Jonathan,

--- In bell_bohm@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Lang" <dataweaver@...>
wrote:
>
> Travis Norsen wrote:
> > A more complete description *of what*?  The only answer is:  of what
> > is physically real.  But that just begs the question.  Would you
make
> > a similar argument about the potentials in E&M by the way?
>
> My understanding is that an electromagnetic wave _can_ be described
> entirely by the electrical and magnetic fields; there are no
> "entangled E-and-M" states.  That is, if you take a cross-section of
> an electromagnetic wave, you'll find an electrical field oscillating
> one way and a magnetic field oscillating at right angles to it; but
> you won't find anything at, say, a 45-degree angle - there's nothing
> "in between" to debate about.

If you think of the wave in a lineal fashion that would be true. There
is another clasisical way to conceptualize this and that is as a
circular wave captured within two planes of polarization. This is the
one I prefer in that the electric component and the magnet component are
actually to be considered as just different aspects of the same thing.
Here are a few web sites that include some animated explanations and
comparisions between the two concepts:


http://webphysics.davidson.edu/Applets/EMWave/EMWave.html

http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo0.htm

-Phil

Phil Warnell wrote:
> Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > My understanding is that an electromagnetic wave _can_ be described
> > entirely by the electrical and magnetic fields; there are no
> > "entangled E-and-M" states.  That is, if you take a cross-section of
> > an electromagnetic wave, you'll find an electrical field oscillating
> > one way and a magnetic field oscillating at right angles to it; but
> > you won't find anything at, say, a 45-degree angle - there's nothing
> > "in between" to debate about.
>
> If you think of the wave in a lineal fashion that would be true. There
> is another classical way to conceptualize this and that is as a
> circular wave captured within two planes of polarization.

True enough.  However, these two approaches are mathematically
equivalent: you can derive either one from the other.  It's not like
there's anything in the descriptions of circular waves that's absent
from the perpendicular E&M fields approach.  And, dragging this back
on topic before it strays too far, that's the essential worry here:
that a wf contains information that (indirectly) affects the behavior
of the particles - information that the guidewaves lack, because it
exists only in regions of the wf that don't correspond precisely with
the particle configuration.

--
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang

--- In bell_bohm@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Lang" <dataweaver@...>
wrote:
>
> Phil Warnell wrote:
> > Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > > My understanding is that an electromagnetic wave _can_ be
described
> > > entirely by the electrical and magnetic fields; there are no
> > > "entangled E-and-M" states.  That is, if you take a cross-section
of
> > > an electromagnetic wave, you'll find an electrical field
oscillating
> > > one way and a magnetic field oscillating at right angles to it;
but
> > > you won't find anything at, say, a 45-degree angle - there's
nothing
> > > "in between" to debate about.
> >
> > If you think of the wave in a lineal fashion that would be true.
There
> > is another classical way to conceptualize this and that is as a
> > circular wave captured within two planes of polarization.
>
> True enough.  However, these two approaches are mathematically
> equivalent: you can derive either one from the other.  It's not like
> there's anything in the descriptions of circular waves that's absent
> from the perpendicular E&M fields approach.

I'm not so certain that I would completely agree with this. I would
(loosely) analogue this with the OQM perspective v.s. the dBB one. To
perhaps over simplify things what is experienced in OQM in terms of
observation is that we end up observing what we are looking for. That is
set up your experiment to observe waves and you observe waves. Set it up
to observe particles and viola what do we get, particles. This is
suppose to be the mystery which of course is what is easily explained
from the dBB perspective. Now you could translate this to the EM case.
Set up a apparatus that demonstrates the magnetic component of the wave
and what does one find. Set up on to demonstate the electric part and
what do you find. The difference here is instead of particle and wave we
have space and time in relation to inertial reference frames. .

> And, dragging this back
> on topic before it strays too far, that's the essential worry here:
> that a wf contains information that (indirectly) affects the behavior
> of the particles - information that the guidewaves lack, because it
> exists only in regions of the wf that don't correspond precisely with
> the particle configuration.

We have to remember that at the end of the day the particle
configuration is totally at the mercy of the overall wave(s) dynamics
which includes the entire system. In my perspective the particle is the
puppet and the wave the puppeteer. One traces (presents) the reality
that the other allows. Like those lines between the dots in those
children's picture books, only the space (the line) between is
singularly dynamic and holistically interdependent.

-Phil

I'll try to keep this brief, since it is definitely straying off-topic.

Phil Warnell wrote:
> Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > True enough.  However, these two approaches are mathematically
> > equivalent: you can derive either one from the other.  It's not like
> > there's anything in the descriptions of circular waves that's absent
> > from the perpendicular E&M fields approach.
>
> I'm not so certain that I would completely agree with this. I would
> (loosely) analogue this with the OQM perspective v.s. the dBB one.

As would I.  In particular, note that dBB and OQM are mathematically
equivalent (at least in terms of the wf).  The real difference between
them is ontological.  Likewise, the two views of an electromagnetic
wave produce exactly the same predictions, because the underlying math
is fully compatible - there's nothing that the "circular wave" model
predicts that the "paired electrical and magnetic fields" model
doesn't, and vice versa.  However, they differ greatly in terms of the
underlying ontology: in the "circular wave" model, an electrical
oscillation is the byproduct of counter-rotating circular waves, which
are the primitive elements of the model; in the "paired E&M fields"
model, the electrical oscillation is primary, and the equivalent of a
circular wave is a byproduct of the perpendicular fields being half a
step out of phase with each other.

The main difference between this and the OQM vs. dBB comparison is
that I don't see any clear benefit of one ontology over the other in
the E&M comparison; with OQM vs. dBB, the latter clearly has the upper
hand in terms of clarity of concept.

> > And, dragging this back
> > on topic before it strays too far, that's the essential worry here:
> > that a wf contains information that (indirectly) affects the behavior
> > of the particles - information that the guidewaves lack, because it
> > exists only in regions of the wf that don't correspond precisely with
> > the particle configuration.
>
> We have to remember that at the end of the day the particle
> configuration is totally at the mercy of the overall wave(s) dynamics
> which includes the entire system.  In my perspective the particle is the
> puppet and the wave the puppeteer.

Again, we agree.  My concern isn't about wave vs. particle; it's about
wf (i.e., a single function defined over configuration space that
single-handedly controls every particle in the configuration) vs.
guidewaves (i.e., a series of "slices" of the wf, each of which is
defined over ordinary space, and each of which controls the actions of
one particle).  Whether you talk about a single wf or a collection of
guidewaves, the wave is still the puppeteer and the particle is still
the puppet.

The question has to do with the completeness of the guidewaves:
between them, do they have enough information to be able to determine
how they will develop over time, or would we in effect have to view
the guidewaves as puppets of the wf?

If the latter is the case, then we seem to be stuck with a wf defined
over configuration space, and the guidewave concept is redundant at
best, and a fallacious distraction at worst.  If the former is the
case, then we can reasonably view reality as being composed by
symbiotic pairs of guidewaves and particles, with the behavior of the
particles determined exclusively by their personal guidewaves, and the
behavior of the guidewaves determined by standard wave behavior and
their interactions with other guidewaves.

I would _prefer_ the latter to be the case; but one of the best (and,
at times, most annoying) features about the truth is that it isn't
swayed by personal preference.

--
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang

Jonathan,


> > We have to remember that at the end of the day the particle
> > configuration is totally at the mercy of the overall wave(s)
dynamics
> > which includes the entire system.  In my perspective the particle is
the
> > puppet and the wave the puppeteer.
>
> Again, we agree.  My concern isn't about wave vs. particle; it's about
> wf (i.e., a single function defined over configuration space that
> single-handedly controls every particle in the configuration) vs.
> guidewaves (i.e., a series of "slices" of the wf, each of which is
> defined over ordinary space, and each of which controls the actions of
> one particle).  Whether you talk about a single wf or a collection of
> guidewaves, the wave is still the puppeteer and the particle is still
> the puppet.
>
> The question has to do with the completeness of the guidewaves:
> between them, do they have enough information to be able to determine
> how they will develop over time, or would we in effect have to view
> the guidewaves as puppets of the wf?

What I see here is that you have physically disconnected the guide waves
from each other in terms of the media from which they are produced.The
media of the wave(s) we are speaking of is holistic (one thing, non
separable) while the particles are separated (discrete) it's this
holistic aspect of the media that assures that each guide wave has the
information you describe.I like to picture it as sort of a superhydrolic
substance in which the mutual consequence of form and velocity are
carried to all parts simultaneously. The particles are merely caught up
in the dynamics of this. For me configuration space is simply (the
crude) mathematical way we express the finite particle positions in
terms of their current state and mutual evolution in relation to the
media and its dynamics in which it/they are totally at the mercy of in
terms of this action. I think you are perhaps caught up in the
predictability (knowledge) aspect of all this rather then its actual
dynamics. Now there are many disconcerting philosophical aspects to this
picture but no physical ones..


-Phil

"The most obvious application of such ‘non-quantum’ matter would be for instantaneous signalling across space"

"In quantum mechanics, non-orthogonal states IV1>,IV2>(with IV1IV2> not= 0) cannot be distinguished without disturbing them"

 "This theorem breaks down in the presence of nonequilibrium matter."

"Thus, a subquantum measurement of the particle trajectory (even over a short time) would generally enable us to distinguish the quantum states IV1> and IV2> without disturbing them, to arbitrary accuracy."

"It is clear that hidden-variables theories offer a radically different perspective on quantum information theory. In such theories, a huge amount of ‘subquantum information’ is hidden from us simply because we happen to live in a time and place where the hidden variables have a certain ‘equilibrium’ distribution. As we have mentioned, nonequilibrium instantaneous signals occur not only in pilot-wave theory but in any deterministic hidden-variables theory [15, 16]. And in pilot-wave theory at least, we have shown that the security of quantum cryptography depends on our being trapped in quantum equilibrium; and, that nonequilibrium would unleash computational resources far more powerful than those of quantum computers"

In the papers that Travis pointed to in the "Configuration Space"
thread, there was a discussion about this sort of thing.  The
impression that I got is that we "just happen" to live in a region
with a "quantum equilibrium distribution" for the same sort of reason
that coin tosses "just happen" to produce a mix of heads and tails,
rather than a constant string of one or the other.  Check out the
papers and let me know what you think.

Also, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that "nonequilibrium" doesn't
get conserved: that is, if you take a sample of matter in a
nonequilibrium distribution and bring it into contact  with a sample
in an equilibrium distribution, it's entirely possible that the latter
would convert into the former.  In effect, "nonequilibrium" is
unstable, while "equilibrium" is stable.

--
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang

Jonathan,

--- In bell_bohm@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Lang" <dataweaver@...>
wrote:
>
> In the papers that Travis pointed to in the "Configuration Space"
> thread, there was a discussion about this sort of thing.  The
> impression that I got is that we "just happen" to live in a region
> with a "quantum equilibrium distribution" for the same sort of reason
> that coin tosses "just happen" to produce a mix of heads and tails,
> rather than a constant string of one or the other.  Check out the
> papers and let me know what you think.

Yes as you say its mentioned in the Goldstein and company paper. Also, I
have always been aware of the postulate in dBB. What I wasn't aware of
is that there is some reason to suspect that there could exist some
matter that doesn't hold to this. As for your head and tails thing as
Valentini explains it boils down to a chicken and egg thing. However in
this scenario nonequalibrium ruled the early universe and we come to
where we are over time. I find that interesting for one of the problems
with cosmology is what's called the horizon problem where it's had to
explain the current similarity throughout the universe if communication
within it is limited in terms of speed. I find it interesting that dBB
could offer a plausible explanation for this.

> Also, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that "nonequilibrium" doesn't
> get conserved: that is, if you take a sample of matter in a
> nonequilibrium distribution and bring it into contact  with a sample
> in an equilibrium distribution, it's entirely possible that the latter
> would convert into the former.  In effect, "nonequilibrium" is
> unstable, while "equilibrium" is stable.

That to is interesting for what would actually be the reaction. Let's
speculate for a minute that WIMP's actually represent this stuff. If
that were the case we would not get hardly any reaction at all for
that's why they are called such (weak interacting massive particles).
This really means they don't interact much with regular matter or
themselves(at least not in the normal way). Then we have anti-matter
where the reaction is so strong that all one ends up with are photons.
I'm not as certain as you are in all this. With current evidence in
cosmology suggesting that what we take as regular matter and regular
energy only making up 4 percent of the sum total are you sure which side
of the looking glass we are on?

-Phil

To all,

In reading and (attempting) to understand all these papers that Travis
has pointed to and that I have stumbled across, I have found myself more
and more interested in dBB in terms of what it might hold for cosmology.
In particular, this business of quantum equilibrium and what limitations
this holds in respect to the speed of transfer of information.  It
appears to me that if you take the Valentini perspective, that this
distribution is not a mandate but rather a special case, then the early
universe might have indeed have been in a state of nonequilibrium.  In
the dBB perspective you would then have a universe that was holistic in
terms of information transfer and this would easily explain why our
current universe is so homogeneous. In other words it solves the
'horizon problem' in a very natural way without having to have a super
inflation period where light speed is exceeded in terms of the
particles. What would be exceeded is of course the speed of information
transfer.  I find it strange that with such a feature which is built
naturally into dBB that cosmologists are not giving it a more serious
look as to its incorporation into some of their models.

I have other thoughts in this regard, but  first I thought I would wait
to see if any of you others have any interest in this line of
discussion. As I look at it dBB is always being criticized for what it
doesn't explain and not payed attention enough to  in terms of what it
does. Perhaps this is where the Bohmian's should concentrate more of
their efforts.

-Phil

This group has been inactive for a long time, and I've had to clean up
a bunch of spam and ban offenders.

New members will need to be approved before they can post.

Hi Eric,

It's been a long time since I've seen anything except spam posted and
interestingly enough all you erasers took us back to my last post. I also
noticed that Doug Early has since piped in so perhaps we may see something
relevant for a change. Actually the last time I posted Travis Norsen was acting
as moderator and as such I was curious and at the same time embarrassed to know
who you are and how connected with the Bohmian perspective.

Best,

Phil

Hi Phil. I was the one who created this group way back when. I handed moderation
over to Travis at some point. When I started the group, I was a grad student
working on Bohm-inspired classical algorithms for simulating quantum systems.
I've since graduated and work outside physics but still maintain an interest in
Bohmian mechanics as a solution to the measurement problem of orthodox quantum
theory. My own views are basically in line with those of John Bell on these
matters, with additional color from more recent developments in the field of
emergent gravity (condensed matter models of general relativity).

Bohm gives an interesting account of superconductivity, on the BCS level, in
*The Undivided Universe*, which despite its name is basically a textbook on
Bohmian mechanics.

Been a while, but I think the gist of it is that adding a BCS-type attractive
potential between electrons (ultimately deriving from electron-phonon
interactions, but treated effectively) can yield, under certain conditions (i.e.
when there is in fact a BCS-type groundstate), trajectories that naturally avoid
impurities in the bulk.

Note this is an application of some mathematical techniques associated with
string theory (namely AdS/CFT) rather than an application of "string theory" as
a unified theory of particles and gravity. The latter gains no support from this
kind of application.

--- In bell_bohm@yahoogroups.com, dennislmay@... wrote:
>
>
> There is a recent paper where for the first time a practical application
> has been found for string theory in relation to high temperature
> superconductivity.
>  
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090706113702.htm
>  
> I see no reason why the regular Bohmian explanation of superconductivity
> would not apply to high temperature superconductivity as well.  The
> only difference I have been able to discern is instead of bulk travel avoiding
> scattering - high temperature superconductors have complex internal
> structures guiding the electrons through particular corridors.  Another
> reason for 3-D graphics studies of current flow.
>  
> The use of string theory would seem to be more a case of mathematics
> in search of a problem it can fit.
>  
> Dennis May
>
> --- On Thu, 5/7/09, Dennis May <dennislmay@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Dennis May <dennislmay@...>
> Subject: [bell_bohm] Re: Bohmian Explanation of Superconductivity
> To: bell_bohm@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 1:31 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That is what I thought the approach would be.  I read Bohm's "Wholeness and
the Implicate Order" but not "The Undivided Universe".  I will have to get a
copy.
>  
> Trajectories to naturally avoid impurities should give conceptual help to
those attempting to design better superconductors.  When I did FET design -
graphic visualization of current flows was key to solving problems related to
heat build up and current flows involved in metal migration and subsequent
failures.  In a more complex 3-D E&M matrix for superconductors - visualization
should be even more helpful.  The graphics tools available are much better now
as well.
>
> Dennis May
>
> --- On Thu, 5/7/09, rpffan <eric.dennis@ earthlink. net> wrote:
>
>
> From: rpffan <eric.dennis@ earthlink. net>
> Subject: [bell_bohm] Re: Bohmian Explanation of Superconductivity
> To: bell_bohm@yahoogrou ps.com
> Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 11:54 AM
>
>
>
>
> Bohm gives an interesting account of superconductivity, on the BCS level, in
*The Undivided Universe*, which despite its name is basically a textbook on
Bohmian mechanics.
>
> Been a while, but I think the gist of it is that adding a BCS-type attractive
potential between electrons (ultimately deriving from electron-phonon
interactions, but treated effectively) can yield, under certain conditions (i.e.
when there is in fact a BCS-type groundstate) , trajectories that naturally
avoid impurities in the bulk.
>