Rainer Plaga

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
  • #2948
    AvatarRainer Plaga

    Dear Reinhard,

    with SQM I just meant OQM. I did not intend to claim that every
    system to be measured is an ES, but just that the
    standard BM discussion of quantum measurement starts
    out with a system to be measured that is an ES.
    My suspicion is that rather than exorcism 😉
    they implicitly invoke OQM for the preparation procedure.
    Indeed Duerr et al. justify their initial ansatz
    for the discussion of the quantum measurement
    theory in BM (arXiv:quant-ph/0308039v1, p.24)
    with, quote, “according to orthodox quantum measurement theory”,
    quoting inter alia von Neumann’s textbook.

    If my suspicion is correct rather than as an alternative to OQM,
    BM is best understood as a complement to OQM that
    demonstrates that OQM can be complemented
    to be a deterministic theory.
    Like u wrote in a previous guest post:
    ‘BM = OQM and P’
    where P are Bohmian particles guided by the Bohmian equation.
    Does this make sense?

    cheers rainer

    AvatarRainer Plaga

    Hi Roderich,

    Thanks for the comments!
    Your characterization of my question at the
    beginning of your second comment is excellent.
    But you did not answer this question explicitly.
    Are your comments meant as
    an assertion that the answer to my question

    >Can the possible
    >existence of ESs be derived from
    >postulates 1. and 2. in a manner
    >similar to the above SQM-Derivation?

    is “yes”?
    And is your second comment meant to
    supply such a derivation?!

    If yes, I do not comprehend why
    the electron should get un-entangled
    once it leaves the filament within BM.
    Free evolution clearly will not do this trick, right?
    In SQM the trick is that
    the macroscopic filament (but not the electron
    outside the filament) is effectively constantly
    measured so that it rapidly collapses to an un-entangled
    wave function.

    As to your third remark: I do realize that
    BM will always make an unambiguous prediction,
    even if the possibility to prepare ESs would not be
    a priori assumed.
    But how do you know that this prediction agrees
    with experience? A proof that it always does
    would seem to be equivalent to a derivation of
    the postulate “ESs can be prepared”
    from the axioms of BM.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)