David Bohm and the Implicate Order

[Ivan Seeking]

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-boh.htm

In 1982 a remarkable experiment to test quantum interconnectedness was performed by a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect in Paris. The original idea was contained in a thought experiment (also known as the "EPR paradox") proposed in 1935 by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, but much of the later theoretical groundwork was laid by David Bohm and one of his enthusiastic supporters, John Bell of CERN, the physics research center near Geneva. The results of the experiment clearly showed that subatomic particles that are far apart are able to communicate in ways that cannot be explained by the transfer of physical signals traveling at or slower than the speed of light. Many physicists, including Bohm, regard these "nonlocal" connections as absolutely instantaneous. An alternative view is that they involve subtler, nonphysical energies traveling faster than light, but this view has few adherents since most physicists still believe that nothing-can exceed the speed of light.

Is this the popular interpretation? This particular paragraph seemed somewhat inaccurate. I thought this notion of "interconnectedness", as described here, predated Bohm by 20 years. My impression is that Bohm offers and explanation for the EPR paradox [conclusion] that may or may not be correct.

How do you feel about Bohm's work - the notion of an Implicate Order? I have seen him represented as potentially one of the greatest minds of the century because of this work.

EDIT: I was going to read some more of Bohm's work [I had some limited exposure in college]. How seriously should his ideas be taken?

 

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-boh.htm
"In 1982 a remarkable experiment to test quantum interconnectedness was performed by a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect in Paris. The original idea was contained in a thought experiment (also known as the "EPR paradox") proposed in 1935 by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, but much of the later theoretical groundwork was laid by David Bohm and one of his enthusiastic supporters, John Bell of CERN, the physics research center near Geneva. The results of the experiment clearly showed that subatomic particles that are far apart are able to communicate in ways that cannot be explained by the transfer of physical signals traveling at or slower than the speed of light. Many physicists, including Bohm, regard these "nonlocal" connections as absolutely instantaneous. An alternative view is that they involve subtler, nonphysical energies traveling faster than light, but this view has few adherents since most physicists still believe that nothing-can exceed the speed of light."

Is this the popular interpretation? This particular paragraph seemed somewhat inaccurate. I thought this notion of "interconnectedness", as described here, predated Bohm by 20 years. My impression is that Bohm offers and explanation for the EPR paradox [conclusion] that may or may not be correct.

How do you feel about Bohm's work - the notion of an Implicate Order? I have seen him represented as potentially one of the greatest minds of the century because of this work.

EDIT: I was going to read some more of Bohm's work [I had some limited exposure in college]. How seriously should his ideas be taken?

I don't think that "instantaneous action at a distance" is generally considered to be the conclusion reached as a result of the Aspect experiments. The consensus is that the Einstein (or EPR) hypothesis regarding the completeness of QM is not valid. The Copenhagen interpretation is fully supported. A lot depends on your frame of reference as to what the Aspect experiments represent.

The fundamental assumption of Bell's Theorem is that the chance of a particular outcome (or combination of outcomes) must be greater than or equal to zero. I think of this as the "reality" requirement. So I think of Aspect as testing this component, not the action-at-a-distance component of theory.

But you also asked about Bohm's work. Personally, I think his entire thinking is off on the "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" as it is too metaphysical for me. On the other hand, I am a raving fan of an earlier work of his which has been largely overlooked: "Causality and Chance in Modern Physics". This book is difficult to find, but I think it is a lot more relevant. Causality and chance are sort of complementary concepts in physics, and this really becomes apparent when you discuss the Aspect experiments.