> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:00:45 -0700 (PDT), tg earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>

>>On Mar 23, 10:25 am, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:

>>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726485.700
>>> Quantum randomness may not be random
>>> 22 March 2008
>>> From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
>>> Mark Buchanan
>>>

>>
>>********************
>>Even so, most physicists are not yet ready to embrace the new models,
>>because one crucial problem remains: Bohmian theory, critics
>>point out, doesn't make any predictions that differ from those of
>>ordinary quantum mechanics. "The theory is successful only because
>>it keeps standard wave mechanics unchanged," says Dieter Zeh of the
>>University of Heidelberg in Germany. He adds that the rest of
>>the theory is biased towards the ideas of classical physics and is
>>"observationally meaningless".
>>
>>That objection isn't really fair, say Bohmian supporters. After all,
>>one might equally argue that the standard theory doesn't go
>>beyond Bohm's theory. "If some historical circumstances had been only
>>slightly different," says physicist Hrvoje Nikolic of the
>>Rudjer Boskovic Institute in Zagreb, Croatia, "then it would have been
>>very likely that Bohm's deterministic interpretation would
>>have been proposed and accepted first, and would be dominating
>>today."
>>
>>"If historical circumstances had been slightly different, then the
>>deterministic view of the universe would be dominating
>>today"Philosopher of science Arthur Fine of the University of
>>Washington in Seattle says that ideological objections, not technical
>>ones, have been the main factor in the reluctance to accept Bohmian
>>models. "There are some real criticisms one could raise," he
>>says, "but these aren't the ones you find in the physics literature
>>over the past 80 years." That's why he doubts further
>>theoretical development of Bohmian mechanics will change physicists'
>>minds. "Only new experimental results will do that," he says.
>>
>>Such experiments might seem impossible, as Bohmian models are supposed
>>to make all the same predictions as ordinary quantum theory.
>>Yet some physicists, such as Antony Valentini of the Perimeter
>>Institute, are now suggesting that the form of Bohmian models
>>naturally points to ways in which the universe might depart from the
>>standard predictions - with experimentally observable
>>consequences.
>>*************************
>>
>>
>>This is really what it comes down to. Either a model has some value in
>>enabling us to make better predictions, or it doesn't. If the efforts
>>to achieve an empirical distinction are fruitless, what then? Doesn't
>>it tell us that we are creating an artificial distinction---that just
>>like the cat, both dead and alive, the universe is both random and
>>deterministic, and we can't open the box?
>>
>>-tg
>>
>>

> With the recent Bohm posts, I thought another might be appropriate.
> I suspect that what is "really" going on is beyond our
> cognitive ability, but it must be fun trying. But then look at our
> theories, models and understandings 400 years ago.
> I have read enough science fiction to make the present situation
> rather passe. Immortality would interest me more.