I tried to publish a proof by which the Bohm interpretation of QM is problematic,
Chapter A Non-Relativistic Argument Against Continuous Trajectories ...
in a journal, and the editors claimed that they don't see a motivation for publishing my proof.
What you think? Is the correctness (or incorrectness) of Bohm's mechanics an issue enough relevant for the QM in order to justify investigation?
Bohm's theory indicates the electron is a particle with a definite trajectory, but this path is governed by a wave upon which the electron rides. The wave can also be influenced by other particles, which in turn changes the trajectory of the electron.
Ethan Siegel posted an article about this recently:
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/quantum-spookiness/
George Dishman
Thanks, George, I will look.
However, my question is if testing whether the Bohm's interpretation of QM is correct, is a work worthy to be done. I remained really speechless when reading the journal answer that the proof that I sent them lacks motivation, i.e. the journal didn't find a reason to deal with my proof.
So, I am asking the users in RG which are interested in the QM whether they share the opinion of the journal.
SW: However, my question is if testing whether the Bohm's interpretation of QM is correct, is a work worthy to be done.
Do please have a read Sofia D. Wechsler, the article discusses how tests that have already been done have ruled it out. If that is the case, it may mean that what you are asking has been answered.
I don't know why the journal rejected the article but a prior proof might be part of the reason. If your proposed method of testing is sufficiently different from what has been done in the past or would give a better predicted accuracy then it should be considered. They may also have felt that you should have cited the previous work to show your knowledge of the field and allow the readers to compare the techniques.
Best regards
George
George Dishman
No, George, it was a proof completely different from whatever done before, absolutely a novelty. And the journal, in case of similarity with another proof, would have told me straightly. I saw articles dealing with issued clarified already a long time ago, though published by that journal. Another article that I sent them was also rejected with the explanation that although they find the material interesting, they don't feel enough competent to deal with it. It also seemed to me strange, because this is what for the reviewers are, it's them, not the editorial board, that have to understand the article and say if it is correct.
If a photon is found to have mass, then the whole Bohm topology will become a simple exercise for the development of the mind of mathematicians.
The experiment presented below makes it possible to detect the mass; it remains only to carry out it.
It is possible to permanently close the topic of the presence of the mass of a photon. To do this, nodo recall Professor Lebedev's experiment on light pressure, position the axis with the "petals" horizontally, close one of them with a screen, and illuminate the other from above and below with beams of light of the same intensity. Then the pressure will be balanced, and the photons accumulated on the surface of the illuminated petal will disturb the equilibrium of the pair of these petals if the photons have a mass.
I filed in Ukraine 2 applications for inventions: for this method (UA, a 2021 03602) and device (UA, a 2021 03604) dated June 23, 2021, which gives convention priority for international patent applications.
With the minimum irradiation power to reduce thermal effects, the experiment will last about a year. In a poor country - Ukraine, no one gives me money for its implementation of this experiment and the consumption of electricity. Can anyone help with doing this experiment at home?
Valentyn Nastasenko, there have been many determinations of the mass of the photon giving steadily improving upper limits. What parameters would your experiment need to improve on the limits listed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass
Sofia D. Wechsler, as long as you are aware of the previous tests, that's fine. I was just bringing them to your attention.
Best regards
George
To begin with, it is necessary to prove that the mass of the photon exists, which is what the proposed experiment is aimed at. And only then talk about the limits. While the real limit is 10^-36 kg.
To prove the mass is non-zero, you need to set a lower limit. The current upper limit is of the order of 10^-62 kg so your experiment would need to have an accuracy of ±10^-63 kg or better to reach the 5 sigma criterion for claiming a discovery. If the actual value is much lower than that but still not zero then that accuracy would only set a new upper limit.
That should allow you to work out the experimental parameters and hence the cost of running it, nobody will fund you if you cannot even tell them what it will cost them.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Bioecology
- Systems Ecology
- Landscape Ecology
- Connectivity