View Full Version : Would Bohr be born if Bohm were born before Born?
Demystifier
Feb9-07, 05:20 AM
In
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702069
I discuss a hypothetical historical context in which a Bohm-like deterministic interpretation of the Schrodinger equation could have been proposed before the Born probabilistic interpretation and argue that in such a context the Copenhagen (Bohr) interpretation would probably have never achieved great popularity among physicists.
Comments are wellcome.
Ahh if so, lets Call BOHR, pi, BOHM, e, and born, i, just to make things easier to distinguish lol! Even wen i read the title, i thought it was would bohr we born if bohm was born before bohr? and i was lost
In
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702069
I discuss a hypothetical historical context in which a Bohm-like deterministic interpretation of the Schrodinger equation could have been proposed before the Born probabilistic interpretation and argue that in such a context the Copenhagen (Bohr) interpretation would probably have never achieved great popularity among physicists.
Didn't read the paper, but I can surely make one comment. Schroedinger himself was from the start not very favorable to a probabilistic interpretation. So the idea wasn't new.
PhilosophyofPhysics
Feb15-07, 09:01 PM
lol it almost seems as if the modern interpretations look ridiculous...
Demystifier
Feb20-07, 08:07 AM
lol it almost seems as if the modern interpretations look ridiculous...
Well, that indeed was one of the intentions of the writer. :wink:
I enjoyed the paper, despite the tongue-twisting title. Boh(e)mian Rhapsody--hilarious! I fully agree that the "Copenhagen Interpretation" would never have been taken seriously but for historical happenstance.
Jim Cushing argues similarly in his "Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony" (James T. Cushing; 1994)
Demystifier
Feb20-07, 08:46 AM
Thanks Doc Al!
Yes, I have already been informed about the book of Cushing. I will cite it in a revised version.
BTW, you could also contribute by giving your vote here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=146601
Thanks Doc Al!
Yes, I have already been informed about the book of Cushing. I will cite it in a revised version.
Nice title! And interesting!
AND: I'd suggest that you look at http://www.fritz-froehner.de/link01.htm and use it to helpfully modify a little more history while you're at it.
For there we see a common-sense theorem (available in 1915), which shows that any probability distribution may be represented by the absolute square of a complex Fourier polynomial.
(1) p(x) = |Y(x)|^2 = |Y(x)*|^2 = Y(x)*Y(x).
So if Bohm had been born before Born, Born's ''guessing'' might not have been needed!
(Nor Bohm's non-locality? Which would be much more to my liking.)
Regards, wm
Demystifier
Feb21-07, 06:16 AM
Thanks for the interesting paper, wm!
Concerning nonlocality, there is no way to avoid it in Bohm-like approaches.
In fact, the general Bell nonlocality theorem was inspired by the explicit nonlocality inherent to the Bohm interpretation.
Thanks for the interesting paper, wm!
Concerning nonlocality, there is no way to avoid it in Bohm-like approaches.
In fact, the general Bell nonlocality theorem was inspired by the explicit nonlocality inherent to the Bohm interpretation.
1. I agree.
2. To the extent there's any merit in my own struggles: They are ''inspired'' by my inability to see any valid non-locality arising from Bell's theorem.
3. In short: I believe the ''difficulties'' arise from Bell's limited (constrained) realism.
4. That way (for me) locality remains unchallenged; in full accord with relativity.
Time will tell. Regards, wm
Demystifier
Sep12-07, 04:42 AM
In
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702069
I discuss a hypothetical historical context in which a Bohm-like deterministic interpretation of the Schrodinger equation could have been proposed before the Born probabilistic interpretation and argue that in such a context the Copenhagen (Bohr) interpretation would probably have never achieved great popularity among physicists.
If someone is interested, now a revised version (on the link above) accepted for publication in American Journal of Physics is available.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.