Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

longship

(40,416 posts)
9. This is complete and utter rubbish
Mon Mar 19, 2012, 04:34 PM
Mar 2012

One of the primary consequences of Bohm's hypothesis was the entanglement of all particles in the universe (possibly from his Buddhist philosophy). But in experiments these entanglements of "non-local" effects, the EPR experiments (Einstein, Poldasky, Rosen --- after an gedanken experiment proposed by Einstein). Needless to say the non-local effects posited by Bohm and others (i.e., faster than light) were shown to be falsified.

But don't believe me. I'm only a physics BS (and you know what those initials mean ). Rather, I'd encourage you to look beyond 1950's speculation (Bohm et al) and look at what the data since these hypotheses have been put forward.

Decoherence is rather simple. Quantum states are extremely fragile. Heisenberg showed that complementary variables (velocity vs. position, energy vs. time) are simultaneously unknowable. And it's not a problem of measurement accuracy, it's that the measurement of one restricts the accuracy of the other at the physical level. It's the second, energy/time, relation which blows Bohm's putative non-locality out of the water.

Decoherence strongly implies that the universe observes itself without any requirement for intelligence. It's just the way the universe works. It's all bottom-up emergent behavior. Complexity comes from something as simple as the uncertainty of the energy times the uncertainty of the time (that the value of the energy is known) is limited by a constant, Planck's constant (divided by 2 times Pi). Likewise, the momentum/position relationship.

If you disagree with these basic quantum principles and can demonstrate it you may be on the way to a Nobel prize.

Go for it.

In the meantime all macro behavior is emergent (bottom-up) from a basis of quantum mechanics, and all quantum behavior is random (the probability of which is given by the square of the wave equation).

There's no woo-woo in quantum physics, no matter what Chopra and other loonies, like JZ Knight, think. Bohm's hypotheses have been substantially falsified.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

However, it would be a big mistake... longship Mar 2012 #1
Straight to the point tama Mar 2012 #3
Is coherence selected or a structural by-product? Jim__ Mar 2012 #4
Wider context tama Mar 2012 #8
I'm not sure why you would begin by looking at a wider context. Jim__ Mar 2012 #15
To begin with tama Mar 2012 #16
A couple of thoughts. Jim__ Mar 2012 #33
A clarification tama Mar 2012 #36
Lack of any supporting data longship Mar 2012 #5
The word "decoherence" tama Mar 2012 #6
This is complete and utter rubbish longship Mar 2012 #9
But, but... someone was wrong about something before... Silent3 Mar 2012 #11
I disagree tama Mar 2012 #13
Your endless devotion to vagueness is certainly amusing, however. Silent3 Mar 2012 #17
Why don't you even try? tama Mar 2012 #19
You seem to be getting different posters confused Silent3 Mar 2012 #20
Flattering ad hominem, thanks for that tama Mar 2012 #28
I have no problem with people trying to understand "quantum" Silent3 Mar 2012 #29
You are making up tama Mar 2012 #31
New Age? longship Mar 2012 #32
Pseudoskepticism tama Mar 2012 #45
Thank you. Thank you. And THANK YOU!!! nt Joseph8th Mar 2012 #40
Nice tama Mar 2012 #12
Sorry! Your post makes no physical sense longship Mar 2012 #18
First tama Mar 2012 #24
Tama, I'm with you longship Mar 2012 #30
Well that's clearly wrong bananas Mar 2012 #34
Wonderful take down longship Mar 2012 #35
Quantum cryptography, quantum teleportation, superconductors are some other examples bananas Mar 2012 #48
Please! It's bad enough to tarnish QM... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #41
Gödel tama Mar 2012 #43
Looking for a ToE ... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #46
Abstract tama Mar 2012 #47
Not sure why I'm bothering, but... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #49
Some good points tama Mar 2012 #50
Heheh... Cantor's Paradise... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #53
LOL - "mathematical theorems ... bear no relation to physics" bananas Mar 2012 #51
Math is not physics... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #52
Physics is NOT illogical or irrational... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #54
I didn't know there were Militant Holists, now... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #38
LOL tama Mar 2012 #39
OMG... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #42
Condencending tone tama Mar 2012 #44
Anybody tama Mar 2012 #7
Hmm. DeWitt. Interesting longship Mar 2012 #10
First tama Mar 2012 #14
Okay, I'm with you on all except the "observer" longship Mar 2012 #21
Well, I think there's more to the "observer" unless you're effectively redefining the term caraher Mar 2012 #22
Touché, Zurek is above my pay grade longship Mar 2012 #23
I do think we're broadly in agreement caraher Mar 2012 #26
Thanks tama Mar 2012 #27
See post 24 for answer to also this n/t tama Mar 2012 #25
Delayed choice experiment tama Mar 2012 #37
So Stuart Kaufmann is still working.. arendt Mar 2012 #2
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»Quantum Biology and the P...»Reply #9