Is it possible to communicate faster than light according to Bohm's theory?

CHORGENSOTRUFORX
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Can someone help me to understand exactly what Bohm did to indicate the possiblity of faster than light communication. Bohm did something to the akin of splitting a particle and than changing the direction of one half of the particle and the other half responded so quickly that light would not have had time to traverse the area between.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It sounds like entanglement. I would try posting in the QM board.

People still argue about entanglement to this day. The majority consensus is that information cannot be transmitted by this mechanism, even though microscopic influences can. There is a group at my former university who works on, among other things, the theory behind using entanglement for an information channel, but a causal control signal is still required in their theory.
 
CHORGENSOTRUFORX said:
Can someone help me to understand exactly what Bohm did to indicate the possiblity of faster than light communication. Bohm did something to the akin of splitting a particle and than changing the direction of one half of the particle and the other half responded so quickly that light would not have had time to traverse the area between.

Bohm did not do this. The suggestion upon which the Aspect & Clause experiments were done was made by Bell, who developed his famous inequalities as a test for quantum mechanics. Bell was a partisan of Bohm's view and hoped for an experimental outcome that would favor Bohm's theory. But in fact the results came out as quantum mechanics predicted.

Bohm's version of quantum mechanics is held to violate relativity because it features a pilot wave that drives the particle, and they have to interact faster than light. Or so the traditional Bohm theory went. Modern "Bohmists" have tried to eliminate that feature.
 
isnt it impossible to measure something faster than the speed of light, let alone know of its existence because it would not be visible at all? :confused:
 
Riko said:
isnt it impossible to measure something faster than the speed of light, let alone know of its existence because it would not be visible at all? :confused:

Particles traveling FTL are not forbidden by relativity. You can not _accelerate up to and past_ the speed of light, and if you could send information FTL it would violate causality, because some inertial observers could receive it before it was sent. This aspect of tachyons (as FTL particles are called) was used by Gregory Benford in his famous novel Timescape, in which a tachyon message is sent back in time to warn people off a dangerous course of action.

Tachyons are a natural product of naive string theory, and one of the motivation of the development of superstrings was to eliminate them. However string field theory has found a use for them, so the story goes on.
 
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I keep reading throughout this forum from many members that the general motivation for finding a deeper explanation within QM, specifically with regards to quantum entanglement, is due to an inability to grasp reality based off of classical intuitions. On the other hand, if QM was truly incomplete, and there was a deeper explanation that we haven't grasped yet that would explain why particles tend to be correlated to each other seemingly instantly despite vast separated distances, then that...
Back
Top