Infinite Potential

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Write4U, Mar 22, 2023.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Are you telling me that these 2 definitions do not have a fundamental common denominator?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    In the 1940s, physics was a fairly niche profession. Bohm was a bright student and did a PhD, like many other bright students. PhD supervisors typically don't want to mentor students who show little promise or skill.

    I'm betting the Dalai Lama doesn't admire Bohm for his physics; chances are good that the Dalai Lama isn't particularly well educated in physics. I think that the Dalai Lama sees in Bohm a kindred spirit who believed in the fundamental interconnectedness of all things, and other mystical stuff like that. In other words, Bohm's philosophy seems like a good fit to the Dalai Lama's Buddhism.

    Don't get me wrong. I have not once claimed that Bohn was an idiot, or stupid, or uneducated, or anything like that. I can't speak for the depth of his intellect. I don't think you can, either.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    You didn't look up the word "plutocracy", did you? Are you going to?

    In what way was he "banned"? Who banned him? How?Be specific.
    The items in bold are all valid science that I am aware of. However, while Bohm worked on things like the EPR experiment and plasmons, I don't think they were his ideas initially. After all, it's not called the EPRB experiment.

    The stuff in italics refers to things I can't easily identify. For example, "quantum decoherence" is a fairly generic term; I don't know what specific work Bohm did on that. "Bohm dialogue" could be just about anything.

    The stuff in roman text refers to Bohm's "pilot wave" theory of quantum mechanics, which has failed to gain wide acceptance among physicists, for many reasons. Hidden variable theories are mostly dead in the water, these days, due to experiments involving Bell inequalities and the like.
    Who said he was an amateur? Not me.

    You shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that, because a person is accomplished/published in one area of expertise, everything he says is bound to be correct or valuable.

    Einstein was a genius, but he made mistakes and spent years working on fruitless theories. There's no reason to suppose that Bohm's fringe ideas are any more valuable.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    No. I'm not telling you that.

    Don't you understand why it is important to use scientific definitions in discussions about science?
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    That is why make it a point to read as much about him as I can.

    I am not the only one;

    David Bohm, Quantum Mechanics and Enlightenment
    The visionary physicist, whose ideas remain influential, sought spiritual as well as scientific illumination
    more..... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/david-bohm-quantum-mechanics-and-enlightenment/
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Are you going to try to explain your word salad paragraph and answer the questions I put about that, in post #71? Or are you going to ignore that post of mine and those questions and hope we all just forget about that latest bit of word salad from you?
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I did look it up and I am sticking with it. Instead of "rich" , try "economic elite".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory#
    Not if we are speaking of fundamental qualities regardless of specificity. Your selected perspective is limited and separated from the much larger scope of the subject under study.

    When we speak of "infinite potential" we are NOT selecting a narrow interpretation used in applied science.
    The scope of the subject demands the general all-encompassing application of the term.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2023
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I thought this was a condensed version of what could be a page-sized explanation.
    What part do you have a problem with?
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2023
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    What “scientific plutocracy” are you talking about? Money does not buy scientific success , and most scientists are hardly rich.
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    True, but they are "exclusive".

    This is what happened to Bohm. His ideas although perfectly defensible were outright rejected by the
    scientific powers that be.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://nbi.ku.dk/english/www/niels/bohr/koebenhavnerfortolkningen/

    Acceptance among physicists[edit]
    But then.
    more...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory

    There it is..
     
  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Then that has nothing to do with plutocracy. Plutocracy mean rule by the rich.

    From the Greek πλοῦτος, meaning wealth, riches.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    yea, yea. I know, but in the world of science, scientists are rich in knowledge, which creates its own elitism and hypocrisy.
    Oligarchy would also have been incorrect, so I decided on "intellectually wealthy" as the determining factor.

    Why is this important in view of the demonstrated scientific prejudice that is clearly evident by J S Bell's own words?
    I find that pretty a damning accusation of a "mainstream" scientific perspective and convention.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2023
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Good, so plutocracy was the wrong word for what you meant. Probably you meant something like "hierarchy", from the Greek for priest, ἱερός and meaning a ruling body, e.g. of clergy with layers of different ranks: in your case, the scientific establishment of the day.

    Bohm's speculations on "implicate order" and stuff are just metaphysics, not science at all, so it is not surprising the science establishment didn't think much of them. The pilot wave theory was science but, like other hidden variable theories, has gone nowhere. Bohm made a contribution to physics but, like quite a few of the early QM people, seems to have wandered off into metaphysics later on.
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Well "something like" is still not definitive enough. I'll change it to "Intellectual Plutocracy", better?...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I beg to differ. In a mathematical universe there must exist an underlying logical "implicate order", that produces the mathematical "guiding equations" by which relational values (potentials) become expressed as orderly patterns. Is this not described in Chaos Theory?
    I think that's a lot better than committing suicide or drinking yourself to death.

    And as far as I can tell Bohmian Mechanics are very much alive and gaining in popularity,
    Here are some posts in support of Bohmian Mechanics, presumably from knowledgeable scientists
    • Bohm's Eastern metaphysics, even though it helped shape his interpretation of quantum mechanics, should not be held against the potential fruitfulness of his pilot wave theory. In a similar fashion Isaac Newton's Biblical fundamentalism and his alchemical research cast no shadows over his contributions to physics. Nor did Kepler's belief in astrology throw doubts on his great discoveries.
      • Martin Gardner, "David Bohm and Jiddo Krishnamurti", Skeptical Inquirer, July, 2000
    • Let me illustrate some of the ideas I believe Bohmian mechanics should have triggered. This list is obviously subjective—it is only important that it is not empty. Bohmian mechanics, like quantum theory, is in deep tension with relativity theory. I know of Bohmians who claim that it is obvious that any non-local theory, Bohmian or not, requires a privileged universal reference frame. I also know of Bohmians who claim that it is obvious that Bohmian mechanics can be generalized to a relativistic theory (though, admittedly, I never understood their model). However, I know of no Bohmians who are inspired by their theory and its tension with relativity to try to go beyond Bohmian mechanics, as illustrated in the next two paragraphs.
      • Nicolas Gisin, "Why Bohmian Mechanics? One- and Two-Time Position Measurements, Bell Inequalities, Philosophy, and Physics", Entropy (2018)
    • Generally, position measurements sometimes reveal information about Bohmian positions, but never full information and sometimes none at all. Simple and handy criteria for determining when the Bohmian position measurements of a particle under test highly correlate with the position of the center of mass of some large pointer are still missing. Bohmian mechanics is attractive to philosophers because it provides a clear ontology. However, it is not as attractive to researchers in physics. This is unfortunate because it could inspire brave new ideas that challenge quantum physics.
      • Nicolas Gisin, "Why Bohmian Mechanics? One- and Two-Time Position Measurements, Bell Inequalities, Philosophy, and Physics", Entropy (2018)
    • The first conference, Bohmian Mechanics 2000, was the total fiasco: two leading representatives of Bohmian school, Shelly Goldstein and Basil Hiley, presented two totally different interpretations of Bohmian mechanics. Finally, they accused each other in misunderstanding of Bohm’s views (both had very close connections to David Bohm). My students whom I invited to learn Bohmian mechanics from its creators were really confused. The only useful information which I extracted from Bohmian Mechanics 2000 was that Bohmian mechanics does not give new experimental predictions comparing to conventional QM.
      • Andrei Khrennikov, Beyond Quantum (2014), p. 2
    • In the non-Relativistic version you just postulate some point particles, and a single universal quantum state (represented by a mathematical wavefunction) and two simple dynamical equations: the Schrödinger equation for the wavefunction and the so-called guidance equation for the particle motions. You could have guessed both equations easily, and you get out all of the iconic quantum behavior: two-slit interference effects, violations of Bell’s inequality, decoherence due to observation or more generally due to coupling to the environment in the right way, etc., etc. What’s not to like?
      The only sticking point is the Relativistic version, but there I hold a minority view and would happily violate fundamental Lorentz invariance, explaining observational Lorentz invariance by appeal to what is called quantum equilibrium. There is a lot you just can’t do in complete thermal equilibrium, such as extract useful work from heat and send signals. Something you can’t do in quantum equilibrium is experimentally access a preferred “frame of reference”. C’est la vie.
    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory

    Current state of Bohmian Mechanics.

    Can We Gauge Quantum Time of Flight?
    Measuring the time it takes particles to travel between two points may be the best test yet for Bohmian mechanics.
    By Anil Ananthaswamy on October 21, 2021
    more.... https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ment-could-challenge-standard-quantum-theory/
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2023
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Write4U:
    This is a bad pattern you've developed.

    Instead of accepting correction of your errors and learning from them, you insist on keeping right on, making the same error over and over again.

    What you have, there, is a closed mind.
    In other words "infinite potential" is a catch-all kind of thing that can mean whatever you need it to mean at any given time.

    That means it is actually an empty concept - not useful for anything.
    What happened to him?
    No. Like your wikipedia article says, they just did not receive mainstream acceptance, after careful review and consideration.

    Conspiratorial thinking, about a rich elite that controls scientific knowledge, just puts you firmly on the Fringe, with the believers in Bigfoot and Atlantis.
    You're trying to twist the word "plutocrat" to suit your mistaken meaning, rather than just accept that you used the wrong word the first time. Why do that?

    If you want to talk about the guardians of knowledge or an elite cabal of scientists, fine. But don't call them plutocrats. Use the accepted meanings of words. Why can't you do that?
    Bell's opinion is Bell's opinion, not evidence of a conspiracy.

    Ironically, Bell's own work led to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics becoming more entrenched and better verified, even though he initially expected the opposite to happen. The experiments have been quite decisive. Bohm's hidden variable theory is inferior to the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
    That's the problem when you cherry pick from sources who has their own axes to grind. You ought to read more widely.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2023
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Why must an underlying logical implicate order exist? What is an implicate order? What is logical about it? How do you know the universe is mathematical? What does that even mean?
    Not as far as I am aware.
    Fortunately, science isn't a popularity contest. I think Bohm fandom is still a niche interest, however.
    Here, Gardner is saying that Bohm's metaphysics is pseudoscience, essentially, but that there are elements of physics in Bohm's pilot wave theory.

    The thing you need to do is to work out which parts of Bohm's ideas are science and which aren't. It appears to me that you can't tell the difference, at present.
    This reads like a criticism of "Bohmians", not a support for Bohm.
    This is saying that while Bohm's ideas themselves might be dead ends, they might inspire new, better ideas.
    This is straight-up criticism of Bohmian mechanics. How can you possibly mistake this as support for Bohm's ideas?
    Look at the title of the article this is extracted from. Is Maudlin a physicist or a philosopher?

    Suffice it to say: most physicists aren't willing to give up on Lorentz invariance quite so easily.
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    OK, if you would rather see the term "elite cabal" excellent. I admit I had not thought of that specific term.
    No, it means that before anything can exist, the potential for that existence must be present
    On the contrary, it means that it is applicable to everything. The potential for the Big Bang existed before the Big Bang. The potential for the universe existed before the universe existed. The potential for the formation of a galaxy must exist before that galaxy can exist.
    For anything to become reality, the potential for that expression must exist before that event can occur.

    This is where I came up with the proposition that "whereas not all potential becomes reality, all reality past, present, and future was, is, and will be preceded by potential".
    (I do not claim authorship, just an independent logical conclusion.)

    I believe that mathematical logic demands that before something can become expressed in reality, the potential for that expression must exist a priori in the system itself.
    It is the "actionable value" of the causality.

    Can we say; potential is the actionable work dynamic in all differential equations?

    Because they both thought they were, but apparently from conflicting perspectives. I don't think you can lay that at Bohm's doorstep.

    Is mainstream (conventional) quantum mechanics devoid of conflict? Is it a strictly unified cabal?
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2023
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    No, intellectual plutocracy makes no sense.

    Bohmian mechanics is his pilot wave, hidden variable, theory which, far from gaining ground, is a dead end.

    The “implicate order, enfolding and unfolding” metaphysical stuff is quite separate and is not science.
     
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    There is no “actionable work dynamic in all differential equations”. That is word salad, the sort of thing someone in a straitjacket might say to his doctor.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page