four authors. The ESSW paper claimed that particles can’t follow simple Bohmian trajectories as they traverse the double-slit experiment. Suppose that someone placed a detector next to each slit, argued ESSW, recording which particle passed through which slit. ESSW showed that a photon could pass through the left slit and yet, in the Bohmian view, still end up being recorded as having passed through the right slit. This seemed impossible; the photons were deemed to follow “surreal” trajectories, as the ESSW paper put it."

    "...But Steinberg has found a way to rekindle that love. In a paper published in Science Advances, Steinberg and his colleagues — the team includes Wiseman, in Australia, as well as five other Canadian researchers — describe what happened when they actually performed the ESSW experiment. They found that the photon trajectories aren’t surrealistic after all — or, more precisely, that the paths may seem surrealistic, but only if one fails to take into account the nonlocality inherent in Bohm’s theory."

    "...But even for those who embrace the Bohmian view, with its clearly defined particles moving along precise paths, questions remain. Topping the list is an apparent tension with special relativity, which prohibits faster-than-light communication. Of course, as physicists have long noted, nonlocality of the sort associated with quantum entanglement does not allow for faster-than-light signaling (thus incurring no risk of the grandfather paradox or other violations of causality). Even so, many physicists feel that more clarification is needed, especially given the prominent role of nonlocality in the Bohmian view. The apparent dependence of what happens here on what may be happening there cries out for an explanation. “The universe seems to like talking to itself faster than the speed of light,” said Steinberg. “I could understand a universe where nothing can go faster than light, but a universe where the internal workings operate faster than light, and yet we’re forbidden from ever making use of that at the macroscopic level — it’s very hard to understand.”
     
  2. Diokine

    Diokine Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2016
    Messages:
    424
    I remember the first time I read about pilot wave theory and de Broglie - Bohm theory. It explained a lot of ideas I had been having about the nature of light, time, and entropy. Absolutely fascinating stuff. I wonder also if you had explored any ideas about entropic gravity? Also some of the interpretations of the quantum hydrodynamic analogs, which demonstrate quantum phenomenon by bouncing fluid droplets off of a vibrating fluid plane. Check out the videos of the some of those experiments, it clearly demonstrates what could considered interactions between wave functions and how they manifest. Regarding faster than light information propagation, consider the case of a bound vibrating fluid surface, which is close to the transition to a Faraday wave. A change in amplitude, frequency, or boundary conditions can instantly change the energy distribution of the surface, and will change the pattern of the Faraday wave. This is analogous to information propagating at the speed of light. In some instances, due to the symmetry (or symmetry breaking) of the energy distribution (the shape of the surface of the fluid) in the system, events can occur at exactly the same time but separated spatially, which would imply faster than light communication. This can be considered quantum coherence. If you've ever seen an ultrasonic cleaning machine, with the surface ripples that come from the sound, you've seen what I'm talking about. I think this concept is very important for biology.

    These ideas also raise some questions about the nature of time and the speed of light. I think it's more appropriate to think of the speed of light as a limit on the propagation rate of information in a system, or more simply a limit on the speed of time. This is where some of the ideas of entropic gravity come into play. Local to an observer, the rate of the passing of time is always the same. In fact, it becomes difficult or impossible to tell if you are traveling at a different rate of time than something not local to you. The only way you can do it is to have something recording how much time is going by (for instance by counting the number of oscillations in the electrons of an atom,) and then comparing that with measurements taken elsewhere. This is actually giving you a direct measurement in the difference of the rate of entropy in those two systems. That is actually the only way to properly define time, as the rate of entropy in a system. When you have two systems that differ in their rates of entropy (or speed of time,) the nature of the universe trying to equal them out will create gravity. For instance, the large mass at the center of the earth travels slower through time than the surface, and this large difference in the rate of time manifests as gravity.

    This can be expanded to the nature of light as well. It is important to look at the nature of the universe as one that always tries to even out. Anytime there is a difference in energy distribution or rates of entropy, a field or force will be generated (in a sense) that tries to oppose this difference. I like to think of light as the physical manifestation of that idea. I have some more I'd like to add on that but I'll save it for another time.

    The picture these ideas give me of the universe is one of symmetry, harmony, and impossibly complex interactions. I think that life is sort of "pre-programmed" into reality, in the sense that there was not really some "spark" that ignited life, rather that life is an inevitable consequence of the nature of reality.
     
  3. jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    1,035
    Interesting stuff! Even though I only have the most superficial understanding of the leading quantum theories, this one puts my mind at ease a lot more than the philosophically ungraspable many worlds or the unexplained Copenhagen collapse. It's fun having a new theory to root for.
     
  4. Parsifal

    Parsifal Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Messages:
    1,073
    @tyw I'm sure you would have very interesting things to say :).
     
  5. narouz

    narouz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,429
    I've enjoyed your Bohmian threads very much, haidut.
    By all means, carry on!
     
  6. tyw

    tyw Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    407
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Software Developer
    Location:
    Cairns, Australia
    Eh, this is a "huge can of worms" type topic for me ;) I'm pretty busy this week (work .... ), but I'll say for now that I am a subscriber to the ideas of Miles Mathis, whom in my mind, has completed falsified Quantum Mechanics, and then came up with a set of Real Particle Mechanics, which predict real life phenomena very very well, and were much more compatible with the biological models of reality (a la Mae-Wan Ho, Ling, Peat, etc ....)

    None of this faith in Mathematical manipulation, just concrete mechanics (in the spirit of Classical Physics), which are amenable to testing.

    On the topic of this particular thread, Bohm is guilty of using math in places of mechanics -- http://milesmathis.com/pilot.pdf

    Sidenote: articles like this are very typical of Mathis :bag:. It's horrible .... he leaves no stone unturned, which means you have to read all the linked articles in a particular article for that particular article to make sense :blackeye:.​

    Finding Mathis' work was a big mind-blown-moment for me :banghead: , had to throw all my prior ideas of Physics into the trash can, because I could see the principles of modern physics so clearly falsified .... In any case, more on this later in my week perhaps.

    ...
     
  7. tonto

    tonto Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2014
    Messages:
    46
    tyw - glad to hear from a fellow Mathis reader. At the very least, especially with his non-science articles, he gives you much to think about.
     
  8. Nighteyes

    Nighteyes Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2015
    Messages:
    303
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Europe
    Where do you suggest one starts to get a good idea about this fellow? Any good books you can reccommend?
     
  9. tyw

    tyw Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    407
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Software Developer
    Location:
    Cairns, Australia
    Heheh, his non-science articles are wild ;) I focus mainly on the (a) falsification of existing science, and (b) the alternative mechanics he presents which are crazy predictive of real world phenomena ....

    IMO, of all the models out there, his models are the most compatible with the "Bio-energetics" way of thinking. Everything electromagnetic is now given a real mass, with real spin. All interactions (eg: chemical bonding, state of matter) come down to charge transfer. Even his explanations for charge-separated water are both the simplest, and yet most accurate I've seen :bag:

    His books are shown on his homepage -- book order by Miles Mathis . 'The Un-unified Field' is probably the best physics related book. But TBH, the articles on the site provide everything just as well.

    I personally find it easier to digest things according to specific contexts, eg: Why is the Pound-Rebka experiment false? Why is gravitational lensing of starlight false? What causes the Earth's heat? (incidentally, he is the ONLY person to explain Landscheit cycles from a purely mechanical perspective :bigtears:)

    ...
     
  10. Nighteyes

    Nighteyes Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2015
    Messages:
    303
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Europe
    Heh was just reading up on amazon reviews - ahem lets just say not everyone likes the man ;) But then again, anyone who goes against dogma and established ideas is going to have a bad time from some people. Hard to seperate what is truth with so many conflicting interests and theories. As with all other things one eventually settles on a belief until one shifts to another. Better than floating I suppose ;)
     
  11. tyw

    tyw Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    407
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Software Developer
    Location:
    Cairns, Australia
    IMO, our priority should be to figure out what is FALSE, before we try to figure out what is true. Falsification is much easier, and one falsification renders a model false.

    Approaching Mathis' work is probably best done starting with the articles which breakdown what is considered to be "Good Physics" by today's scientists. There you will find very specific and direct teardowns of false assumptions and lots of fudging in physics.

    Some things I thought we so obvious, like using pi = 3.142 in vector based equations, he actually falsifies :banghead: -- the extinction of pi by Miles Mathis . Something as obvious as "You can't apply a scalar quantity to vector equations of circular motion" has been completed ignored by Physics, and correcting those equations obviously leads to vast changes in all of Physics :arghh:

    Then you got papers that really make you say, "yeah, I guess I just took electron pairs and bonding as some magic :bucktooth:" -- http://milesmathis.com/ionic.pdf

    And by "specific falsifications", you have to get technical, with articles like this -- More Problems with General Relativity

    ---

    Whether or not Mathis' models are correct, his falsifications stand.

    And no, this doesn't mean that empirical observations are wrong. All it means that the models that we use to describe them are not very good.

    And no, this doesn't compromise any of our present engineering efforts. Remember that for a Scientist, an error is a fatal flaw in the model, but for an Engineer, a consistent error in the models (like that 4% error with Einstein's field equations) is still deterministic behaviour ;). Engineers only care that things work deterministically, and not really about why things exhibit the observed determinism.

    The implications for future engineering efforts are obviously very important. For example, I view the entire idea of Quantum Computers as a big waste of resources chasing something that is inherently impossible (same with Quantum Cryptography). Obviously, all these super-colliders are royal sinks of energy and taxpayer dollars that yield absolutely nothing useful.

    ----

    While I like the falsifications, I still try and use his models to "Assert. De-complect. and Falsify" other things I see in the world ;)

    Especially regarding the intersection of biology and physics, his models currently offer plausible explanations for things like cell intelligence communication channels (charge-separated water is basically just a channel for IR light), and I have a hunch that reasoning about "charge entry and blockage points" with PUFAs like DHA will yield explanations for questions like: Why is it oxidised in this medium? Why does Vitamin E protect DHA from oxidisation? Why does it "push cholesterol away" when incorporated into cell membranes? What implications does this have for its presence in the brain (which has a lot of cholesterol)?

    His repulsion-only model of Electromagnetism also provides the best mechanical explanation for Mae-wan Ho's idea of "coherence attractions" -- If photons have real mass, then we are living in a field of constant photon bombardment (Dark Matter is just this "charge field", and is 95% of all matter around -- the charge field is strong).

    The implication is that any 2 or more objects which emits photons that destructively interfere with each other (eg: exact same frequency and spin), will be definition "attract" each other -- which really is the emission field between these objects is now lessened, and then the ambient charge field pushes the objects closer together.

    Now that rings a lot of bells for things like enzyme mechanics ;):

    - ranging from generics like "How do enzymes find their substrate?" (it would make sense if their emission fields were the same)
    - to very specific questions like, "Why does DHA need to be attached to the sn-2 position on the Phosphatidylcholine backbone for uptake by MSDF2A?" (if you look at the glycerol backbone, the sn-2 position is the position which is most exposed to incoming lateral charge. Why do PUFAs prefer this position, compared with SFAs usually in the sn-1 or sn-3 position? This hints at specific charge affinities of PUFA. Is this a plausible mechanic?

    Mathis' models have helped me raise questions like that ;) I now have more tools to reason about what I previously couldn't reason about ;)

    So yeah, that's why I like Mathis' writings.

    ....
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - Bohmian Mechanics Validated
  1. AmishMechanic
    Replies:
    65
    Views:
    3,554