Congratulations to Demystifier

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomas Larsson
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the peculiar title of an arXiv paper, "Would Bohr be born if Bohm were born before Born?", and includes reflections on its uniqueness and implications. Participants also share links to related papers and engage in light commentary about the authors and their contributions to the field.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight the unusual nature of the arXiv title and its tongue-twisting quality.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about whether to mention the identity of the author, suggesting a desire to respect anonymity.
  • A participant confirms their identity is not a secret, indicating a level of comfort in being recognized.
  • Another participant shares a link to a different paper that they find interesting, contributing to the broader discussion on related topics.
  • A further contribution discusses the implications of quantum mechanics' locality versus nonlocality, referencing a paper by H. Nikolic and suggesting that different formulations of quantum mechanics lead to varying interpretations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the oddity of the paper title and its playful nature. However, there are no clear resolutions or consensus on the implications of the discussed papers or the interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions touch on the interpretations of quantum mechanics and the definitions of locality, but these remain unresolved and dependent on various formulations.

Physics news on Phys.org
Thomas Larsson said:
for the weirdest arXiv title of the year, so far:
"Would Bohr be born if Bohm were born before Born?"

Not only weird, it is a great tongue-twistor. Try to say it fast.

I saw that Harvey Nikolic paper too and thought about starting a thread, but didn't know whether DeMyst'er liked to remain anonymous
so that we shouldn't mention it. I guess not.
 
Last edited:
Thanks!
I uncoverd my identity several times on this forum, so do I not have a reason to hide my identity.
 
another paper by one of our distinguished "Beyond the Standard" forum authors
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703071
Quantum nonlocality without hidden variables: An algorithmic approach
H. Nikolic
4 pages

"Is quantum mechanics (QM) local or nonlocal? Different formulations/interpretations (FI) of QM, with or without hidden variables, suggest different answers. Different FI's can be viewed as different algorithms, which leads us to propose an algorithmic definition of locality according to which a theory is local if and only if there exists at least one FI in which all irreducible elements of that FI are local. The fact that no such FI of QM is known strongly supports quantum nonlocality."
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
9K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
11K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
11K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
16K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K