dennislmay

History is full of diligent work in areas with a completely wrong approach. Less common but still present are theories which have been incorrectly "disproved" only to re-emerge when more information becomes available. The most common reason for these kinds of results is incomplete or incorrect context and compartmentalization of results. There are a number of reasons for the crisis in science which we are in the midst of - political and intellectual con games are certainly among them.

Bob, Really? How do you know that? Isn't it reasonable to doubt it? I'm just using your standard... Michael It is a very carefully done and oft reproduced experiment. It has been done thousands of times with the same result. It is part of a complex experiment that corroborates the Pauli Exclusion Principle. The chances of error are quite small. It is one of those 5 sigma jobs. Not absolute certainty, but pretty damned sure. Which is about as good as it gets. Ba'al Chatzaf http://plato.stanfor...ntries/qm-bohm/ Section 11 on spin toward the bottom: "We thus might naturally wonder how Bohmian mechanics manages to cope with spin. But this question has already been answered here. Bohmian mechanics makes sense for particles with spin, i.e., for particles whose wave functions are spinor-valued. When such particles are suitably directed toward Stern-Gerlach magnets, they emerge moving in more or less a discrete set of directions — 2 possible directions for a spin-1/2 particle, having 2 spin components, 3 for spin-1 with 3 spin components, and so on. This occurs because the Stern-Gerlach magnets are so designed and so oriented that a wave packet (a localized wave function with reasonably well defined velocity) directed towards the magnet will, by virtue of the Schrödinger evolution, separate into distinct packets — corresponding to the spin components of the wave function and moving in the discrete set of directions. The particle itself, depending upon its initial position, ends up in one of the packets moving in one of the directions." There is no priority in assuming a probabilistic explanation [probability waves] of quantum mechanics. That priority was disproved by J.S. Bell in 1964 yet it continues to be repeated as though repetition constitutes proof. Dennis May Bohm Debroigle QM is unable to ground quantum electro-dynamics (abbr QED). It is not Lorentz invariant. An any case there is no experiment made to date in which B-DeB beats Quantum Theory. Which is why it is not -the- quauntum theory. Another problem is that the B-DeB pilot wave has infinite velocity.and does not diminish in amplitude with distance. Many physicists don't like that. It is also not Lorentz invariant in the form Bohm proposed it. That is annoying. The Max Born interpretation of the eigenvalues of the operator (that is where the probabilities come from) still produces the results. The relativistic versions of B-DeB require stochastic processes. I clipped this from the wiki article. You might find it interesting: Nikolić has proposed a Lorentz-covariant formulation of the Bohmian interpretation of many-particle wave functions.[20] He has developed a generalized relativistic-invariant probabilistic interpretation of quantum theory,[12][21][22] in which | ψ | 2 is no longer a probability density in space, but a probability density in space-time. He uses this generalized probabilistic interpretation to formulate a relativistic-covariant version of de Broglie–Bohm theory without introducing a preferred foliation of space-time. His work also covers the extension of the Bohmian interpretation to a quantization of fields and strings.[23] In short, probability is back. Can't seem to get rid of it. Here is the thing: No one has been able to improve upon re-normalized quantum electrodynamics. Bohm DeBroigle doesn't. When you come up of a Lorentz invariant theory that predicts correctly to 12 decimal places, please be sure to let us know. In the mean time we just can't get rid of probabilities without some kind of problem. If you can find a way to get us back to the "good old days" of Hamiltonian - Lagrangian physics, please let us know. Ba'al Chatzaf"The Max Born interpretation of the eigenvalues of the operator (that is where the probabilities come from) still produces the results." To say that is where the probability comes from is only one way the math can be used - it infers absolutely nothing about a probabilistic interpretation. There is no experiment in which Bohmian Mechanics beats non-relativistic standard interpretation QM because both produce the same results. This has been known for many decades. Bohm did not propose specifics about the "pilot wave" any more than the standard interpretation can explain the collapse of probability waves capable of localizing particles across all of space. Nikolić calling them "probability waves" does nothing to make that the case. Re-normalized quantum electrodynamics produces good results - a marriage between incompatible deterministic relativity and an indeterministic interpretation of QM - using questionable mathematical techniques without physical foundation. But it works so now the task is to come up with a Bohmian relativistic equivalent since absolutely nothing has changed as far as the priority of a probabilistic interpretation versus a deterministic interpretation. Bell settled that issue in 1964 and quantum electrodynamics overlaps the time frame of Bell's work - the final present form being completed in 1975 without any challenge of Bell's ideas whatsoever. Again repeating the assertion of a priority for a probablistic interpretation adds no weight to the argument. The most that can possibly be said is that a relativistic version of Bohmian mechanics is still in its infancy and does yet compete in the relativistic realm. An understandable situation given the thousands to one funding differential and misinformation about the status of Bohmian Mechanics being taught to this day. Dennis May These philosophical quibbles matter little to me. I am interested in RIght Answers and Facts. I am what Ayn Rand called concrete bound. Facts Rule. Theories Serve (sometimes) and Principles stretch to fit. If you have a better way to come up with more Right Answers then publish, and have your work checked out by experts. Einstein did it. And he did it while he was working at the Patent Office too. Ba'al Chatzaf No argument here about right answers and facts. I am taking your suggestion and working on a paper for arXiv. Eventually little papers won't be enough and I will have to go Tome to ever get it done. Dennis May

Bob, Really? How do you know that? Isn't it reasonable to doubt it? I'm just using your standard... Michael It is a very carefully done and oft reproduced experiment. It has been done thousands of times with the same result. It is part of a complex experiment that corroborates the Pauli Exclusion Principle. The chances of error are quite small. It is one of those 5 sigma jobs. Not absolute certainty, but pretty damned sure. Which is about as good as it gets. Ba'al Chatzaf http://plato.stanfor...ntries/qm-bohm/ Section 11 on spin toward the bottom: "We thus might naturally wonder how Bohmian mechanics manages to cope with spin. But this question has already been answered here. Bohmian mechanics makes sense for particles with spin, i.e., for particles whose wave functions are spinor-valued. When such particles are suitably directed toward Stern-Gerlach magnets, they emerge moving in more or less a discrete set of directions — 2 possible directions for a spin-1/2 particle, having 2 spin components, 3 for spin-1 with 3 spin components, and so on. This occurs because the Stern-Gerlach magnets are so designed and so oriented that a wave packet (a localized wave function with reasonably well defined velocity) directed towards the magnet will, by virtue of the Schrödinger evolution, separate into distinct packets — corresponding to the spin components of the wave function and moving in the discrete set of directions. The particle itself, depending upon its initial position, ends up in one of the packets moving in one of the directions." There is no priority in assuming a probabilistic explanation [probability waves] of quantum mechanics. That priority was disproved by J.S. Bell in 1964 yet it continues to be repeated as though repetition constitutes proof. Dennis May Bohm Debroigle QM is unable to ground quantum electro-dynamics (abbr QED). It is not Lorentz invariant. An any case there is no experiment made to date in which B-DeB beats Quantum Theory. Which is why it is not -the- quauntum theory. Another problem is that the B-DeB pilot wave has infinite velocity.and does not diminish in amplitude with distance. Many physicists don't like that. It is also not Lorentz invariant in the form Bohm proposed it. That is annoying. The Max Born interpretation of the eigenvalues of the operator (that is where the probabilities come from) still produces the results. The relativistic versions of B-DeB require stochastic processes. I clipped this from the wiki article. You might find it interesting: Nikolić has proposed a Lorentz-covariant formulation of the Bohmian interpretation of many-particle wave functions.[20] He has developed a generalized relativistic-invariant probabilistic interpretation of quantum theory,[12][21][22] in which | ψ | 2 is no longer a probability density in space, but a probability density in space-time. He uses this generalized probabilistic interpretation to formulate a relativistic-covariant version of de Broglie–Bohm theory without introducing a preferred foliation of space-time. His work also covers the extension of the Bohmian interpretation to a quantization of fields and strings.[23] In short, probability is back. Can't seem to get rid of it. Here is the thing: No one has been able to improve upon re-normalized quantum electrodynamics. Bohm DeBroigle doesn't. When you come up of a Lorentz invariant theory that predicts correctly to 12 decimal places, please be sure to let us know. In the mean time we just can't get rid of probabilities without some kind of problem. If you can find a way to get us back to the "good old days" of Hamiltonian - Lagrangian physics, please let us know. Ba'al Chatzaf"The Max Born interpretation of the eigenvalues of the operator (that is where the probabilities come from) still produces the results." To say that is where the probability comes from is only one way the math can be used - it infers absolutely nothing about a probabilistic interpretation. There is no experiment in which Bohmian Mechanics beats non-relativistic standard interpretation QM because both produce the same results. This has been known for many decades. Bohm did not propose specifics about the "pilot wave" any more than the standard interpretation can explain the collapse of probability waves capable of localizing particles across all of space. Nikolić calling them "probability waves" does nothing to make that the case. Re-normalized quantum electrodynamics produces good results - a marriage between incompatible deterministic relativity and an indeterministic interpretation of QM - using questionable mathematical techniques without physical foundation. But it works so now the task is to come up with a Bohmian relativistic equivalent since absolutely nothing has changed as far as the priority of a probabilistic interpretation versus a deterministic interpretation. Bell settled that issue in 1964 and quantum electrodynamics overlaps the time frame of Bell's work - the final present form being completed in 1975 without any challenge of Bell's ideas whatsoever. Again repeating the assertion of a priority for a probablistic interpretation adds no weight to the argument. The most that can possibly be said is that a relativistic version of Bohmian mechanics is still in its infancy and does yet compete in the relativistic realm. An understandable situation given the thousands to one funding differential and misinformation about the status of Bohmian Mechanics being taught to this day. Dennis May

Bob, Really? How do you know that? Isn't it reasonable to doubt it? I'm just using your standard... Michael It is a very carefully done and oft reproduced experiment. It has been done thousands of times with the same result. It is part of a complex experiment that corroborates the Pauli Exclusion Principle. The chances of error are quite small. It is one of those 5 sigma jobs. Not absolute certainty, but pretty damned sure. Which is about as good as it gets. Ba'al Chatzafhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ Section 11 on spin toward the bottom: "We thus might naturally wonder how Bohmian mechanics manages to cope with spin. But this question has already been answered here. Bohmian mechanics makes sense for particles with spin, i.e., for particles whose wave functions are spinor-valued. When such particles are suitably directed toward Stern-Gerlach magnets, they emerge moving in more or less a discrete set of directions — 2 possible directions for a spin-1/2 particle, having 2 spin components, 3 for spin-1 with 3 spin components, and so on. This occurs because the Stern-Gerlach magnets are so designed and so oriented that a wave packet (a localized wave function with reasonably well defined velocity) directed towards the magnet will, by virtue of the Schrödinger evolution, separate into distinct packets — corresponding to the spin components of the wave function and moving in the discrete set of directions. The particle itself, depending upon its initial position, ends up in one of the packets moving in one of the directions." There is no priority in assuming a probabilistic explanation [probability waves] of quantum mechanics. That priority was disproved by J.S. Bell in 1964 yet it continues to be repeated as though repetition constitutes proof. Dennis May

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/complicit-in-climategate-doe-under-fire/?test=latestnews An example of the probable involvement of the US government in scientific fraud for political/financial interests. Dennis May

Cultivate contacts at a nearby university or college. If you know someone in the business (a physicist or other physical science type) he may put you in touch with the right people. Ba'al Chatzaf I have been in contact with one MOND-gravity researcher/professor - but he has indicated that even working the area has already threatened his career. I might catch him on a brave day. I need to get the paper ready before worrying about it too much. Dennis

Right now arXiv is the only way to publish material quickly without going through an 18 month cycle of refereeing and possible rejection. It is not ideal but it is the best thing going. Many high quality papers first show on arXiv. Ba'al Chatzaf I will not submit to the 18 month cycle again [and that is an optimistic time line] - it may indeed be the best thing going. Any ideas on a sponsor to get it in? [i had three close relatives at universities but none are there now] I will have to buy a graphics package I was already looking at and get some software for proper formatting. Getting out a small portion of the work into a stable archive would be a worthwhile thing. Dennis

My nieces recently sold me several magazine subscriptions as part of a fundraiser for prom. With few choices that interested me I added Scientific American. I have subscribed to Scientific American several times starting about 1977 and have purchased individual issues here and there over the years. What I found in the Dec. 2011 issue just reconfirmed my observation of its collectivist slant going all the way back to when I was in high school. Page 6 - From the Editor – Emergent Genius “Ideas are a product of society”, an emergent phenomenon…”which are almost inevitable.” That’s why, he said, our admiration for individuals who have come up with such ideas is “almost giving them too much credit.”

Get a sponsor and place it in arXiv. Ba'al Chatzaf The bad thing is most journals also want content which has not been published elsewhere - most of my stuff has been self published or on the web for many years. Google recently expanded the nooks and crannies they search so recent searches I have done are mostly finding my own writings on topics I am interested in. I will have to look into arXiv policy to see what can be done. Thanks - I read stuff there pretty often. Dennis I looked into arXiv - it appears that I could take a small part of the work [2 component gravity perhaps] and truncate context and only present it as a physical explanation of MOND or MOG gravity. I do not have a sponsor to get it in and they may still choose to throw it into their "general" pile which is the electronic equivlanent of the trash can. I will have to think about it some more. Dennis May

Get a sponsor and place it in arXiv. Ba'al Chatzaf The bad thing is most journals also want content which has not been published elsewhere - most of my stuff has been self published or on the web for many years. Google recently expanded the nooks and crannies they search so recent searches I have done are mostly finding my own writings on topics I am interested in. I will have to look into arXiv policy to see what can be done. Thanks - I read stuff there pretty often. Dennis

Have you published and has it been peer reviewed? Ba'al Chatzaf An early work was my undergraduate thesis and was published in the University of Nebraska Press [1984], a later version was to be my graduate thesis - I sent out to several journals and corresponded with Jean-Pierre Vigier about it but the Gregory S. Duane proof did not exist yet so my work in guiding waves was not understood at the time and I was not able to publish it [1991-1992 time frame]. I have only self published and corresponded with interested parties since that time. The body of work is too large and interconnected to be presented in a conventional journal. Properly fleshed out it would require a number of tomes. I have not found anyone to properly correspond with since Vigier and have a very low opinon of existing journal options. Dennis May

In the free market the cash value of any theory is whatever someone is willing to pay for it. The theory provides explanations for a number of things orthodox physics has not and the Big Bang theory has already failed to explain. Highlights: The 1959-2011 attempt to use General Relativity plus Dark Matter to explain the velocity profiles of spiral galaxies failed with the revelation that impossible statistical mechanics are required to make the numbers work. My two component theory of gravity based on QM carriers provides a MOND-like result with a physical explanation. The orthodox explanation of the CMBR fails to explain asymmetric results, incorrect lensing of the CBMR, shadowing of the CMBR, shadows filling with distance [and filling in differently at different frequency ranges], and a QM frequency profile for the CMBR better than would be expected given the Big Bang time frame of when it was supposed to be generated. My theory explains all of these failures – the CMBR is a non-linear QM spontaneous supraluminal thermalization as allowed in a Gregory S. Duane view of the foundations of QM. My theory also allows a mechanism for diffuse backgrounds of high and low energy particles and radio noise which has failed to be explained by orthodox theory. The existence of some of those high energy particles cannot be explained at all in current theory. If the neutrino - barely supraluminal - speed observations hold up – a physical mechanism for such an effect was already part of the theory going back to 1990. The failure of the Big Bang theory to correctly predict the apparent angular size of distant galaxies and the old chemical compositions of distant galaxies is explained. Overall it is a theory very different than orthodox physics and cosmology. If anyone wants a hardcopy of my last big update [3 years ago] I have 9 copies left [for free]. Just send me your USPS address [to dennislmay@yahoo.com] and I will mail you a copy. I have started working on another updated version but it is far from being done. It is a short book summarizing some of the work and providing references. Dennis May

The original Bohmian Mechanics description [or de Broglie earlier] does not describe a physical mechanism for the guiding waves to guide quantum particles – I am not aware of any real progress in that respect - except my own work from 1990 and continuing and the implications of the work of Gregory S. Duane. The first thing you need to look into is the work of Gregory S. Duane: Duane, G.S., 2001: Violation of Bell’s inequality in synchronized hyperchaos, Found. Phys. Lett., 14, 341-353. Duane, G.S., 2005: Quantum nonlocality from synchronized chaos, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 44, 1917-1932. I would ignore Duane’s theorizing about possible mechanisms for Supraluminal signaling. I assumed the correctness of Duane’s results in my work beginning in 1990 – 11 years before his proof. In the way I have modeled Bohmian-Like mechanics the waves act perpendicularly to the motion of the moving particles - thus guiding - but not imparting energy. Instead of a type of “Many-World’s” selection process the guiding waves only “see” or act upon a particular particle because [as explained in the work of Duane] complex objects [hyperchaotic] do in fact selectively interact with other similar or identical objects through synchronization. In the case of a double slit experiment the particle is interacting with the plate as it travels and the guiding waves are reflections of its internal complexity imprinted upon the plate and re-emitted for it to interact with as it travels. The imprinting is a supraluminal process – the guiding wave reflections/emissions are luminal process. There is no net energy transfer involved in the linear QM process – much like a static magnetic field bending the path of a free electron but imparting no energy. I agree a first glance at standard de Broglie-Bohm mechanics leaves much unanswered - but less so than the collapse of a probability wave function to spontaneously localize a particle across all of space. I can attempt to clarify more if you are interested. This is my interpretation and I am not aware of anyone else discussing an actual mechanism. Dennis May

I’ve heard some shocking stories of corruption, mainly theft though, related to research grants. There’s a strong motivation for the University to hush such things up, it taints the whole University and makes it harder for anyone there to get new grants. Back about ten years ago or so I came across a paper in "Foundations of Physics" with an obvious mistake it in - funded by DOE grants to the University of California - San Diego. It was work directly related to something I had worked on 10 years ealier while in the Air Force so it took me all of 15 minutes to discover the fatal error. I didn't feel it was worth sending a formal paper to challenge it - but rather I contacted the editor at the time and explained the error - expecting them to retract the article next issue. Instead the editor covered up for them, allowed them to continue defrauding the US government and doubled-down on the project expanding it to a dozen researchers in the physics and computer science departments at UCSD. The work continued for at least two years before the editor finally allowed an obtuse paper with a convoluted explanation of why the work was in errror [many hundreds of thousands of dollars later]. Right after that the same editor allowed in another paper by the same UCSD group with another DOE funded similarly flawed paper again taking 10-15 minutes to discover the error. I gave up at that point. The DOE had someone sending UCSD cash for trash. I guess the gravy finally dried up after the 3rd such paper. Dennis

When I was undergraduate in physics I discovered that everyone except myself among students had a strong distaste for lab work, I found the same was true again in graduate school. There were in fact two undergraduate students whose strong dislike for lab work caused them to either not graduate or delayed their graduation. One went to graduate school without graduating undergraduate because he could not sit still to do lab work - and believed it a waste of his time and talent. There was a third student I had to babysit though labs or she would not have graduated and a fourth who was my friend who I had to help quite a bit but he at least had the right attitude. I mention this because the unwillingness to replicate or do basic experiments because it too much resembles demeaning work and takes a great deal of time likely goes a long ways towards explaining both the rise in scientific fraud and the ever growing tendency in theoretical physics of embracing exotic explanations without physical basis when a little hard work will actually find a real casually based explanation. Back when I was in school it was assumed that 90% of physicists end up doing applied work and about 10% theoretical - yet 90% seemed to object to doing experimental work. I believe this also goes part of the way towards explaining why so many in physics have left to do financial work or other non-physics work that doesn't get their hands dirty. Even in secondary school there has been a push to do away with shop classes and fewer and fewer science educators have the requisite degree. There is always money for sports but not so much when it comes to science labs in high school. In an introductory lecture in graduate school we were told of a student in theoretical chemistry who was by all accounts the perfect student and got his PhD early. Some time later others attempting to replicate his experimental work supporting his theoretical work found the error bars in his experiment allowed any interpretation of his data [it was only noise] but because he was so good in the classroom no one cared to look over the data and he sailed on through. Classroom work is easy to evaluate - lab work takes time and is more difficult to evaluate so it is lazy professors combined with lazy students - next thing you know you have junk science and the time pressures to manufacture data rather than sit still to actually do the real work. Dennis May

Who gives a damn? The predictions are correct. Richard Feynman didn't give a damn and he said so on many occasions. Interpretations are Dreck. Empirical results are Golden. Anything that produces computers and modern technology is not to be denigrated or despised. Very few Real Physicists do philosophy. Do you know why? Their productive lifetime is short and they do not wish to waste their time. Ba'al Chatzaf Richard Feynman was a big supporter of the indeterministic interpretation and like Bohr made a very big issue of it. His lectures on the issue were the undergraduate teaching standard on the issue and even tainted my undergraduate education when I was forced to publicaly argue with one of my main professors over the issue. The same problem appeared again twice in graduate school with the wrong but commonly assumed proof of von Neumann still alive long after it was logically dead. If only the Orthodoxy were not still pushing an incorrect philosophical interpretation based on dead proofs. I don't see well known researcher repeating the lie any more [stopped a few years after Bell died] but clearly it is still being repeated in the classroom to this day. Dennis May

The Uncertainty Principle is not as clear cut as stated in the classroom. Beginning in 1987 and several times since I have read of or known of other people doing work in this area including one of my friends in graduate school and myself. Here are a few recent links: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110602143159.htm http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46193 http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46284 Previous work dating back to the 80's showed that earlier views of the uncertainty principle were unnecessarily restrictive and often incorrectly applied. Some astronomical applications and propogation of E&M fields in sub-wavelength cavities have lead to useful applications previously thought impossible because of incorrect application of the uncertainty principle. Deterministic QM embraces classical probability theory as do many branches of physics - such as classical thermodynamics. There is no basis for assuming there is any acausal probablity involved. It would be very important for you to understand the fundamental nature of the work of Gregory S. Duane which proved that classical mechanics can form the foundation of QM - much against the wrong assumptions set in motion since the mistakes of von Neumann so long ago [and philtophical assumptions of most early QM workers]. Duane, G.S., 2001: Violation of Bell’s inequality in synchronized hyperchaos, Found. Phys. Lett., 14, 341-353. Duane, G.S., 2005: Quantum nonlocality from synchronized chaos, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 44, 1917-1932. Duane does not address the issue directly but his work also forms the foundation of the mechanical explanation of "guiding waves" in de Broglie - Bohm mechanics. Dennis May

A tragedy of the first magnitude that von Neumann's error was not widely discussed starting in 1935. Many people continue to this day to mistakenly believe that there is some proof that quantum mechanics is probablistic or indeterministic. People who should know better repeat the error continually - reinforcing 3 generations of error compounded upon error. Dennis May Even so, quantum physics brings home the results. Predictions which have not yet been falsified. The touchstone of good science is two fold (1) internal consistency - Hilbert Space is internally consistent mathemtics and (2) correct predictions --- in the case of the Standard Model of Fields and Particles predictions good to 12 decimal places. No rival theory has come even close. A theory that so so right that often cannot be very wrong. Ba'al Chatzaf The good results of quantum mechanics has nothing to say about the issue of a probablistic or indeterministic interpretation of those results. I can't count how many times I have seen that implication made. As to internal consistency - several interpretations of QM are internally consistent and produce the same results. A probablistic or indeterministic interpretation cannot in principle be internally consistent with deterministic theories such as General or Special Relativity. It is my view that a new QM, new gravitational theory, and a replacement for Special Relativity are all required. It is also my view that a new deterministic QM will form the foundation of all three. Compartmentalization of internal consistency prevents progress - internal consistency across disciplines is required. Dennis May

A tragedy of the first magnitude that von Neumann's error was not widely discussed starting in 1935. Many people continue to this day to mistakenly believe that there is some proof that quantum mechanics is probablistic or indeterministic. People who should know better repeat the error continually - reinforcing 3 generations of error compounded upon error. Dennis May

A deBB - de Broglie-Bohm-like [deterministic] approach is the approach I support. I believe if you look deeply into the work of J.S. Bell, and Bohm you will come to a better appreciation that neither the physics nor metaphysics is even close to being settled. Reading J.S. Bell "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" is a must.

Your statements indicate you have chosen a philosophical position concerning the meaning of quantum mechanics - one not based on observation, experiments, or mathematics but rather one of the orthodox philosophical interpretations. The work of J.S. Bell clearly shows there is no preferred status for a probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. All of the rest of your statements seem to flow from that incorrect assumption – von Neuman’s proof the probabilistic nature of QM being disproven in 1964. Dennis May

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111102092929.htm An interesting spin on the Fermi Paradox - 12 billion years ago there were whole galaxies more chemically mature than our sun. A year or two ago I recall a discussion somewhere about how we are alone because it has only been recently that sufficient chemicals for life were available - according to the Big Bang theory. Dennis May

In quantum mechanics you have to give up the speed of light or you have to give up causality in one form or another. I say keep causality. Dennis May Bohm Debroigle collides with relativity. Not good. Ba'al Chatzaf Special and General relativity collide with indeterministic QM. Not good. de Broglie-Bohm QM can be reconciled with a form of LET relativity which is mathematically indistinquishable from Einstein's Special Relativity. There is no reconciling deterministic relativity with indeterministic QM. Dennis May

There is not an iota of physical evidence for the pilot wave. This is why it is not generally accepted. Conventional QM is in precisely the same sitatuation explaining wave funcion collapse. The work of Gregory S. Duane provides a mechanistic explanation for pilot waves. Again it comes down to choosing an interpretation [philosophy] not necessity, math, or the facts. Dennis May

In quantum mechanics you have to give up the speed of light or you have to give up causality in one form or another. I say keep causality. Dennis May