Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Bohmian Mechanics meets Neo-Lorentzian Ether Theory?

  1. Sep 28, 2014 #1
    Yes, the title of this thread has sounded the crackpot alarm! Anyway, I'm curious for your thoughts and suggested readings...

    As background, I've learned that Neo-Lorentzian Ether Theory is a valid alternate for Einstein's Special Relativity. This ether is undetectable, but does in imply a universal preferred frame and absolute time. That's probably a call to arms for many, but please keep reading.

    I also recently learned that magnetism is just an illusion caused by the distortion of the Coulomb field around moving charge! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism#The_origin_of_magnetic_forces) They didn't tell me that in school. This was a revelation for me. So, there is some Coulomb force field propagating away from charge at the speed of light (and I believe through some unknowable ether). Makes me wonder if particles are just purely waves, in the actual sense, not in the standard probablistic sense.

    As I continued to meander through the internet, I discovered recently the Bohmian Mechanics theory of Quantum Physics. In particular, fluid analogy the videos on this site are inspiring: http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140624-fluid-tests-hint-at-concrete-quantum-reality/ . I'm not sure I can swallow how literal the wave-particle duality is taken here, but the idea of waves deterministically propagating away from the centre of the 'particle' is intutively appealing, and seems to clear up some of quantum mechanics' weirdness (for me).

    My question is, would a combination of Bohmian-like mechanics (particles are deterministic waves) and Neo-Lorentzian Ether Theory (absolute time in a preferred frame) reconcile with existing evidence for quantum mechanics?

    For example, understanding engtanglement seems to become trivial when we think that entangled particles have actual correlated state. It is not the superposition of states concept of probabilistic quantum mechanics which makes these measurements problematic to explain?

    It also trivially explains the famous double slit experiments. The Coulomb wave radiating from the particle goes through both slits, but the concentrated centre of this particle goes through one slit. I expect the disappearance of the interference pattern when measuring one slit is due to perturbation during measurement (don't know much about this).

    Sorry for the diatribe. Hopefully you can point me to some interesting reading on these topics. Thanks.

    [edited for spelling and grammar]
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 29, 2014 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The article you linked to by Wolchover is misleading, poorly written and highly inaccurate. See Tim Maudlin's accurate remarks in the comments section following the article.

    Bohmian Mechanics is compatible with quantum mechanics if relativity is not exact.

    Whether Bohmian Mechanics is compatible with quantum mechanics if relativity is exact is unknown, and currently being researched, as discussed by eg:
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2014
  4. Sep 29, 2014 #3
    Thank you for the references, atyy.
  5. Sep 29, 2014 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The only way you can explain the results of measurements on entangled particles in terms of "actual correlated state" is if the actual state of one particle is set at the moment that the other particle is measured. Google for "Bertlemann's Socks" and "Bell's Theorem".
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2014
  6. Sep 29, 2014 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Closed under the personal theory rule.
    Questions about Bohmian mechanics (as opposed to a personal "Bohmian-like" theory) would be OK.

    The PF policy on discussion of Lorentz Ether Theory is https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-the-pfs-policy-on-lorentz-ether-theory-and-block-universe.772224/ [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook