- #1
Count Iblis
- 1,863
- 8
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3376"
Last edited by a moderator:
Count Iblis said:http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3376"
Yes, he is saying that. But he was not aware ofDrChinese said:he is saying ... Bohmian mechanics have problems with achieving Lorentz invariance
Demystifier said:Yes, he is saying that. But he was not aware of
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0811.1905 [accepted for publication in Int. J. Quantum Inf.]
which, I believe, solves these problems. (When I saw Marchildon's paper few days ago, I have sent him a note regarding the paper above and he seemed to be interested about it. Maybe he will take it into account in a revised version of his paper.)
It certainly is a viable option, even in curved spacetime (needed by general relativity). Nevertheless, such a version certainly looses some of its mathematical elegance. (The mathematical elegance is one of the reasons why I become interested in non-relativistic Bohmian mechanics in the first place.) If Bohmian mechanics is hoped to be a fundamental theory, then it is natural to require the mathematical elegance. For that reason, I prefer searching for a completely relativistic-covariant formulation. For the case in which particle creation can be neglected, the paper I mentioned above completely achieves that goal. Moreover, it provides a simple counterexample to various "theorems" claiming that relativistic-covariant nonlocal hidden variable theory is impossible. The crucial "new" idea in this paper that makes Lorentz covariance possible is the observation that |psi|^2 is not a probability density in space, but in SPACETIME. Such an idea may look as a deviation from experimentally confirmed probabilistic interpretation of psi, but, as explained in the paper, this idea is in a complete agreement with experiments.DrChinese said:I saw some interesting stuff following Towler's http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html. He was saying that the Lorentz version of space-time should be kept, and the Einstein version of SR should be dropped. He says that makes things play nicer with Pilot Wave (BM/dBB) theory and perhaps solves some of the issues. I had not heard such a strong perspective on the matter before. Is this a viable option? I would guess that it would run afoul of General Relativity pretty quickly. Although I guess the Lorentz version of spacetime would have a lot of similarities with SR and therefore GR anyway.
Hardy's Paradox is a thought experiment proposed by British mathematician G.H. Hardy in 1928. It focuses on the counterintuitive idea that an event with a probability of 0 can actually occur. This paradox has been a subject of debate and controversy among scientists and philosophers, as it challenges the traditional understanding of probability and the laws of physics.
One of the main arguments for Hardy's Paradox is the fact that in quantum mechanics, particles can exist in multiple states at the same time, and therefore, the probability of an event can be 0 and 1 simultaneously. On the other hand, some scientists argue that this paradox is a result of a flawed understanding of probability and that it can be resolved by considering the role of hidden variables.
While Hardy's Paradox is mainly a theoretical concept, it has some real-world implications in the field of quantum computing and cryptography. The idea of an event with a probability of 0 occurring has been used to develop quantum algorithms and secure communication protocols.
The scientific community has been divided in its response to Hardy's Paradox. Some scientists have embraced it as a way to challenge traditional ideas about probability and quantum mechanics, while others have criticized it as a flawed thought experiment and have proposed alternative explanations.
To fully understand Hardy's Paradox, further research is needed in the field of quantum mechanics and probability theory. Scientists are currently exploring the role of hidden variables, as well as conducting experiments to test the validity of this paradox in the real world. Additionally, interdisciplinary collaborations between physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers may shed more light on this controversial theory.