Contents

Articles
David Bohm Aharonov-Bohm effect Bohm diffusion Bohm interpretation Correspondence principle De BroglieBohm theory EPR paradox Holographic paradigm Holographic principle Holomovement Holonomic brain theory Implicate and Explicate Order Implicate order Membrane paradigm Orch-OR Debye sheath John Stewart Bell Karl H. Pribram Implicate and explicate order according to David Bohm Hidden variable theory Local hidden variable theory Bell's theorem Bell test experiments Hidden variables 1 7 11 12 28 33 48 57 61 65 69 71 78 85 86 93 96 99 102 109 111 116 129 133

References
Article Sources and Contributors Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 134 136

Article Licenses
License 137

David Bohm

David Bohm
David Bohm

David Joseph Bohm (1917-1992) Born December 20, 1917 Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, U.S. October 27, 1992 (aged74) London, UK United Kingdom British British Physicist Manhattan Project Princeton University University of So Paulo Technion University of Bristol Birkbeck College Pennsylvania State College California Institute of Technology University of California, Berkeley Robert Oppenheimer Yakir Aharonov David Pines Jeffrey Bub Henri Bortoft

Died

Residence Citizenship Nationality Fields Institutions

Alma mater

Doctoral advisor Doctoral students

Other notablestudents Jack Sarfatti Knownfor Bohm-diffusion Bohm interpretation Aharonov-Bohm effect Holonomic model Bohm Dialogue Albert Einstein Jiddu Krishnamurti Arthur Schopenhauer Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel John Stewart Bell

Influences

Influenced

David Bohm David Joseph Bohm (20 December 1917 27 October 1992) was a American-born British quantum physicist who made contributions in the fields of theoretical physics, philosophy and neuropsychology, and to the Manhattan Project.

Biography
Youth and college
Bohm was born in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania to a Hungarian Jewish immigrant father and a Lithuanian Jewish mother. He was raised mainly by his father, a furniture store owner and assistant of the local rabbi. Bohm attended Pennsylvania State College, graduating in 1939, and then headed west to the California Institute of Technology for a year, and then transferred to the theoretical physics group under Robert Oppenheimer at the University of California, Berkeley, where he eventually obtained his doctorate degree. Bohm lived in the same neighborhood as some of Oppenheimer's other graduate students (Giovanni Rossi Lomanitz, Joseph Weinberg, and Max Friedman) and with them became increasingly involved not only with physics, but with radical politics. Bohm gravitated to alternative models of society and became active in organizations like the Young Communist League, the Campus Committee to Fight Conscription, and the Committee for Peace Mobilization all later branded as Communist organizations by the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover.

Work and doctorate

Manhattan Project Contributions During World War II, the Manhattan Project mobilized much of Berkeley's physics research in the effort to produce the first atomic bomb. Though Oppenheimer had asked Bohm to work with him at Los Alamos (the top-secret laboratory established in 1942 to design the bomb), the head of the Manhattan Project, General Leslie Groves, would not approve Bohm's security clearance, after tip-offs about his politics (Bohm's friend, Joseph Weinberg, had also come under suspicion for espionage). Bohm remained in Berkeley, teaching physics, until he completed his Ph.D. in 1943, under an unusually ironic circumstance. According to Peat (see reference below, p.64), "the scattering calculations (of collisions of protons and deuterons) that he had completed proved useful to the Manhattan Project and were immediately classified. Without security clearance, Bohm was denied access to his own work; not only would he be barred from defending his thesis, he was not even allowed to write his own thesis in the first place!" To satisfy the university, Oppenheimer certified that Bohm had successfully completed the research. He later performed theoretical calculations for the Calutrons at the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, used to electromagnetically enrich uranium for use in the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. McCarthyism leads to Bohm leaving the United States After the war, Bohm became an assistant professor at Princeton University, where he worked closely with Albert Einstein. In May, 1949, at the beginning of the McCarthyism period, the House Un-American Activities Committee called upon Bohm to testify before it because of his previous ties to suspected Communists. Bohm, however, pleaded the Fifth amendment right to decline to testify, and refused to give evidence against his colleagues. In 1950, Bohm was charged for refusing to answer questions before the Committee and arrested. He was acquitted in May, 1951, but Princeton had already suspended him. After the acquittal, Bohm's colleagues sought to have his position at Princeton re-instated, and Einstein reportedly wanted Bohm to serve as his assistant. The university, however, did not renew his contract. Bohm then left for Brazil to take up a Chair in Physics at the University of So Paulo, and later was also at the Technion in Haifa, Israel, and at Birkbeck College, University of London.

David Bohm Quantum theory and Bohm-diffusion During his early period, Bohm made a number of significant contributions to physics, particularly in the area of quantum mechanics and relativity theory. As a post-graduate at Berkeley, he developed a theory of plasmas, discovering the electron phenomenon now known as Bohm-diffusion. His first book, Quantum Theory published in 1951, was well-received by Einstein, among others. However, Bohm became dissatisfied with the orthodox approach to quantum theory, which he had written about in that book, and began to develop his own approach (Bohm interpretation) a non-local hidden variable deterministic theory whose predictions agree perfectly with the nondeterministic quantum theory. His work and the EPR argument became the major factor motivating John Bell's inequality, whose consequences are still being investigated. The Aharonov-Bohm effect In 1955 Bohm moved to Israel, where he spent two years at the Technion at Haifa. Here he met his wife Saral, who became an important figure in the development of his ideas. In 1957, Bohm moved to the UK as a research fellow at the University of Bristol. In 1959, with his student Yakir Aharonov, they discovered the Aharonov-Bohm effect, showing how a magnetic field could affect a region of space in which the field had been shielded, although its vector potential did not vanish there. This showed for the first time that the magnetic vector potential, hitherto a mathematical convenience, could have real physical (quantum) effects. In 1961, Bohm was made Professor of Theoretical Physics at Birkbeck College London, where his collected papers [1] are kept. The holonomic model of the brain Bohm also made substantial theoretical contributions to neuropsychology and the development of the holonomic model of the functioning of the brain.[2] In collaboration with Stanford neuroscientist Karl Pribram, Bohm helped establish the foundation for Pribram's theory that the brain operates in a manner similar to a hologram, in accordance with quantum mathematical principles and the characteristics of wave patterns. These wave forms may compose hologram-like organizations, Bohm suggested, basing this concept on his application of Fourier analysis, a mathematical method for decomposing complex waves into component sine waves. The holonomic brain model developed by Pribram and Bohm posits a lens defined world view much like the textured prismatic effect of sunlight refracted by the churning mists of a rainbow a view which is quite different from the more conventional "objective reality" - not to be confused with objectivity - approach. Pribram held that if psychology means to understand the conditions that produce the world of appearances, it must look to the thinking of physicists like Bohm.[3] Thought as a System Bohm was alarmed by what he considered an increasing imbalance of not only 'man' and nature, but among peoples, as well as people, themselves. Bohm: "So one begins to wonder what is going to happen to the human race. Technology keeps on advancing with greater and greater power, either for good or for destruction." He goes on to ask: What is the source of all this trouble? I'm saying that the source is basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our problems. That's part of our tradition. Yet it looks as if the thing we use to solve our problems with is the source of our problems. It's like going to the doctor and having him make you ill. In fact, in 20% of medical cases we do apparently have that going on. But in the case of thought, it's far over 20%. In Bohm's view: ...the general tacit assumption in thought is that it's just telling you the way things are and that it's not doing anything - that 'you' are inside there, deciding what to do with the info. But you don't decide what to do with the info. Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one

David Bohm who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us. Thought is creating divisions out of itself and then saying that they are there naturally. This is another major feature of thought: Thought doesn't know it is doing something and then it struggles against what it is doing. It doesn't want to know that it is doing it. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call "sustained incoherence". Bohm thus proposes in his book, Thought as a System, a pervasive, systematic nature of thought: What I mean by "thought" is the whole thing - thought, felt, the body, the whole society sharing thoughts - it's all one process. It is essential for me not to break that up, because it's all one process; somebody else's thoughts becomes my thoughts, and vice versa. Therefore it would be wrong and misleading to break it up into my thoughts, your thoughts, my feelings, these feelings, those feelings... I would say that thought makes what is often called in modern language a system. A system means a set of connected things or parts. But the way people commonly use the word nowadays it means something all of whose parts are mutually interdependent not only for their mutual action, but for their meaning and for their existence. A corporation is organized as a system - it has this department, that department, that department. They don't have any meaning separately; they only can function together. And also the body is a system. Society is a system in some sense. And so on. Similarly, thought is a system. That system not only includes thoughts, "felts" and feelings, but it includes the state of the body; it includes the whole of society - as thought is passing back and forth between people in a process by which thought evolved from ancient times. A system is constantly engaged in a process of development, change, evolution and structure changes...although there are certain features of the system which become relatively fixed. We call this the structure.... Thought has been constantly evolving and we can't say when that structure began. But with the growth of civilization it has developed a great deal. It was probably very simple thought before civilization, and now it has become very complex and ramified and has much more incoherence than before. Now, I say that this system has a fault in it - a "systematic fault". It is not a fault here, there or here, but it is a fault that is all throughout the system. Can you picture that? It is everywhere and nowhere. You may say "I see a problem here, so I will bring my thoughts to bear on this problem". But "my" thought is part of the system. It has the same fault as the fault I'm trying to look at, or a similar fault. Thought is constantly creating problems that way and then trying to solve them. But as it tries to solve them it makes it worse because it doesnt notice that it's creating them, and the more it thinks, the more problems it creates. (P. 18-19) Bohm Dialogue To address societal problems in his later years, Bohm wrote a proposal for a solution that has become known as "Bohm Dialogue", in which equal status and "free space" form the most important prerequisites of communication and the appreciation of differing personal beliefs. He suggested that if these Dialogue groups were experienced on a sufficiently wide scale, they could help overcome the isolation and fragmentation Bohm observed was inherent in the society.

Later years
Bohm continued his work in quantum physics past his retirement in 1987. His final work, the posthumously published The Undivided Universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory (1993), resulted from a decades-long collaboration with his colleague Basil Hiley. He also spoke to audiences across Europe and North America on the importance of dialogue as a form of sociotherapy, a concept he borrowed from London psychiatrist and practitioner of Group Analysis Patrick De Mare, and had a series of meetings with the Dalai Lama. He was elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 1990.

David Bohm Near the end of his life, Bohm began to experience a recurrence of depression which he had suffered at earlier times in his life. He was admitted to the Maudsley Hospital in South London on 10 May 1991. His condition worsened and it was decided that the only thing that might help him was electroconvulsive therapy. Bohm's wife consulted psychiatrist David Shainberg, Bohm's long-time friend and collaborator, who agreed that electroconvulsive treatments were probably his only option. Bohm showed marked improvement from the treatments and was released on 29 August. However, his depression returned and was treated with medication.[4] David Bohm died of a heart attack in Hendon,[5] London, on 27 October 1992, aged 74. In fact, Professor Bohm was traveling in a London taxi on that day, conversing with the cab driver. After not getting any response from the passenger in the back seat for a few seconds, the driver turned back and found Dr. Bohm had died of a heart attack.[6] David Bohm was considered by many Nobel laureates as one of the best quantum physicists of all time, who richly deserved the Nobel Prize, but failed to obtain it possibly due to political victimization.[7]

Publications
1951. Quantum Theory, New York: Prentice Hall. 1989 reprint, New York: Dover, ISBN 0-486-65969-0 1957. Causality and Chance in Modern Physics, 1961 Harper edition reprinted in 1980 by Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania Press, ISBN 0-8122-1002-6 1962. Quanta and Reality, A Symposium, with N. R. Hanson and Mary B. Hesse, from a BBC program published by the American Research Council 1965. The Special Theory of Relativity, New York: W.A. Benjamin. 1980. Wholeness and the Implicate Order, London: Routledge, ISBN 0-7100-0971-2, 1983 Ark paperback: ISBN 0-7448-0000-5, 2002 paperback: ISBN 0-415-28979-3 1985. Unfolding Meaning: A weekend of dialogue with David Bohm (Donald Factor, editor), Gloucestershire: Foundation House, ISBN 0-948325-00-3, 1987 Ark paperback: ISBN 0-7448-0064-1, 1996 Routledge paperback: ISBN 0-415-13638-5 1985. The Ending of Time, with Jiddu Krishnamurti, San Francisco, CA: Harper, ISBN 0-06-064796-5. 1987. Science, Order and Creativity, with F. David Peat. London: Routledge. 2nd ed. 2000. ISBN 0-415-17182-2. 1991. Changing Consciousness: Exploring the Hidden Source of the Social, Political and Environmental Crises Facing our World (a dialogue of words and images), coauthor Mark Edwards, Harper San Francisco, ISBN 0-06-250072-4 1992. Thought as a System (transcript of seminar held in Ojai, California, from 30 November to 2 December 1990), London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-11980-4. 1993. The Undivided Universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory, with B.J. Hiley, London: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-12185-X (final work) 1996. On Dialogue. editor Lee Nichol. London: Routledge, hardcover: ISBN 0-415-14911-8, paperback: ISBN 0-415-14912-6, 2004 edition: ISBN 0-415-33641-4 1998. On Creativity, editor Lee Nichol. London: Routledge, hardcover: ISBN 0-415-17395-7, paperback: ISBN 0-415-17396-5, 2004 edition: ISBN 0-415-33640-6 1999. Limits of Thought: Discussions, with Jiddu Krishnamurti, London: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-19398-2. 1999. Bohm-Biederman Correspondence: Creativity and Science, with Charles Biederman. editor Paavo Pylkknen. ISBN 0-415-16225-4. 2002. The Essential David Bohm. editor Lee Nichol. London: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-26174-0. preface by the Dalai Lama

David Bohm

See also
Aharonov-Bohm effect American philosophy Bohm diffusion of a plasma in a magnetic field Bohm interpretation Correspondence principle De BroglieBohm theory EPR paradox Holographic paradigm Holographic principle Holomovement Holonomic brain theory Implicate and Explicate Order Implicate order Jiddu Krishnamurti Membrane paradigm Penrose-Hameroff "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" theory of consciousness

The Bohm sheath criterion, which states that a plasma must flow with at least the speed of sound toward a solid surface Wave gene John Stewart Bell Karl Pribram Influence on John David Garcia List of American philosophers

References
[1] http:/ / www. aim25. ac. uk/ cgi-bin/ search2?coll_id=3070& inst_id=33 [2] Comparison between Karl Pribram's "Holographic Brain Theory" and more conventional models of neuronal computation (http:/ / www. acsa2000. net/ bcngroup/ jponkp/ #chap4) [3] http:/ / homepages. ihug. co. nz/ ~sai/ pribram. htm [4] F. David Peat, Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1997, pp. 308-317. ISBN 0201328208. [5] Deaths England and Wales 1984-2006 (http:/ / www. findmypast. com/ BirthsMarriagesDeaths. jsp) [6] F. David Peat, Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1997, pp. 308-317. ISBN 0201328208. [7] F. David Peat, Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1997, pp. 308-317. ISBN 0201328208.

"Bohm's Alternative to Quantum Mechanics", David Z. Albert, Scientific American (May, 1994) Brotherhood of the Bomb: The Tangled Lives and Loyalties of Robert Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence, and Edward Teller, Herken, Gregg, New York: Henry Holt (2002) ISBN 0-8050-6589-X (information on Bohm's work at Berkeley and his dealings with HUAC) Infinite Potential: the Life and Times of David Bohm, F. David Peat, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley (1997), ISBN 0-201-40635-7 DavidPeat.com (http://www.fdavidpeat.com/) Quantum Implications: Essays in Honour of David Bohm, (B.J. Hiley, F. David Peat, editors), London: Routledge (1987), ISBN 0-415-06960-2 Thought as a System (transcript of seminar held in Ojai, California, from 30 November to 2 December 1990), London: Routledge. (1992) ISBN 0-415-11980-4. The Quantum Theory of Motion: an account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Peter R. Holland, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (2000) ISBN 0-921-48453-9.

David Bohm

External links
English site (http://www.david-bohm.net) for David Bohm's ideas about Dialogue. the David_Bohm_Hub (http://www.thinkg.net/david_bohm/) From thinkg.net, with compilations of David Bohm's life and work in form of texts, audio, video, and pictures. Thought Knowledge Perception Institute (http://www.tkpi.org) A non-partisan organization that aims to preserve and continue the work of David Bohm and others. Lifework of David Bohm: River of Truth (http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm. htm#BOHM'S LEGACY): Article by Will Keepin Dialogos (http://www.dialogos.com): Consulting group, originally founded by Bohm colleagues William Isaacs and Peter Garrett, aiming to bring Bohm dialogue into organizations. (http://www.quantum-mind.co.uk) quantum mind Interview with David Bohm (http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/bohm.htm) provided and conducted by F. David Peat along with John Briggs, first issued in Omni magazine, January 1987 David Bohm and Krishnamurti (http://www.wie.org/j11/peat.asp) Archive of papers at Birkbeck College relating to David Bohm. (http://www.bbk.ac.uk/lib/about/hours/ bohm) Quantum-Mind (http://www.quantum-mind.co.uk) Oral History interview transcript with David Bohm 8 May 1981, American Institute of Physics, Niels Bohr Library and Archives (http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4513.html)

Aharonov-Bohm effect
The AharonovBohm effect, sometimes called the EhrenbergSidayAharonovBohm effect, is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which an electrically charged particle shows a measurable interaction with an electromagnetic field despite being confined to a region in which both the magnetic field B and electric field E are zero. The AharonovBohm effect shows that the local E and B fields do not contain full information about the electromagnetic field, and the electromagnetic four-potential, A, must be used instead. By Stokes' theorem, the magnitude of the AharonovBohm effect can be calculated using A alone or using E and B alone. But when using E and B, however, the effect depends on the field values in a region from which the test particle is excluded, not only classically but also quantum mechanically. In contrast, the effect depends on A only in the region where the test particle is allowed. Therefore we can either abandon the principle of locality (which most physicists are reluctant to do) or we are forced to accept the realisation that the electromagnetic potential offers a more complete description of electromagnetism than the electric and magnetic fields can. In classical electromagnetism the two descriptions were equivalent. With the addition of quantum theory, though, the electromagnetic potential A is seen as being more fundamental or "real";[1] the E and B fields can be derived from the potential A, but the potential can not be derived from the E and B fields. Werner Ehrenberg and Raymond E. Siday first predicted the effect in 1949,[2] and similar effects were later rediscovered by Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm in 1959.[3] (After publication of the 1959 paper, Bohm was informed of Ehrenberg and Siday's work, which was acknowledged and credited in Bohm and Aharanov's subsequent 1961 paper.[4] [5] ) The most commonly described case, sometimes called the AharonovBohm solenoid effect, takes place when the wave function of a charged particle passing around a long solenoid experiences a phase shift as a result of the enclosed magnetic field, despite the magnetic field being zero in the region through which the particle passes. This phase shift has been observed experimentally by its effect on interference fringes. (There are also magnetic

Aharonov-Bohm effect AharonovBohm effects on bound energies and scattering cross sections, but these cases have not been experimentally tested.) An electric AharonovBohm phenomenon was also predicted, in which a charged particle is affected by regions with different electrical potentials but zero electric field, and this has also seen experimental confirmation. A separate "molecular" AharonovBohm effect was proposed for nuclear motion in multiply-connected regions, but this has been argued to be essentially different, depending only on local quantities along the nuclear path.[6] A general review can be found in Peshkin and Tonomura (1989).[7]

Magnetic solenoid effect

The magnetic AharonovBohm effect can be seen as a result of the requirement that quantum physics be invariant with respect to the gauge choice for the electromagnetic potential, of which the magnetic vector potential A forms part. Electromagnetic theory implies that a particle with electric charge q travelling along some path P in a region with zero magnetic field B, but non-zero A (by ), acquires a phase shift , given in SI units by

Therefore particles, with the same start and end points, but travelling along two different routes will acquire a phase difference determined by the magnetic flux through the area between the paths (via Stokes' theorem and ), and given by:

In quantum mechanics the same particle can travel between two points by a variety of paths. Therefore this phase difference can be observed by placing a solenoid between the slits of a double-slit experiment (or equivalent). An ideal solenoid encloses a magnetic field B, but does not produce any magnetic field outside of its cylinder, and thus the charged particle (e.g. an electron) passing outside experiences no magnetic field B. However, there is a (curl-free) vector potential A outside the solenoid with an enclosed flux, and so the relative phase of particles passing through one slit or the other is altered by whether the solenoid current is turned on or off. This corresponds to an observable shift of the interference fringes on the observation plane.

Schematic of double-slit experiment in which AharonovBohm effect can be observed: electrons pass through two slits, interfering at an observation screen, with the interference pattern shifted when a magnetic field B is turned on in the cylindrical solenoid.

The same phase effect is responsible for the quantized-flux requirement in superconducting loops. This quantization occurs because the superconducting wave function must be single valued: its phase difference around a closed loop must be an integer multiple of 2 (with the charge for the electron Cooper pairs), and thus the flux must be a multiple of h/2e. The superconducting flux quantum was actually predicted prior to Aharonov and Bohm, by F. London in 1948 using a phenomenological model.[8] The magnetic AharonovBohm effect was experimentally confirmed by Osakabe et al. (1986),[9] following much earlier work summarized in Olariu and Popscu (1984).[10] Its scope and application continues to expand. Webb et al. (1985)[11] demonstrated AharonovBohm oscillations in ordinary, non-superconducting metallic rings; for a discussion, see Schwarzschild (1986)[12] and Imry & Webb (1989).[13] Bachtold et al. (1999)[14] detected the effect

Aharonov-Bohm effect in carbon nanotubes; for a discussion, see Kong et al. (2004).[15]

Monopoles and Dirac strings

The magnetic AharonovBohm effect is also closely related to Dirac's argument that the existence of a magnetic monopole can be accommodated by the existing magnetic source-free Maxwell's equations if both electric and magnetic charges are quantized. A magnetic monopole implies a mathematical singularity in the vector potential, which can be expressed as an Dirac string of infinitesimal diameter that contains the equivalent of all of the 4g flux from a monopole "charge" g. The Dirac string starts from, and terminates on, a magnetic monopole. Thus, assuming the absence of an infinite-range scattering effect by this arbitrary choice of singularity, the requirement of single-valued wave functions (as above) necessitates charge-quantization. That is magnetic charge qm. Like the electromagnetic potential A the Dirac string is not gauge invariant (it moves around with fixed endpoints under a gauge transformation) is also not directly measurable. must be an integer (in cgs units) for any electric charge qe and

Electric effect
Just as the phase of the wave function depends upon the magnetic vector potential, it also depends upon the scalar electric potential. By constructing a situation in which the electrostatic potential varies for two paths of a particle, through regions of zero electric field, an observable AharonovBohm interference phenomenon from the phase shift has been predicted; again, the absence of an electric field means that, classically, there would be no effect. From the Schrdinger equation, the phase of an eigenfunction with energy E goes as . The energy,

however, will depend upon the electrostatic potential V for a particle with charge q. In particular, for a region with constant potential V (zero field), the electric potential energy qV is simply added to E, resulting in a phase shift:

where t is the time spent in the potential. The initial theoretical proposal for this effect suggested an experiment where charges pass through conducting cylinders along two paths, which shield the particles from external electric fields in the regions where they travel, but still allow a varying potential to be applied by charging the cylinders. This proved difficult to realize, however. Instead, a different experiment was proposed involving a ring geometry interrupted by tunnel barriers, with a bias voltage V relating the potentials of the two halves of the ring. This situation results in an AharonovBohm phase shift as above, and was observed experimentally in 1998.[16]

AharonovBohm nano rings

Nano rings were created by accident[17] while intending to make quantum dots. They have interesting optical properties associated with excitons and the Aharonov-Bohm effect.[17] Application of these rings used as light capacitors or buffers includes photonic computing and communications technology. Analysis and measurement of geometric phases in mesoscopic rings is ongoing.[18] [19] [20]

Mathematical interpretation
In the terms of modern differential geometry, the AharonovBohm effect can be understood to be the monodromy of a flat complex line bundle. The U(1)-connection on this line bundle is given by the electromagnetic four-potential A as where d means partial derivation in the Minkowski space . The curvature form of the connection, , is the electromagnetic field strength, where is the 1-form corresponding to the

Aharonov-Bohm effect four-potential. The holonomy of the connection, around a closed loop

10 is, as a consequence of Stokes' theorem,

determined by the magnetic flux through a surface bounded by the loop. This description is general and works inside as well as outside the conductor. Outside of the conducting tube, which is for example a longitudinally magnetized infinite metallic thread, the field strength is ; in other words outside the thread the connection is flat, and the holonomy of a loop contained in the field-free region depends only on the winding number around the tube and is, by definition, the monodromy of the flat connection. In any simply connected region outside of the tube we can find a gauge transformation (acting on wave functions and connections) that gauges away the vector potential. However, if the monodromy is non trivial, there is no such gauge transformation for the whole outside region. If we want to ignore the physics inside the conductor and only describe the physics in the outside region, it becomes natural to mathematically describe the quantum electron by a section in a complex line bundle with an "external" connection rather than an external EM field (by incorporating local gauge transformations we have already acknowledged that quantum mechanics defines the notion of a (locally) flat wavefunction (zero momentum density) but not that of unit wavefunction). The Schrdinger equation readily generalizes to this situation. In fact for the AharonovBohm effect we can work in two simply connected regions with cuts that pass from the tube towards or away from the detection screen. In each of these regions we have to solve the ordinary free Schrdinger equations but in passing from one region to the other, in only one of the two connected components of the intersection (effectively in only one of the slits) we pick up a monodromy factor , which results in a shift in the interference pattern. Effects with similar mathematical interpretation can be found in other fields. For example, in classical statistical physics, quantization of a molecular motor motion in a stochastic environment can be interpreted as an Aharonov-Bohm effect induced by a gauge field acting in the space of control parameters.[21]

External links
A video explaining the use of the Aharonov-Bohm effect in nano-rings. [22]

See also
Geometric phase Hannay angle Wannier function Berry phase

References
[1] Feynman, R. The Feynman Lectures on Physics. 2. p.15-5. "...is the vector potential a "real" field? ... a real field is a mathematical device for avoiding the idea of action at a distance. .... for a long time it was believed that A was not a "real" field. .... there are phenomena involving quantum mechanics which show that in fact A is a "real" field in the sense that we have defined it..... E and B are slowly disappearing from the modern expression of physical laws; they are being replaced by A and [the scalar potential] and knowledge of the classical electromagnetic field acting locally on a particle is not sufficient to predict its quantum-mechanical behavior." [2] Ehrenberg, W; Siday, RE (1949). "The Refractive Index in Electron Optics and the Principles of Dynamics"". Proceedings of the Physical Society B 62: 821. doi:10.1088/0370-1301/62/1/303. [3] Aharonov, Y; Bohm, D (1959). "Significance of electromagnetic potentials in quantum theory". Physical Review 115: 485491. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.115.485. [4] Peat, FD (1997). Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm (http:/ / www. fdavidpeat. com/ bibliography/ books/ infinite. htm). Addison-Wesley. ISBN0-201-40635-7. . [5] Aharonov, Y; Bohm, D (1961). "Further Considerations on Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory". Physical Review 123: 15111524. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.123.1511. [6] Sjqvist, E (2002). "Locality and topology in the molecular Aharonov-Bohm effect". Physical Review Letters 89 (21): 210401. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.210401. arXiv:quant-ph/0112136. [7] Peshkin, M; Tonomura, A (1989). The Aharonov-Bohm effect. Springer-Verlag. ISBN3-540-51567-4. [8] London, F (1948). "On the Problem of the Molecular Theory of Superconductivity". Physical Review 74: 562. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.74.562.

Aharonov-Bohm effect
[9] Osakabe, N; et al. (1986). "Experimental confirmation of Aharonov-Bohm effect using a toroidal magnetic field confined by a superconductor". Physical Review A 34: 815. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.34.815. [10] Olariu, S; Popescu, II (1985). "The quantum effects of electromagnetic fluxes". Reviews of Modern Physics 57: 339. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.57.339. [11] Webb, RA; Washburn, S; Umbach, CP; Laibowitz, RB (1985). "Observation of h/e Aharonov-Bohm Oscillations in Normal-Metal Rings". Physical Review Letters 54: 2696. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.54.2696. [12] Schwarzschild, B (1986). "Currents in Normal-Metal Rings Exhibit AharonovBohm Effect". Physics Today 39 (1): 17. doi:10.1063/1.2814843. [13] Imry, Y; Webb, RA (1989). "Quantum Interference and the Aharonov-Bohm Effect". Scientific American 260 (4). [14] Schnenberger, C (1999). "AharonovBohm oscillations in carbon nanotubes". Nature 397: 673. doi:10.1038/17755. [15] Kong, J; Kouwenhoven, L; Dekker, C (2004). "Quantum change for nanotubes" (http:/ / physicsworld. com/ cws/ article/ print/ 19746). Physics World. . Retrieved 2009-08-17. [16] van Oudenaarden, A (1998). "Magneto-electric AharonovBohm effect in metal rings". Nature 391: 768. doi:10.1038/35808. [17] Fischer, AM (2009). "Quantum doughnuts slow and freeze light at will" (http:/ / www. innovations-report. com/ html/ reports/ physics_astronomy/ quantum_doughnuts_slow_freeze_light_128981. html). Innovation Reports. . Retrieved 2008-08-17. [18] Borunda, MF; et al. (2008). "Aharonov-Casher and spin Hall effects in two-dimensional mesoscopic ring structures with strong spin-orbit interaction". ariv:0809.0880 [cond-mat.mes-hall]. [19] Grbic, B; et al. (2008). "Aharonov-Bohm oscillations in p-type GaAs quantum rings". Physica E 40: 1273. doi:10.1016/j.physe.2007.08.129. arXiv:0711.0489. [20] Fischer, AM; et al. (2009). "Exciton Storage in a Nanoscale Aharonov-Bohm Ring with Electric Field Tuning". Physical Review Letters 102: 096405. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.096405. arXiv:0809.3863. [21] Chernyak, VY; Sinitsyn, NA (2009). "Robust quantization of a molecular motor motion in a stochastic environment". Journal of Chemical Physics 131: 181101. doi:10.1063/1.3263821. arXiv:0906.3032. Bibcode:2009JChPh.131r1101C. [22] http:/ / www2. warwick. ac. uk/ newsandevents/ news/ quantumdoughnuts

11

Bohm diffusion
Bohm diffusion is the diffusion of plasma across a magnetic field with a diffusion coefficient equal to , where B is the magnetic field strength, T is the temperature, and e is the elementary charge. It was first observed in 1946 by David Bohm, E. H. S. Burhop, and Harrie Massey while studying magnetic arcs for use in isotope separation [1]. It has since been observed that many other plasmas follow this law. Fortunately there are exceptions where the diffusion rate is lower, otherwise there would be no hope of achieving practical fusion energy. Generally diffusion can be modelled as a random walk of steps of length and time . If the diffusion is collisional, then is the mean free path and is the inverse of the collision frequency. The diffusion coefficient D can be expressed variously as

where v = / is the velocity between collisions. In a magnetized plasma, the collision frequency is usually small compared to the gyrofrequency, so that the step size is the gyroradius and the step time is the inverse of the collision frequency , leading to D = . If the collision frequency is larger than the gyrofrequency, then the particles can be considered to move freely with the thermal velocity vth between collisions, and the diffusion coefficient takes the form D = vth/. Evidently the classical (collisional) diffusion is maximum when the collision frequency is equal to the gyrofrequency, in which case D = c = vth/c. Substituting = vth/c, vth = (kBT/m)1/2, and c = eB/m, we arrive at D = kBT/eB, which is the Bohm scaling. Considering the approximate nature of this derivation, the missing 1/16 in front is no cause for concern. Therefore, at least within a factor of order unity, Bohm diffusion is always greater than classical diffusion.

Bohm diffusion In the common low collisionality regime, classical diffusion scales with 1/B, compared with the 1/B dependence of Bohm diffusion. This distinction is often used to distinguish between the two. In light of the calculation above, it is tempting to think of Bohm diffusion as classical diffusion with an anomalous collision rate that maximizes the transport, but the physical picture is different. Anomalous diffusion is the result of turbulence. Regions of higher or lower electric potential result in eddies because the plasma moves around them with the E-cross-B drift velocity equal to E/B. These eddies play a similar role to the gyro-orbits in classical diffusion, except that the physics of the turbulence can be such that the decorrelation time is approximately equal to the turn-over time, resulting in Bohm scaling. Another way of looking at it is that the turbulent electric field is approximately equal to the potential perturbation divided by the scale length , and the potential perturbation can be expected to be a sizeable fraction of the kBT/e. The turbulent diffusion constant D = v is then independent of the scale length and is approximately equal to the Bohm value. The fraction 1/16 according to Bohm "has no theoretical justification but is an empirical number agreeing with most experiments to within a factor of two or three"[1] Many physicists like L. Spitzer [2] , considered this fraction as a factor related to plasma instability.

12

References
[1] D Bohm the characteristics of electrical discharges in magnetic fields ed A Guthrie and R K Wakerling (New York: McGraw-Hill) (1949). [2] L Spitzer Phys.Fluids3 659 (1960).

External links
Physics Glossary (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/fusion-faq/glossary/b/)

Bohm interpretation
The de BroglieBohm theory, also called the pilot-wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum theory. As in quantum theory, it contains a wavefunction - a function on the space of all possible configurations. Additionally, it also contains an actual configuration, even in situations where nobody observes it. The evolution over time of the configuration (that is, of the positions of all particles or the configuration of all fields) is defined by the wave function via a guiding equation. The evolution of the wavefunction over time is given by Schrdinger's equation. The de BroglieBohm theory expresses in an explicit manner the fundamental non-locality in quantum physics. The velocity of any one particle depends on the value of the wavefunction, which depends on the whole configuration of the universe. This theory is deterministic. Most (but not all) relativistic variants require a preferred frame. Variants which handle spin and curved spaces are known. It can be modified to handle quantum field theory. Bell's theorem was inspired by Bell's discovery of the work of David Bohm and his subsequent wondering if the obvious non-locality of the theory could be removed. This theory gives rise to a measurement formalism, analogous to thermodynamics for classical mechanics, which yields the standard quantum formalism generally associated with the Copenhagen interpretation. The measurement problem is resolved by this theory since the outcome of an experiment is registered by the configuration of the particles of the experimental apparatus after the experiment is completed. The familiar wavefunction collapse of standard quantum mechanics emerges from an analysis of subsystems and the quantum equilibrium hypothesis. The theory has a number of equivalent mathematical formulations and has been presented under a number of different names.

Bohm interpretation

13

Overview
De BroglieBohm theory is based on the following: We have a configuration space the space of positions of the universe, described by coordinates of , which is an element of the configuration . The

. The configuration space is different for different versions of pilot wave theory. For example, this may be particles, or, in case of field theory, the space of field configurations

configuration evolves according to the guiding equation . Here, is the standard complex-valued wavefunction known from quantum theory, which evolves according

to Schrdinger's equation

This already completes the specification of the theory for any quantum theory with Hamilton operator of type . If the configuration is distributed according to quantum mechanics. at some moment of time , this holds for all times. Such

a state is named quantum equilibrium. In quantum equilibrium, this theory will agree with the results of standard

Two-slit experiment
The double-slit experiment is an illustration of wave-particle duality. In it, a beam of particles (such as photons) travels through a barrier with two slits removed. If one puts a detector screen on the other side, the pattern of detected particles shows interference fringes characteristic of waves; however, the detector screen responds to particles. The system exhibits behaviour of both waves (interference patterns) and particles (dots on the screen). If we modify this experiment so that one slit is closed, no interference pattern is observed. Thus, the state of both slits affects the final results. We can also arrange to have a minimally invasive detector at one of the slits to see which slit the particle went through. When we do that, the interference pattern disappears.

The Copenhagen interpretation states that the particles are not localised in space until they are detected, so that, if there is no detector on the slits, there is no matter of fact about what slit has the particle passed through. If one slit has a detector on it, then the wavefunction collapses due to that detection. In de BroglieBohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. The final position of the particle on the detector screen and the slit through which the particle passes by is determined by the initial position of the particle. Such initial position is not controllable by the experimenter, so there is an appearance of randomness in the pattern of detection. The wave function interferes with itself and guides the particles in such a way that the particles avoid the regions in which the interference is destructive and are attracted to the regions in which the interference is constructive, giving rise to the interference pattern on the detector screen.

The Bohmian trajectories for an electron going through the two-slit experiment.

Bohm interpretation To explain the behavior when the particle is detected to go through one slit, one needs to appreciate the role of the conditional wavefunction and how it gives rise to the collapse of the wavefunction; this is explained below. The basic idea is that the environment registering the detection effectively separates the two wave packets in configuration space.

14

The Theory
The ontology
The ontology of de Broglie-Bohm theory consists of a configuration . The configuration space quantum mechanics. Thus, the ontology of pilot wave theory contains as the trajectory the wave function of the universe and a pilot wave can be chosen differently, as in classical mechanics and standard we know from classical mechanics, as

of quantum theory. So, at every moment of time there exists not only a wave

function, but also a well-defined configuration of the whole universe. The correspondence to our experiences is made by the identification of the configuration of our brain with some part of the configuration of the whole universe , as in classical mechanics. While the ontology of classical mechanics is part of the ontology of de BroglieBohm theory, the dynamics is very different. In classical mechanics, the acceleration of the particles are given by forces. In de BroglieBohm theory, the velocities of the particles are given by the wavefunction. In what follows below, we will give the setup for one particle moving in followed by the setup for particles moving in 3 dimensions. In the first instance, configuration space and real space are the same while in the second, real space is still , but configuration space becomes . While the particle positions themselves are in real space, the velocity field and wavefunction are on configuration space which is how particles are entangled with each other in this theory. Extensions to this theory include spin and more complicated configuration spaces. We use variations of configuration space. for particle positions while represents the complex-valued wavefunction on

Guiding equation
For a single particle moving in , the particle's velocity is given . For many particles, we label them as for the th particle and their velocities are given by . The key fact to notice is that this velocity field depends on the actual positions of all of the particles in the

universe. As explained below, in most experimental situations, the influence of all of those particles can be encapsulated into an effective wavefunction for a subsystem of the universe.

Bohm interpretation

15

Schrdinger's equation
The one particle Schrdinger equation governs the time evolution of a complex-valued wavefunction on . The equation represents a quantized version of the total energy of a classical system evolving under a real-valued potential function on :

For many particles, the equation is the same except that

and

are now on configuration space,

This is the same wavefunction of conventional quantum mechanics.

The Born Rule

In Bohm's original papers [Bohm 1952] , he discusses how de BroglieBohm theory gives rise to the usual measurement results of quantum mechanics. The key idea is that this is true if the positions of the particles satisfy the statistical distribution given by . And that distribution is guaranteed to be true for all time under the guiding equation if the initial distribution of the particles satisfies . For a given experiment, we can postulate this as being true and verify experimentally that it does indeed hold true, as it does. But, as argued in Drr et al.,[1] one needs to argue that this distribution for subsystems is typical. They argue that by virtue of its equivariance under the dynamical evolution of the system, is the appropriate measure of typicality for initial conditions of the positions of the particles. They then prove that the vast majority of possible initial configurations will give rise to Born rule (i.e., ) statistics for measurement outcomes. In short, in a universe governed by the de BroglieBohm dynamics, Born rule behavior is typical. The situation is thus analogous to the situation in classical statistical physics. A low entropy initial condition will, with overwhelmingly high probability, evolve into a higher entropy state: behavior consistent with the second law of thermodynamics is typical. There are, of course, anomalous initial conditions which would give rise to violations of the second law. However, absent some very detailed evidence supporting the actual realization of one of those special initial conditions, it would be quite unreasonable to expect anything but the actually observed uniform increase of entropy. Similarly, in the de BroglieBohm theory, there are anomalous initial conditions which would produce measurement statistics in violation of the Born rule (i.e., in conflict with the predictions of standard quantum theory). But the typicality theorem shows that, absent some particular reason to believe one of those special initial conditions was in fact realized, Born rule behavior is what one should expect. It is in that qualified sense that Born rule is, for the de BroglieBohm theory, a theorem rather than (as in ordinary quantum theory) an additional postulate.

The conditional wave function of a subsystem

In the formulation of the De BroglieBohm theory, there is only a wave function for the entire universe (which always evolves by the Schrdinger equation). However, once the theory is formulated, it is convenient to introduce a notion of wave function also for subsystems of the universe. Let us write the wave function of the universe as , where denotes the configuration variables associated to some subsystem (I) of the universe and denotes the remaining configuration variables. Denote, respectively, by The conditional wave function of subsystem (I) is defined by: It follows immediately from the fact that configuration satisfies the guiding equation that also the and by the actual

configuration of subsystem (I) and of the rest of the universe. For simplicity, we consider here only the spinless case.

satisfies a guiding equation identical to the one presented in the formulation of the theory, with

Bohm interpretation the universal wave function replaced with the conditional wave function . Also, the fact that

16 is random with given

[2]

probability density given by the square modulus of

implies that the conditional probability density of (in the terminology of Drr et al.

by the square modulus of the (normalized) conditional wave function

this fact is

called the fundamental conditional probability formula). Unlike the universal wave function, the conditional wave function of a subsystem does not always evolves by the Schrdinger equation, but in many situations it does. For instance, if the universal wave function factors as:

then the conditional wave function of subsystem (I) is (up to an irrelevant scalar factor) equal to not contain an interaction term between subsystems (I) and (II) then generally, assume that the universal wave function where solves Schrdinger equation and

(this is what

Standard Quantum Theory would regard as the wave function of subsystem (I)). If, in addition, the Hamiltonian does does satisfy a Schrdinger equation. More can be written in the form: for all and . Then, again, the conditional and if the Hamiltonian does not

wave function of subsystem (I) is (up to an irrelevant scalar factor) equal to

contain an interaction term between subsystems (I) and (II), satisfies a Schrdinger equation. The fact that the conditional wave function of a subsystem does not always evolve by the Schrdinger equation is related to the fact that the usual collapse rule of Standard Quantum Theory emerges from the Bohmian formalism when one considers conditional wave functions of subsystems.

Extensions
Spin
To incorporate spin, the wavefunction becomes complex-vector valued. The value space is called spin space; for a spin-1/2 particle, spin space can be taken to be . The guiding equation is modified by taking inner products in spin space to reduce the complex vectors to complex numbers. The Schrdinger equation is modified by adding a Pauli spin term.

where

is the magnetic moment of the

th particle, , and

is the appropriate spin operator acting on the

th

particle's spin space, potential in

are, respectively, the magnetic field and the vector is the charge of the th particle, and

(all other functions are fully on configuration space), ,

is the inner product in spin space

For an example of a spin space, a system consisting of two spin 1/2 particle and one spin 1 particle has a wavefunctions of the form . That is, its spin space is a 12 dimensional space.

Bohm interpretation

17

Curved space
To extend de BroglieBohm theory to curved space (Riemannian manifolds in mathematical parlance), one simply notes that all of the elements of these equations make sense, such as gradients and Laplacians. Thus, we use equations that have the same form as above. Topological and boundary conditions may apply in supplementing the evolution of Schrdinger's equation. For a de BroglieBohm theory on curved space with spin, the spin space becomes a vector bundle over configuration space and the potential in Schrdinger's equation becomes a local self-adjoint operator acting on that space.[3]

Quantum field theory

In Drr et al.,[4] [5] the authors describe an extension of de BroglieBohm theory for handling creation and annihilation operators. The basic idea is that configuration space becomes the (disjoint) space of all possible configurations of any number of particles. For part of the time, the system evolves deterministically under the guiding equation with a fixed number of particles. But under a stochastic process, particles may be created and annihilated. The distribution of creation events is dictated by the wavefunction. The wavefunction itself is evolving at all times over the full multi-particle configuration space. Nikolic [6] introduces a purely deterministic de BroglieBohm theory of particle creation and destruction, according to which particle trajectories are continuous, but particle detectors behave as if particles have been created or destroyed even when a true creation or destruction of particles does not take place.

Exploiting nonlocality
Valentini[7] has extended the de BroglieBohm theory to include signal nonlocality that would allow entanglement to be used as a stand-alone communication channel without a secondary classical "key" signal to "unlock" the message encoded in the entanglement. This violates orthodox quantum theory but it has the virtue that it makes the parallel universes of the chaotic inflation theory observable in principle. Unlike de BroglieBohm theory, Valentini's theory has the wavefunction evolution also depend on the ontological variables. This introduces an instability, a feedback loop that pushes the hidden variables out of "sub-quantal heat death". The resulting theory becomes nonlinear and non-unitary.

Relativity
Pilot wave theory is explicitly nonlocal. As a consequence, most relativistic variants of pilot wave theory need a preferred foliation of space-time. While this is in conflict with the standard interpretation of relativity, the preferred foliation, if unobservable, does not lead to any empirical conflicts with relativity. The relation between nonlocality and preferred foliation can be better understood as follows. In de BroglieBohm theory, nonlocality manifests as the fact that the velocity and acceleration of one particle depends on the instantaneous positions of all other particles. On the other hand, in the theory of relativity the concept of instantaneousness does not have an invariant meaning. Thus, to define particle trajectories, one needs an additional rule that defines which space-time points should be considered instantaneous. The simplest way to achieve this is to introduce a preferred foliation of space-time by hand, such that each hypersurface of the foliation defines a hypersurface of equal time. However, this way (which explicitly breaks the relativistic covariance) is not the only way. It is also possible that a rule which defines instantaneousness is contingent, by emerging dynamically from relativistic covariant laws combined with particular initial conditions. In this way, the need for a preferred foliation can be avoided and relativistic covariance can be saved. There has been work in developing relativistic versions of de BroglieBohm theory. See Bohm and Hiley: The Undivided Universe, and [8], [9], and references therein. Another approach is given in the work of Drr et al.[10] in which they use Bohm-Dirac models and a Lorentz-invariant foliation of space-time.

Bohm interpretation In [11],[12] and [13] Nikolic develops a generalized relativistic-invariant probabilistic interpretation of quantum theory, in which 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 BroglieBohm theory without introducing a preferred foliation of space-time.

18

Results
Below are some highlights of the results that arise out of an analysis of de BroglieBohm theory. Experimental results agree with all of the standard predictions of quantum mechanics in so far as the latter has predictions. However, while standard quantum mechanics is limited to discussing experiments with human observers, de BroglieBohm theory is a theory which governs the dynamics of a system without the intervention of outside observers (p.117 in Bell[14] ). The basis for agreement with standard quantum mechanics is that the particles are distributed according to This is a statement of observer ignorance, but it can be proven
[1]

that for a universe governed by this theory, this will

typically be the case. There is apparent collapse of the wave function governing subsystems of the universe, but there is no collapse of the universal wavefunction.

Measuring spin and polarization

According to ordinary quantum theory, it is not possible to measure the spin or polarization of a particle directly; instead, the component in one direction is measured; the outcome from a single particle may be 1, meaning that the particle is aligned with the measuring apparatus, or -1, meaning that it is aligned the opposite way. For an ensemble of particles, if we expect the particles to be aligned, the results are all 1. If we expect them to be aligned oppositely, the results are all -1. For other alignments, we expect some results to be 1 and some to be -1 with a probability that depends on the expected alignment. For a full explanation of this, see the Stern-Gerlach Experiment. In de BroglieBohm theory, the results of a spin experiment cannot be analyzed without some knowledge of the experimental setup. It is possible[15] to modify the setup so that the trajectory of the particle is unaffected, but that the particle with one setup registers as spin up while in the other setup it registers as spin down. Thus, for the de BroglieBohm theory, the particle's spin is not an intrinsic property of the particleinstead spin is, so to speak, in the wave function of the particle in relation to the particular device being used to measure the spin. This is an illustration of what is sometimes referred to as contextuality, and is related to naive realism about operators.[16]

Measurements, the quantum formalism, and observer independence

De BroglieBohm theory gives the same results as quantum mechanics. It treats the wavefunction as a fundamental object in the theory as the wavefunction describes how the particles move. This means that no experiment can distinguish between the two theories. This section outlines the ideas as to how the standard quantum formalism arises out of quantum mechanics. References include Bohm's original 1952 paper and Drr et al.[1] Collapse of the wavefunction De BroglieBohm theory is a theory that applies primarily to the whole universe. That is, there is a single wavefunction governing the motion of all of the particles in the universe according to the guiding equation. Theoretically, the motion of one particle depends on the positions of all of the other particles in the universe. In some situations, such as in experimental systems, we can represent the system itself in terms of a de BroglieBohm theory in which the wavefunction of the system is obtained by conditioning on the environment of the system. Thus, the system can be analyzed with Schrdinger's equation and the guiding equation, with an initial distribution for the particles in the system (see the section on the conditional wave function of a subsystem for details). It requires a special setup for the conditional wavefunction of a system to obey a quantum evolution. When a system interacts with its environment, such as through a measurement, then the conditional wavefunction of the system

Bohm interpretation evolves in a different way. The evolution of the universal wavefunction can become such that the wavefunction of the system appears to be in a superposition of distinct states. But if the environment has recorded the results of the experiment, then using the actual Bohmian configuration of the environment to condition on, the conditional wavefunction collapses to just one alternative, the one corresponding with the measurement results. Collapse of the universal wavefunction never occurs in de BroglieBohm theory. Its entire evolution is governed by Schrdinger's equation and the particles' evolutions are governed by the guiding equation. Collapse only occurs in a phenomenological way for systems that seem to follow their own Schrdinger's equation. As this is an effective description of the system, it is a matter of choice as to what to define the experimental system to include and this will affect when "collapse" occurs. Operators as observables In the standard quantum formalism, measuring observables is generally thought of as measuring operators on the Hilbert space. For example, measuring position is considered to be a measurement of the position operator. This relationship between physical measurements and Hilbert space operators is, for standard quantum mechanics, an additional axiom of the theory. The de BroglieBohm theory, by contrast, requires no such measurement axioms (and measurement as such is not a dynamically distinct or special sub-category of physical processes in the theory). In particular, the usual operators-as-observables formalism is, for de BroglieBohm theory, a theorem.[17] A major point of the analysis is that many of the measurements of the observables do not correspond to properties of the particles; they are (as in the case of spin discussed above) measurements of the wavefunction. In the history of de BroglieBohm theory, the proponents have often had to deal with claims that this theory is impossible. Such arguments are generally based on inappropriate analysis of operators as observables. If one believes that spin measurements are indeed measuring the spin of a particle that existed prior to the measurement, then one does reach contradictions. De BroglieBohm theory deals with this by noting that spin is not a feature of the particle, but rather that of the wavefunction. As such, it only has a definite outcome once the experimental apparatus is chosen. Once that is taken into account, the impossibility theorems become irrelevant. There have also been claims that experiments reject the Bohm trajectories [18] in favor of the standard QM lines. But as shown in [19] and [20], such experiments cited above only disprove a misinterpretation of the de BroglieBohm theory, not the theory itself. There are also objections to this theory based on what it says about particular situations usually involving eigenstates of an operator. For example, the ground state of hydrogen is a real wavefunction. According to the guiding equation, this means that the electron is at rest when in this state. Nevertheless, it is distributed according to and no contradiction to experimental results is possible to detect. Operators as observables leads many to believe that many operators are equivalent. De BroglieBohm theory, from this perspective, chooses the position observable as a favored observable rather than, say, the momentum observable. Again, the link to the position observable is a consequence of the dynamics. The motivation for de BroglieBohm theory is to describe a system of particles. This implies that the goal of the theory is to describe the positions of those particles at all times. Other observables do not have this compelling ontological status. Having definite positions explains having definite results such as flashes on a detector screen. Other observables would not lead to that conclusion, but there need not be any problem in defining a mathematical theory for other observables; see Hyman et al.[21] for an exploration of the fact that a probability density and probability current can be defined for any set of commuting operators.

19

Bohm interpretation Hidden variables De BroglieBohm theory is often referred to as a "hidden variable" theory. The alleged applicability of the term "hidden variable" comes from the fact that the particles postulated by Bohmian mechanics do not influence the evolution of the wavefunction. The argument is that, because adding particles does not have an effect on the wavefunction's evolution, such particles must not have effects at all and are, thus, unobservable, since they cannot have an effect on observers. There is no analogue of Newton's third law in this theory. The idea is supposed to be that, since particles cannot influence the wavefunction, and it is the wavefunction that determines measurement predictions through the Born rule, the particles are superfluous and unobservable. Such an argument, however, arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of the relation between the ontology posited by the de BroglieBohm theory and the world of ordinary observation. In particular, the particles postulated by the de BroglieBohm theory are anything but "hidden" variables: they are what the cats and trees and tables and planets and pointers we see are made of! It is the wavefunction itself which is "hidden" in the sense of being invisible and not-directly-observable. Thus, for example, when the wavefunction of some measuring apparatus is such that its pointer is superposed between pointing to the left and pointing to the right, what accounts for the fact that scientists, when they look at the apparatus, see the pointer pointing to the left (say) is the fact that the de BroglieBohmian particles that make up the pointer are actually pointed towards the left. While the exact details of how humans process such information and what it is based on is beyond the scope of the de BroglieBohm theory, the basic idea of any particle ontology is that if the particles in the theory appear where they seem to be from human observations, then it is considered a successful prediction.

20

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that when two complementary measurements are made, there is a limit to the product of their accuracy. As an example, if one measures the position with an accuracy of , and the momentum with an accuracy of , then If we make further measurements in order to get more information, we disturb the system and change the trajectory into a new one depending on the measurement setup; therefore, the measurement results are still subject to Heisenberg's uncertainty relation. In de BroglieBohm theory, there is always a matter of fact about the position and momentum of a particle. Each particle has a well defined trajectory. Observers have limited knowledge as to what this trajectory is (and thus of the position and momentum). It is the lack knowledge of the particle's trajectory that accounts for the uncertainty relation. What one can know about a particle at any given time is described by the wavefunction. Since the uncertainty relation can be derived from the wavefunction in other interpretations of quantum mechanics, it can be likewise derived (in the epistemic sense mentioned above), on the de BroglieBohm theory. To put the statement differently, the particles' positions are only known statistically. As in classical mechanics, successive observations of the particles' positions refine the experimenter's knowledge of the particles' initial conditions. Thus, with succeeding observations, the initial conditions become more and more restricted. This formalism is consistent with the normal use of the Schrdinger equation. For the derivation of the uncertainty relation, see Heisenberg uncertainty principle, noting that it describes it from the viewpoint of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Bohm interpretation

21

Quantum entanglement, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Bell's theorem, and nonlocality

De BroglieBohm theory highlighted the issue of nonlocality: it inspired John Stewart Bell to prove his now-famous theorem,[22] which in turn led to the Bell test experiments. In the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,[23] the authors point out that quantum mechanics allows the creation of pairs of particles in an entangled quantum state. They describe a thought-experiment one could perform on such a pair, the results of which they interpreted as indicating that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. Decades later John Bell proved Bell's theorem (see p.14 in Bell[14] ), in which he showed that, if they are to agree with the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics, all such "hidden-variable" completions of quantum mechanics must either be nonlocal (as the Bohm interpretation is) or give up the assumption that experiments produce unique results (see counterfactual definiteness and many-worlds interpretation). In particular, Bell proved that any local theory with unique results must make empirical predictions satisfying a statistical constraint called "Bell's inequality". Alain Aspect performed a series of Bell test experiments that test Bell's inequality using an EPR-type setup. Aspect's results show experimentally that Bell's inequality is in fact violatedmeaning that the relevant quantum mechanical predictions are correct. In these Bell test experiments, entangled pairs of particles are created; the particles are separated, traveling to remote measuring apparatus. The orientation of the measuring apparatus can be changed while the particles are in flight, demonstrating the apparent non-locality of the effect. The de BroglieBohm theory makes the same (empirically correct) predictions for the Bell test experiments as ordinary quantum mechanics. It is able to do this because it is manifestly nonlocal. It is often criticized or rejected based on this; Bell's attitude was: "It is a merit of the de BroglieBohm version to bring this [nonlocality] out so explicitly that it cannot be ignored." [24] The de BroglieBohm theory describes the physics in the Bell test experiments as follows: to understand the evolution of the particles, we need to set up a wave equation for both particles; the orientation of the apparatus affects the wavefunction. The particles in the experiment follow the guidance of the wavefunction. It is the wavefunction that carries the faster-than-light effect of changing the orientation of the apparatus. An analysis of exactly what kind of nonlocality is present and how it is compatible with relativity can be found in Maudlin.[25] Note that in Bell's work, and in more detail in Maudlin's work, it is shown that the nonlocality does not allow for signaling at speeds faster than light.

Classical limit
Bohm's formulation of de BroglieBohm theory in terms of a classical-looking version has the merits that the emergence of classical behavior seems to follow immediately for any situation in which the quantum potential is negligible, as noted by Bohm in 1952. Modern methods of decoherence are relevant to an analysis of this limit. See Allori et al.[26] for steps towards a rigorous analysis.

Quantum trajectory method

Work by Robert Wyatt in the early 2000s attempted to use the Bohm "particles" as an adaptive mesh that follows the actual trajectory of a quantum state in time and space. In the "quantum trajectory" method, one samples the quantum wavefunction with a mesh of quadrature points. One then evolves the quadrature points in time according to the Bohm equations of motion. At each time-step, one then re-synthesizes the wavefunction from the points, recomputes the quantum forces, and continues the calculation. (Quick-time movies of this for H+H2 reactive scattering can be found on the Wyatt group [27] web-site at UT Austin.) This approach has been adapted, extended, and used by a number of researchers in the Chemical Physics community as a way to compute semi-classical and quasi-classical molecular dynamics. A recent (2007) issue of the Journal of Physical Chemistry A [28] was dedicated to Prof. Wyatt and his work on "Computational Bohmian Dynamics".

Bohm interpretation Eric Bittner's group [29] at the University of Houston has advanced a statistical variant of this approach that uses Bayesian sampling technique to sample the quantum density and compute the quantum potential on a structureless mesh of points. This technique was recently used to estimate quantum effects in the heat-capacity of small clusters Nen for n~100. There remain difficulties using the Bohmian approach, mostly associated with the formation of singularities in the quantum potential due to nodes in the quantum wavefunction. In general, nodes forming due to interference effects lead to the case where This results in an infinite force on the sample particles forcing them to move

22

away from the node and often crossing the path of other sample points (which violates single-valuedness). Various schemes have been developed to overcome this; however, no general solution has yet emerged. These methods, as does Bohm's Hamilton-Jacobi formulation, do not apply to situations in which the full dynamics of spin need to be taken into account.

Occam's razor criticism

Both Hugh Everett III and Bohm treated the wavefunction as a physically real field. Everett's many-worlds interpretation is an attempt to demonstrate that the wavefunction alone is sufficient to account for all our observations. When we see the particle detectors flash or hear the click of a Geiger counter then Everett's theory interprets this as our wavefunction responding to changes in the detector's wavefunction, which is responding in turn to the passage of another wavefunction (which we think of as a "particle", but is actually just another wave-packet).[30] No particle (in the Bohm sense of having a defined position and velocity) exists, according to that theory. For this reason Everett sometimes referred to his approach as the "pure wave theory". Talking of Bohm's 1952 approach, Everett says:

Our main criticism of this view is on the grounds of simplicity - if one desires to hold the view that

particle is superfluous since, as we have endeavored to illustrate, the pure wave theory is itself satisfactory.

is a real field then the associated [31]

In the Everettian view, then, the Bohm particles are superfluous entities, similar to, and equally as unnecessary as, for example, the luminiferous ether was found to be unnecessary in special relativity. This argument of Everett's is sometimes called the "redundancy argument", since the superfluous particles are redundant in the sense of Occam's razor.[32] . By omitting the hidden variables, however, Everett had to invoke causally unrelated and therefore experimentally unverifiable parallel universes. Many authors have expressed critical views of the de Broglie-Bohm theory, by comparing it to Everett's many worlds approach. Many (but not all) proponents of the de Broglie-Bohm theory (such as Bohm and Bell) interpret the universal wave function as physically real. According to some supporters of Everett's theory, if the (never collapsing) wave function is taken to be physically real, then it is natural to interpret the theory as having the same many worlds as Everett's theory. In the Everettian view the role of the Bohm particle is to act as a "pointer", tagging, or selecting, just one branch of the universal wavefunction (the assumption that this branch indicates which wave packet determines the observed result of a given experiment is called the "result assumption"[30] ); the other branches are designated "empty" and implicitly assumed by Bohm to be devoid of conscious observers.[30] H. Dieter Zeh comments on these "empty" branches:

It is usually overlooked that Bohms theory contains the same many worlds of dynamically separate branches as the Everett interpretation [33] (now regarded as empty wave components), since it is based on precisely the same . . . global wave function . . .

David Deutsch has expressed the same point more "acerbically"[30] :

pilot-wave theories are parallel-universe theories in a state of chronic denial.

[34]

Bohm interpretation

23

The fact that such a "pointer" can be made in a self-consistent manner that not only reproduces all known experimental results but also provides a clean classical limit is, however, highly significant in itself. It proves that the existence of alternative universes is not a necessary conclusion of quantum physics.

Derivations
De BroglieBohm theory has been derived many times and in many ways. Below are five derivations all of which are very different and lead to different ways of understanding and extending this theory. Schrdinger's equation can be derived by using Einstein's light quanta hypothesis: hypothesis: . . and de Broglie's

The guiding equation can be derived in a similar fashion. We assume a plane wave: Notice that . Assuming that for the particle's actual velocity, we have that

. Thus, we have the guiding equation. Notice that this derivation does not use Schrdinger's equation. Preserving the density under the time evolution is another method of derivation. This is the method that Bell cites. It is this method which generalizes to many possible alternative theories. The starting point is the continuity equation for the density . This equation describes a probability flow along a

current. We take the velocity field associated with this current as the velocity field whose integral curves yield the motion of the particle. A method applicable for particles without spin is to do a polar decomposition of the wavefunction and transform Schrdinger's equation into two coupled equations: the continuity equation from above and the HamiltonJacobi equation. This is the method used by Bohm in 1952. The decomposition and equations are as follows: Decomposition: . Continuity Equation: HamiltonJacobi Equation: The HamiltonJacobi equation is the equation derived from a Newtonian system with potential and velocity field The potential is the classical potential that appears in Note corresponds to the probability density

Schrdinger's equation and the other term involving Bohm.

is the quantum potential, terminology introduced by

This leads to viewing the quantum theory as particles moving under the classical force modified by a quantum force. However, unlike standard Newtonian mechanics, the initial velocity field is already specified by which is a symptom of this being a first-order theory, not a second-order theory. A fourth derivation was given by Drr et al.[1] In their derivation, they derive the velocity field by demanding the appropriate transformation properties given by the various symmetries that Schrdinger's equation satisfies, once the wavefunction is suitably transformed. The guiding equation is what emerges from that analysis. A fifth derivation, given by Drr et al.[4] is appropriate for generalization to quantum field theory and the Dirac equation. The idea is that a velocity field can also be understood as a first order differential operator acting on functions. Thus, if we know how it acts on functions, we know what it is. Then given the Hamiltonian operator

Bohm interpretation , the equation to satisfy for all functions (with associated multiplication operator where ) is

24

is the local Hermitian inner product on the value space

of the wavefunction. This formulation allows for stochastic theories such as the creation and annihilation of particles.

History
De BroglieBohm theory has a history of different formulations and names. In this section, each stage is given a name and a main reference.

Pilot-wave theory
Dr. de Broglie presented his pilot wave theory at the 1927 Solvay Conference,[35] after close collaboration with Schrdinger, who developed his wave equation for de Broglie's theory. At the end of the presentation, Wolfgang Pauli pointed out that it was not compatible with a semi-classical technique Fermi had previously adopted in the case of inelastic scattering. Contrary to a popular legend, de Broglie actually gave the correct rebuttal that the particular technique could not be generalized for Pauli's purpose, although the audience might have been lost in the technical details and de Brolie's mild mannerism left the impression that Pauli's objection was valid. He was eventually persuaded to abandon this theory nonetheless in 1932 due to both the Copenhagen school's more successful P.R. efforts and his own inability to understand quantum decoherence. Also in 1932, John von Neumann published a paper,[36] claiming to prove that all hidden-variable theories are impossible. This sealed the fate of de Broglie's theory for the next two decades. In truth, von Neumann's proof is based on invalid assumptions, such as quantum physics can be made local, and it does not really disprove the pilot-wave theory. De Broglie's theory already applies to multiple spin-less particles, but lacks an adequate theory of measurement as no one understood quantum decoherence at the time. An analysis of de Broglie's presentation is given in Bacciagaluppi et al.[37] [38] Around this time Erwin Madelung[39] also developed a hydrodynamic version of Schrdinger's equation which is incorrectly considered as a basis for the density current derivation of de BroglieBohm theory. The Madelung equations, being quantum Euler equations (fluid dynamics), differ philosophically from the de BroglieBohm theory[40] and are the basis of the hydrodynamic interpretation of quantum mechanics.

De BroglieBohm theory
After publishing a popular textbook on Quantum Mechanics which adhered entirely to the Copenhagen orthodoxy, Bohm was persuaded by Einstein to take a critical look at von Neumann's theorem. The result was 'A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden Variables" I and II' [Bohm 1952]. It extended the original Pilot Wave Theory to incorporate a consistent theory of measurement, and to address a criticism of Pauli that de Broglie did not properly respond to; it is taken to be deterministic (though Bohm hinted in the original papers that there should be disturbances to this, in the way Brownian motion disturbs Newtonian mechanics). This stage is known as the de BroglieBohm Theory in Bell's work [Bell 1987] and is the basis for 'The Quantum Theory of Motion' [Holland 1993]. This stage applies to multiple particles, and is deterministic. The de BroglieBohm theory is an example of a hidden variables theory. Bohm originally hoped that hidden variables could provide a local, causal, objective description that would resolve or eliminate many of the paradoxes of quantum mechanics, such as Schrdinger's cat, the measurement problem and the collapse of the wavefunction. However, Bell's theorem complicates this hope, as it demonstrates that there can be no local hidden variable theory that is compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. The Bohmian interpretation is causal but not local.

Bohm interpretation Bohm's paper was largely ignored by other physicists. Even Albert Einstein did not consider it a satisfactory answer to the quantum non-locality question. The rest of the contemporary objections, however, were ad hominem, focusing on Bohm's sympathy with liberals and supposed communists as exemplified by his refusal to give testimony to the House Un-American Activities Committee. Eventually the cause was taken up by John Bell. In "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" [Bell 1987], several of the papers refer to hidden variables theories (which include Bohm's). Bell showed that von Neumann's objection amounted to showing that hidden variables theories are nonlocal, and that nonlocality is a feature of all quantum mechanical systems.

25

Bohmian mechanics
This term is used to describe the same theory, but with an emphasis on the notion of current flow. In particular, it is often used to include most of the further extensions past the spin-less version of Bohm. While de BroglieBohm theory has Lagrangians and Hamilton-Jacobi equations as a primary focus and backdrop, with the icon of the quantum potential, Bohmian mechanics considers the continuity equation as primary and has the guiding equation as its icon. They are mathematically equivalent in so far as the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation applies, i.e., spin-less particles. The papers of Drr et al. popularized the term. All of non-relativistic quantum mechanics can be fully accounted for in this theory.

Causal interpretation and ontological interpretation

Bohm developed his original ideas, calling them the Causal Interpretation. Later he felt that causal sounded too much like deterministic and preferred to call his theory the Ontological Interpretation. The main reference is 'The Undivided Universe' [Bohm, Hiley 1993]. This stage covers work by Bohm and in collaboration with Vigier and Hiley. Bohm is clear that this theory is non-deterministic (the work with Hiley includes a stochastic theory). As such, this theory is not, strictly speaking, a formulation of the de BroglieBohm theory. However, it deserves mention here because the term "Bohm Interpretation" is ambiguous between this theory and the de BroglieBohm theory.

See also
David Bohm Interpretation of quantum mechanics Madelung equations Local hidden variable theory Quantum mechanics Pilot wave

References
Albert, David Z. (May 1994). "Bohm's Alternative to Quantum Mechanics". Scientific American 270: 5867. Barbosa, G. D.; N. Pinto-Neto (2004). "A Bohmian Interpretation for Noncommutative Scalar Field Theory and Quantum Mechanics". Physical Review D 69: 065014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.065014. arXiv:hep-th/0304105. Bohm, David (1952). "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden Variables" I". Physical Review 85: 166179. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.166. Bohm, David (1952). "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden Variables", II". Physical Review 85: 180193. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.180. Bohm, David (1990). "A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter" [41]. Philosophical Psychology 3 (2): 271286. doi:10.1080/09515089008573004.

Bohm interpretation Bohm, David; B.J. Hiley (1993). The Undivided Universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory. London: Routledge. ISBN0-415-12185-X. Durr, Detlef; Sheldon Goldstein, Roderich Tumulka and Nino Zangh (December 2004). "Bohmian Mechanics" [42] (PDF). Physical review letters 93 (9): 090402. ISSN0031-9007. PMID15447078. Goldstein, Sheldon (2001). "Bohmian Mechanics" [43]. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Hall, Michael J.W. (2004). "Incompleteness of trajectory-based interpretations of quantum mechanics". Journal of Physics a Mathematical and General 37: 9549. doi:10.1088/0305-4470/37/40/015. arXiv:quant-ph/0406054. (Demonstrates incompleteness of the Bohm interpretation in the face of fractal, differentialble-nowhere wavefunctions.) Holland, Peter R. (1993). The Quantum Theory of Motion : An Account of the de BroglieBohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN0-521-48543-6. Nikolic, H. (2004). "Relativistic quantum mechanics and the Bohmian interpretation". Foundations of Physics Letters 18: 549. doi:10.1007/s10702-005-1128-1. arXiv:quant-ph/0406173. Passon, Oliver (2004). Why isn't every physicist a Bohmian?. arXiv:quant-ph/0412119. Sanz, A. S.; F. Borondo (2003). "A Bohmian view on quantum decoherence". The European Physical Journal D 44: 319. doi:10.1140/epjd/e2007-00191-8. arXiv:quant-ph/0310096. Sanz, A.S. (2005). "A Bohmian approach to quantum fractals". J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38: 319. doi:10.1088/0305-4470/38/26/013. (Describes a Bohmian resolution to the dilemma posed by non-differentiable wavefunctions.) Silverman, Mark P. (1993). And Yet It Moves: Strange Systems and Subtle Questions in Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN0-521-44631-7. Streater, Ray F. (2003). "Bohmian mechanics is a "lost cause"" [44]. Retrieved 2006-06-25. Valentini, Antony; Hans Westman (2004). Dynamical Origin of Quantum Probabilities. arXiv:quant-ph/0403034. Bohmian mechanics on arxiv.org [45]

26

External links
"Bohmian Mechanics" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [46] "Pilot waves, Bohmian metaphysics, and the foundations of quantum mechanics" [47], lecture course on Bohm interpretation by Mike Towler, Cambridge University.

References
[1] Drr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zangh, N., "Quantum Equilibrium and the Origin of Absolute Uncertainty" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0308039), Journal of Statistical Physics 67: 843907, 1992. [2] Quantum Equilibrium and the Origin of Absolute Uncertainty, D. Drr, S. Goldstein and N. Zangh, Journal of Statistical Physics 67, 843-907 (1992), http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0308039. [3] Drr, D., Goldstein, S., Taylor, J., Tumulka, R., and Zangh, N., J. "Quantum Mechanics in Multiply-Connected Spaces" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0506173), Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40, 29973031 (2007) [4] Drr, D., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R., and Zangh, N., 2004, "Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0303156), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93: 090402:14. [5] Drr, D., Tumulka, R., and Zangh, N., J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38, R1R43 (2005), quant-ph/0407116 [6] Nikolic, H. 2010 "QFT as pilot-wave theory of particle creation and destruction" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 0904. 2287), Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25, 1477 (2010) [7] Valentini, A., 1991, "Signal-Locality, Uncertainty and the Subquantum H-Theorem. II," Physics Letters A 158: 18. [8] http:/ / xxx. lanl. gov/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0208185 [9] http:/ / xxx. lanl. gov/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0302152 [10] Drr, D., Goldstein, S., Mnch-Berndl, K., and Zangh, N., 1999, "Hypersurface Bohm-Dirac Models" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 9801070), Phys. Rev. A 60: 27292736. [11] http:/ / xxx. lanl. gov/ abs/ 0811. 1905 [12] http:/ / xxx. lanl. gov/ abs/ 0904. 2287 [13] http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 1002. 3226

Bohm interpretation
[14] Bell, John S, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press 1987. [15] Albert, D. Z., 1992, Quantum Mechanics and Experience, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press [16] Daumer, M., Drr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zangh, N., 1997, "Naive Realism About Operators" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 9601013), Erkenntnis 45: 379397. [17] Drr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zangh, N., "Quantum Equilibrium and the Role of Operators as Observables in Quantum Theory" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0308038) Journal of Statistical Physics 116, 9591055 (2004) [18] http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0206196 [19] http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0108038 [20] http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0305131 [21] Hyman, Ross et al Bohmian mechanics with discrete operators (http:/ / www. iop. org/ EJ/ abstract/ 0305-4470/ 37/ 44/ L02), J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 37 L547L558, 2004 [22] J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox (http:/ / www. drchinese. com/ David/ Bell_Compact. pdf), Physics 1, 195 (1964) [23] Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935). [24] Bell, page 115 [25] Maudlin, T., 1994, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. [26] Allori, V., Drr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zangh, N., 2002, "Seven Steps Towards the Classical World" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0112005), Journal of Optics B 4: 482488. [27] http:/ / research. cm. utexas. edu/ rwyatt/ movies/ qtm/ index. html [28] http:/ / pubs. acs. org/ toc/ jpcafh/ 111/ 41 [29] http:/ / k2. chem. uh. edu [30] Harvey R Brown and David Wallace, Solving the measurement problem: de Broglie-Bohm loses out to Everett, Foundations of Physics 35 (2005), pp. 517-540. (http:/ / philsci-archive. pitt. edu/ archive/ 00001659/ 01/ Cushing. pdf) Abstract: "The quantum theory of de Broglie and Bohm solves the measurement problem, but the hypothetical corpuscles play no role in the argument. The solution finds a more natural home in the Everett interpretation." [31] See section VI of Everett's thesis: The Theory of the Universal Wave Function, pp 3-140 of Bryce Seligman DeWitt, R. Neill Graham, eds, The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton Series in Physics, Princeton University Press (1973), ISBN 0-691-08131-X [32] Craig Callender, "The Redundancy Argument Against Bohmian Mechanics" (http:/ / philosophy. ucsd. edu/ faculty/ ccallender/ The Redundancy Argument Against Bohmian Mechanics. doc. ) [33] Daniel Dennett (2000). With a little help from my friends. In D. Ross, A. Brook, and D. Thompson (Eds.), Dennetts Philosophy: a comprehensive assessment. MIT Press/Bradford, ISBN 026268117X. [34] David Deutsch, Comment on Lockwood. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47, 222228, 1996 [35] Solvay Conference, 1928, Electrons et Photons: Rapports et Descussions du Cinquieme Conseil de Physique tenu a Bruxelles du 24 au 29 October 1927 sous les auspices de l'Institut International Physique Solvay [36] von Neumann J. 1932 Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik [37] Bacciagaluppi, G., and Valentini, A., Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference [38] See the brief summary by Towler, M., "Pilot wave theory, Bohmian metaphysics, and the foundations of quantum mecahnics" (http:/ / www. tcm. phy. cam. ac. uk/ ~mdt26/ PWT/ lectures/ bohm7. pdf) [39] Madelung, E., Quantentheorie in hydrodynamischer Form, Zeit. F. Phys. 40 (1927), 322326 [40] Tsekov, R. (2009) Bohmian Mechanics versus Madelung Quantum Hydrodynamics (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 0904. 0723) [41] http:/ / members. aol. com/ Mszlazak/ BOHM. html [42] http:/ / www. math. rutgers. edu/ ~oldstein/ papers/ bohmech. pdf [43] http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ qm-bohm/ [44] http:/ / www. mth. kcl. ac. uk/ ~streater/ lostcauses. html#XI [45] http:/ / xstructure. inr. ac. ru/ x-bin/ theme3. py?level=1& index1=-139823 [46] http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ qm-bohm [47] http:/ / www. tcm. phy. cam. ac. uk/ ~mdt26/ pilot_waves. html

27

Correspondence principle

28

Correspondence principle
This article discusses quantum theory. For other uses, see Correspondence principle (disambiguation). In physics, the correspondence principle states that the behavior of systems described by the theory of quantum mechanics (or by the old quantum theory) reproduces classical physics in the limit of large quantum numbers. The principle was formulated by Niels Bohr in 1920[1] , though he had previously made use of it as early as 1913 in developing his model of the atom[2] . The term is also used more generally, to represent the idea that a new theory should reproduce the results of older well-established theories in those domains where the old theories work.

Quantum mechanics
The rules of quantum mechanics are highly successful in describing microscopic objects, atoms and elementary particles. But macroscopic systems like springs and capacitors are accurately described by classical theories like classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics. If quantum mechanics should be applicable to macroscopic objects there must be some limit in which quantum mechanics reduces to classical mechanics. Bohr's correspondence principle demands that classical physics and quantum physics give the same answer when the systems become large. The conditions under which quantum and classical physics agree are referred to as the correspondence limit, or the classical limit. Bohr provided a rough prescription for the correspondence limit: it occurs when the quantum numbers describing the system are large. A more elaborated analysis of quantum-classical correspondence (QCC) in wavepacket spreading leads to the distinction between robust "restricted QCC" and fragile "detailed QCC". See Stotland & Cohen (2006) and references therein. "Restricted QCC" refers to the first two moments of the probability distribution and is true even when the wave packets diffract, while "detailed QCC" requires smooth potentials which vary over scales much larger than the wavelength, which is what Bohr considered. The post-1925 new quantum theory came in two different formulations. In matrix mechanics, the correspondence principle was built in and was used to construct the theory. In the Schrdinger approach classical behavior is not clear because the waves spread out as they move. Once the Schrdinger equation was given a probabilistic interpretation, Ehrenfest showed that Newton's laws hold on average: the quantum statistical expectation value of the position and momentum obey Newton's laws. The correspondence principle is one of the tools available to physicists for selecting quantum theories corresponding to reality. The principles of quantum mechanics are broad - they say that the states of a physical system form a complex vector space, but they do not say which operators correspond to physical quantities or measurements. The correspondence principle limits the choices to those that reproduce classical mechanics in the correspondence limit. Because quantum mechanics only reproduces classical mechanics in a statistical interpretation, and because the statistical interpretation only gives the probabilities of different classical outcomes, Bohr has argued that classical physics does not emerge from quantum physics in the same way that classical mechanics emerges as an approximation of special relativity at small velocities. He argued that classical physics exists independently of quantum theory and cannot be derived from it. His position is that it is inappropriate to understand the experiences of observers using purely quantum mechanical notions such as wavefunctions because the different states of experience of an observer are defined classically, and do not have a quantum mechanical analog. The relative state interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to understand the experience of observers using only quantum mechanical notions. Niels Bohr was an early opponent of such interpretations.

Correspondence principle

29

Other scientific theories

The term "correspondence principle" is used in a more general sense to mean the reduction of a new scientific theory to an earlier scientific theory in appropriate circumstances. This requires that the new theory explain all the phenomena under circumstances for which the preceding theory was known to be valid, the "correspondence limit". For example, Einstein's special relativity satisfies the correspondence principle, because it reduces to classical mechanics in the limit of velocities small compared to the speed of light (example below). General relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity in the limit of weak gravitational fields. Laplace's theory of celestial mechanics reduces to Kepler's when interplanetary interactions are ignored, and Kepler's reproduces Ptolemy's equant in a coordinate system where the Earth is stationary. Statistical mechanics reproduces thermodynamics when the number of particles is large. In biology, chromosome inheritance theory reproduces Mendel's laws of inheritance, in the domain that the inherited factors are protein coding genes. In order for there to be a correspondence, the earlier theory has to have a domain of validityit must work under some conditions. Not all theories have a domain of validity. For example, there is no limit where Newton's mechanics reduces to Aristotle's mechanics because Aristotle's mechanics, although academically viable for many centuries, do not have any domain of validity.

Examples
Bohr model
If an electron in an atom is moving on an orbit with period T, the electromagnetic radiation will classically repeat itself every orbital period. If the coupling to the electromagnetic field is weak, so that the orbit doesn't decay very much in one cycle, the radiation will be emitted in a pattern which repeats every period, so that the fourier transform will have frequencies which are only multiples of 1/T. This is the classical radiation law: the frequencies emitted are integer multiples of 1/T. In quantum mechanics, this emission must be of quantum of light. The frequency of the quanta emitted should be integer multiples of 1/T so that classical mechanics is an approximate description at large quantum numbers. This means that the energy level corresponding to a classical orbit of period 1/T must have nearby energy levels which differ in energy by h/T, and they should be equally spaced near that level:

Bohr worried whether the energy spacing 1/T should be best calculated with the period of the energy state

or

or some average. In hindsight, there is no need to quibble, since this theory is only the leading semiclassical approximation. Bohr considered circular orbits. These orbits must classically decay to smaller circles when they emit photons. The level spacing between circular orbits can be calculated with the correspondence formula. For a hydrogen atom, the classical orbits have a period T which is determined by Kepler's third law to scale as . The energy scales as 1/r, so the level spacing formula says that:

It is possible to determine the energy levels by recursively stepping down orbit by orbit, but there is a shortcut. The angular momentum L of the circular orbit scales as . The energy in terms of the angular momentum is then

Assuming that quantized values of L are equally spaced, the spacing between neighboring energies is

Correspondence principle

30

Which is what we want for equally spaced angular momentum. If you keep track of the constants, the spacing is so the angular momentum should be an integer multiple of

This is how Bohr arrived at his model. Since only the level spacing is determined by the correspondence principle, you could always add a small fixed offset to the quantum number--- L could just as well have been . Bohr used his physical intuition to decide which quantities were best to quantize. It is a testimony to his skill that he was able to get so much from what is only the leading order approximation.

One-dimensional potential
Bohr's correspondence condition can be solved for the level energies in a general one-dimensional potential. Define a quantity J(E) which is a function only of the energy, and has the property that:

This is the analog of the angular momentum in the case of the circular orbits. The orbits selected by the correspondence principle are the ones that obey J=nh for n integer, since

This quantity J is canonically conjugate to a variable which, by the Hamilton equations of motion changes with time as the gradient of energy with J. Since this is equal to the inverse period at all times, the variable increases steadily from 0 to 1 over one period. The angle variable comes back to itself after 1 unit of increase, so the geometry of phase space in J, coordinates is that of a half-cylinder, capped off at J = 0, which is the motionless orbit at the lowest value of the energy. These coordinates are just as canonical as x,p, but the orbits are now lines of constant J instead of nested ovoids in x-p space. The area enclosed by an orbit is invariant under canonical transformations, so it is the same in x-p space as in J-. But in the J- coordinates this area is the area of a cylinder of unit circumference between 0 and J, or just J. So J is equal to the area enclosed by the orbit in x-p coordinates too:

The quantization rule is that the action variable J is an integer multiple of h.

Multiperiodic motionBohrSommerfeld quantization

Bohr's correspondence principle provided a way to find the semiclassical quantization rule for a one degree of freedom system. It was an argument for the old quantum condition mostly independent from the one developed by Wien and Einstein, which focused on adiabatic invariance. But both pointed to the same quantity, the action. Bohr was reluctant to generalize the rule to systems with many degrees of freedom. This step was taken by Sommerfeld, who proposed the general quantization rule for an integrable system:

Each action variable is a separate integer, a separate quantum number. This condition reproduces the circular orbit condition for two dimensional motion: let a central potential. Then momentum. So the quantum condition for L reproduces Bohr's rule: be polar coordinates for

is already an angle variable, and the canonical momentum conjugate is L, the angular

Correspondence principle

31

This allowed Sommerfeld to generalize Bohr's theory of circular orbits to elliptical orbits, showing that the energy levels are the same. He also found some general properties of quantum angular momentum which seemed paradoxical at the time. One of these results was the that the z-component of the angular momentum, the classical inclination of an orbit relative to the z-axis, could only take on discrete values, a result which seemed to contradict rotational invariance. This was called space quantization for a while, but this term fell out of favor with the new quantum mechanics since no quantization of space is involved. In modern quantum mechanics, the principle of superposition makes it clear that rotational invariance is not lost. It is possible to rotate objects with discrete orientations to produce superpositions of other discrete orientations, and this resolves the intuitive paradoxes of the Sommerfeld model.

The quantum harmonic oscillator

We provide a demonstration of how large quantum numbers can give rise to classical (continuous) behavior. Consider the one-dimensional quantum harmonic oscillator. Quantum mechanics tells us that the total (kinetic and potential) energy of the oscillator, E, has a set of discrete values:

where is the angular frequency of the oscillator. However, in a classical harmonic oscillator such as a lead ball attached to the end of a spring, we do not perceive any discreteness. Instead, the energy of such a macroscopic system appears to vary over a continuum of values. We can verify that our idea of "macroscopic" systems fall within the correspondence limit. The energy of the classical harmonic oscillator with amplitude is

Thus, the quantum number has the value

If we apply typical "human-scale" values m = 1kg, = 1 rad/s, and A = 1m, then n 4.741033. This is a very large number, so the system is indeed in the correspondence limit. It is simple to see why we perceive a continuum of energy in said limit. With each energy level is J, well below what we can detect. = 1 rad/s, the difference between

Relativistic kinetic energy

Here we show that the expression of kinetic energy from special relativity becomes arbitrarily close to the classical expression for speeds that are much slower than the speed of light. Einstein's famous mass-energy equation

represents the total energy of a body with relativistic mass

where the velocity, is the velocity of the body relative to the observer, is the rest mass (the observed mass of the body at zero velocity relative to the observer), and is the speed of light. When the velocity is zero, the energy expressed above is not zero and represents the rest energy:

Correspondence principle When the body is in motion relative to the observer, the total energy exceeds the rest energy by an amount that is, by definition, the kinetic energy:

32

Using the approximation

for we get when speeds are much slower than that of light or

which is the Newtonian expression for kinetic energy.

See also
Quantum decoherence

References
[1] Bohr, N. (1920), "ber die Serienspektra der Element", Zeitschrift fr Physik 2 (5): 423478 (English translation in (Bohr 1976, pp.241282)) [2] Jammer, Max (1989), The conceptual development of quantum mechanics, Los Angeles, CA: Tomash Publishers, American Institute of Physics, ISBN0883186179, Section 3.2

Bohr, Niels (1976), Rosenfeld, L.; Nielsen, J. Rud, eds., Niels Bohr, Collected Works, Volume 3, The Correspondence Principle (19181923), 3, Amsterdam: North-Holland, ISBN0444107843 Sells, Robert L.; Weidner, Richard T. (1980), Elementary modern physics, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, ISBN978-0-205-06559-2 Stotland, A.; Cohen, D. (2006), "Diffractive energy spreading and its semiclassical limit", Journal of Physics A 39 (10703): 10703, doi:10.1088/0305-4470/39/34/008, ISSN0305-4470

De BroglieBohm theory

33

De BroglieBohm theory
The de BroglieBohm theory, also called the pilot-wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum theory. As in quantum theory, it contains a wavefunction - a function on the space of all possible configurations. Additionally, it also contains an actual configuration, even in situations where nobody observes it. The evolution over time of the configuration (that is, of the positions of all particles or the configuration of all fields) is defined by the wave function via a guiding equation. The evolution of the wavefunction over time is given by Schrdinger's equation. The de BroglieBohm theory expresses in an explicit manner the fundamental non-locality in quantum physics. The velocity of any one particle depends on the value of the wavefunction, which depends on the whole configuration of the universe. This theory is deterministic. Most (but not all) relativistic variants require a preferred frame. Variants which handle spin and curved spaces are known. It can be modified to handle quantum field theory. Bell's theorem was inspired by Bell's discovery of the work of David Bohm and his subsequent wondering if the obvious non-locality of the theory could be removed. This theory gives rise to a measurement formalism, analogous to thermodynamics for classical mechanics, which yields the standard quantum formalism generally associated with the Copenhagen interpretation. The measurement problem is resolved by this theory since the outcome of an experiment is registered by the configuration of the particles of the experimental apparatus after the experiment is completed. The familiar wavefunction collapse of standard quantum mechanics emerges from an analysis of subsystems and the quantum equilibrium hypothesis. The theory has a number of equivalent mathematical formulations and has been presented under a number of different names.

Overview
De BroglieBohm theory is based on the following: We have a configuration space the space of positions of the universe, described by coordinates of , which is an element of the configuration . The

. The configuration space is different for different versions of pilot wave theory. For example, this may be particles, or, in case of field theory, the space of field configurations

configuration evolves according to the guiding equation . Here, is the standard complex-valued wavefunction known from quantum theory, which evolves according

to Schrdinger's equation

This already completes the specification of the theory for any quantum theory with Hamilton operator of type . If the configuration is distributed according to quantum mechanics. at some moment of time , this holds for all times. Such

a state is named quantum equilibrium. In quantum equilibrium, this theory will agree with the results of standard

De BroglieBohm theory

34

Two-slit experiment
The double-slit experiment is an illustration of wave-particle duality. In it, a beam of particles (such as photons) travels through a barrier with two slits removed. If one puts a detector screen on the other side, the pattern of detected particles shows interference fringes characteristic of waves; however, the detector screen responds to particles. The system exhibits behaviour of both waves (interference patterns) and particles (dots on the screen). If we modify this experiment so that one slit is closed, no interference pattern is observed. Thus, the state of both slits affects the final results. We can also arrange to have a minimally invasive detector at one of the slits to see which slit the particle went through. When we do that, the interference pattern disappears.

The Copenhagen interpretation states that the particles are not localised in space until they are detected, so that, if there is no detector on the slits, there is no matter of fact about what slit has the particle passed through. If one slit has a detector on it, then the wavefunction collapses due to that detection. In de BroglieBohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. The final position of the particle on the detector screen and the slit through which the particle passes by is determined by the initial position of the particle. Such initial position is not controllable by the experimenter, so there is an appearance of randomness in the pattern of detection. The wave function interferes with itself and guides the particles in such a way that the particles avoid the regions in which the interference is destructive and are attracted to the regions in which the interference is constructive, giving rise to the interference pattern on the detector screen. To explain the behavior when the particle is detected to go through one slit, one needs to appreciate the role of the conditional wavefunction and how it gives rise to the collapse of the wavefunction; this is explained below. The basic idea is that the environment registering the detection effectively separates the two wave packets in configuration space.

The Bohmian trajectories for an electron going through the two-slit experiment.

The Theory
The ontology
The ontology of de Broglie-Bohm theory consists of a configuration . The configuration space quantum mechanics. Thus, the ontology of pilot wave theory contains as the trajectory the wave function of the universe and a pilot wave can be chosen differently, as in classical mechanics and standard we know from classical mechanics, as

of quantum theory. So, at every moment of time there exists not only a wave

function, but also a well-defined configuration of the whole universe. The correspondence to our experiences is made by the identification of the configuration of our brain with some part of the configuration of the whole universe , as in classical mechanics. While the ontology of classical mechanics is part of the ontology of de BroglieBohm theory, the dynamics is very different. In classical mechanics, the acceleration of the particles are given by forces. In de BroglieBohm theory, the velocities of the particles are given by the wavefunction. In what follows below, we will give the setup for one particle moving in followed by the setup for particles moving in 3 dimensions. In the first instance, configuration space and real space are the same while in the second,

De BroglieBohm theory real space is still , but configuration space becomes

35 . While the particle positions themselves are in real space, the

velocity field and wavefunction are on configuration space which is how particles are entangled with each other in this theory. Extensions to this theory include spin and more complicated configuration spaces. We use variations of configuration space. for particle positions while represents the complex-valued wavefunction on

Guiding equation
For a single particle moving in , the particle's velocity is given . For many particles, we label them as for the th particle and their velocities are given by . The key fact to notice is that this velocity field depends on the actual positions of all of the particles in the

universe. As explained below, in most experimental situations, the influence of all of those particles can be encapsulated into an effective wavefunction for a subsystem of the universe.

Schrdinger's equation
The one particle Schrdinger equation governs the time evolution of a complex-valued wavefunction on . The equation represents a quantized version of the total energy of a classical system evolving under a real-valued potential function on :

For many particles, the equation is the same except that

and

are now on configuration space,

This is the same wavefunction of conventional quantum mechanics.

The Born Rule

In Bohm's original papers [Bohm 1952] , he discusses how de BroglieBohm theory gives rise to the usual measurement results of quantum mechanics. The key idea is that this is true if the positions of the particles satisfy the statistical distribution given by . And that distribution is guaranteed to be true for all time under the guiding equation if the initial distribution of the particles satisfies . For a given experiment, we can postulate this as being true and verify experimentally that it does indeed hold true, as it does. But, as argued in Drr et al.,[1] one needs to argue that this distribution for subsystems is typical. They argue that by virtue of its equivariance under the dynamical evolution of the system, is the appropriate measure of typicality for initial conditions of the positions of the particles. They then prove that the vast majority of possible initial configurations will give rise to Born rule (i.e., ) statistics for measurement outcomes. In short, in a universe governed by the de BroglieBohm dynamics, Born rule behavior is typical. The situation is thus analogous to the situation in classical statistical physics. A low entropy initial condition will, with overwhelmingly high probability, evolve into a higher entropy state: behavior consistent with the second law of thermodynamics is typical. There are, of course, anomalous initial conditions which would give rise to violations of the second law. However, absent some very detailed evidence supporting the actual realization of one of those

De BroglieBohm theory special initial conditions, it would be quite unreasonable to expect anything but the actually observed uniform increase of entropy. Similarly, in the de BroglieBohm theory, there are anomalous initial conditions which would produce measurement statistics in violation of the Born rule (i.e., in conflict with the predictions of standard quantum theory). But the typicality theorem shows that, absent some particular reason to believe one of those special initial conditions was in fact realized, Born rule behavior is what one should expect. It is in that qualified sense that Born rule is, for the de BroglieBohm theory, a theorem rather than (as in ordinary quantum theory) an additional postulate.

36

The conditional wave function of a subsystem

In the formulation of the De BroglieBohm theory, there is only a wave function for the entire universe (which always evolves by the Schrdinger equation). However, once the theory is formulated, it is convenient to introduce a notion of wave function also for subsystems of the universe. Let us write the wave function of the universe as , where denotes the configuration variables associated to some subsystem (I) of the universe and denotes the remaining configuration variables. Denote, respectively, by The conditional wave function of subsystem (I) is defined by: It follows immediately from the fact that configuration satisfies the guiding equation that also the and by the actual

configuration of subsystem (I) and of the rest of the universe. For simplicity, we consider here only the spinless case.

satisfies a guiding equation identical to the one presented in the formulation of the theory, with replaced with the conditional wave function . Also, the fact that is random

the universal wave function

with probability density given by the square modulus of given

[2]

implies that the conditional probability density of (in the

is given by the square modulus of the (normalized) conditional wave function

terminology of Drr et al. function, this fact is called the fundamental conditional probability formula Unlike the universal wave the conditional wave function of a subsystem does not ). always evolves by the Schrdinger equation, but in many situations it does. For instance, if the universal wave function factors as:

then the conditional wave function of subsystem (I) is (up to an irrelevant scalar factor) equal to not contain an interaction term between subsystems (I) and (II) then generally, assume that the universal wave function where solves Schrdinger equation and

(this is what

Standard Quantum Theory would regard as the wave function of subsystem (I)). If, in addition, the Hamiltonian does does satisfy a Schrdinger equation. More can be written in the form: for all and . Then, again, the conditional and if the Hamiltonian does not

wave function of subsystem (I) is (up to an irrelevant scalar factor) equal to

contain an interaction term between subsystems (I) and (II), satisfies a Schrdinger equation. The fact that the conditional wave function of a subsystem does not always evolve by the Schrdinger equation is related to the fact that the usual collapse rule of Standard Quantum Theory emerges from the Bohmian formalism when one considers conditional wave functions of subsystems.

De BroglieBohm theory

37

Extensions
Spin
To incorporate spin, the wavefunction becomes complex-vector valued. The value space is called spin space; for a spin-1/2 particle, spin space can be taken to be . The guiding equation is modified by taking inner products in spin space to reduce the complex vectors to complex numbers. The Schrdinger equation is modified by adding a Pauli spin term.

where

is the magnetic moment of the

th particle, , and

is the appropriate spin operator acting on the

th

particle's spin space, potential in

are, respectively, the magnetic field and the vector is the charge of the th particle, and

(all other functions are fully on configuration space), ,

is the inner product in spin space

For an example of a spin space, a system consisting of two spin 1/2 particle and one spin 1 particle has a wavefunctions of the form . That is, its spin space is a 12 dimensional space.

Curved space
To extend de BroglieBohm theory to curved space (Riemannian manifolds in mathematical parlance), one simply notes that all of the elements of these equations make sense, such as gradients and Laplacians. Thus, we use equations that have the same form as above. Topological and boundary conditions may apply in supplementing the evolution of Schrdinger's equation. For a de BroglieBohm theory on curved space with spin, the spin space becomes a vector bundle over configuration space and the potential in Schrdinger's equation becomes a local self-adjoint operator acting on that space.[3]

Quantum field theory

In Drr et al.,[4] [5] the authors describe an extension of de BroglieBohm theory for handling creation and annihilation operators. The basic idea is that configuration space becomes the (disjoint) space of all possible configurations of any number of particles. For part of the time, the system evolves deterministically under the guiding equation with a fixed number of particles. But under a stochastic process, particles may be created and annihilated. The distribution of creation events is dictated by the wavefunction. The wavefunction itself is evolving at all times over the full multi-particle configuration space. Nikolic [6] introduces a purely deterministic de BroglieBohm theory of particle creation and destruction, according to which particle trajectories are continuous, but particle detectors behave as if particles have been created or destroyed even when a true creation or destruction of particles does not take place.

De BroglieBohm theory

38

Exploiting nonlocality
Valentini[7] has extended the de BroglieBohm theory to include signal nonlocality that would allow entanglement to be used as a stand-alone communication channel without a secondary classical "key" signal to "unlock" the message encoded in the entanglement. This violates orthodox quantum theory but it has the virtue that it makes the parallel universes of the chaotic inflation theory observable in principle. Unlike de BroglieBohm theory, Valentini's theory has the wavefunction evolution also depend on the ontological variables. This introduces an instability, a feedback loop that pushes the hidden variables out of "sub-quantal heat death". The resulting theory becomes nonlinear and non-unitary.

Relativity
Pilot wave theory is explicitly nonlocal. As a consequence, most relativistic variants of pilot wave theory need a preferred foliation of space-time. While this is in conflict with the standard interpretation of relativity, the preferred foliation, if unobservable, does not lead to any empirical conflicts with relativity. The relation between nonlocality and preferred foliation can be better understood as follows. In de BroglieBohm theory, nonlocality manifests as the fact that the velocity and acceleration of one particle depends on the instantaneous positions of all other particles. On the other hand, in the theory of relativity the concept of instantaneousness does not have an invariant meaning. Thus, to define particle trajectories, one needs an additional rule that defines which space-time points should be considered instantaneous. The simplest way to achieve this is to introduce a preferred foliation of space-time by hand, such that each hypersurface of the foliation defines a hypersurface of equal time. However, this way (which explicitly breaks the relativistic covariance) is not the only way. It is also possible that a rule which defines instantaneousness is contingent, by emerging dynamically from relativistic covariant laws combined with particular initial conditions. In this way, the need for a preferred foliation can be avoided and relativistic covariance can be saved. There has been work in developing relativistic versions of de BroglieBohm theory. See Bohm and Hiley: The Undivided Universe, and [8], [9], and references therein. Another approach is given in the work of Drr et al.[8] in which they use Bohm-Dirac models and a Lorentz-invariant foliation of space-time. In [11],[12] and [13] Nikolic develops a generalized relativistic-invariant probabilistic interpretation of quantum theory, in which 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 BroglieBohm theory without introducing a preferred foliation of space-time.

Results
Below are some highlights of the results that arise out of an analysis of de BroglieBohm theory. Experimental results agree with all of the standard predictions of quantum mechanics in so far as the latter has predictions. However, while standard quantum mechanics is limited to discussing experiments with human observers, de BroglieBohm theory is a theory which governs the dynamics of a system without the intervention of outside observers (p.117 in Bell[9] ). The basis for agreement with standard quantum mechanics is that the particles are distributed according to . This is a statement of observer ignorance, but it can be proven[1] that for a universe governed by this theory, this will typically be the case. There is apparent collapse of the wave function governing subsystems of the universe, but there is no collapse of the universal wavefunction.

De BroglieBohm theory

39

Measuring spin and polarization

According to ordinary quantum theory, it is not possible to measure the spin or polarization of a particle directly; instead, the component in one direction is measured; the outcome from a single particle may be 1, meaning that the particle is aligned with the measuring apparatus, or -1, meaning that it is aligned the opposite way. For an ensemble of particles, if we expect the particles to be aligned, the results are all 1. If we expect them to be aligned oppositely, the results are all -1. For other alignments, we expect some results to be 1 and some to be -1 with a probability that depends on the expected alignment. For a full explanation of this, see the Stern-Gerlach Experiment. In de BroglieBohm theory, the results of a spin experiment cannot be analyzed without some knowledge of the experimental setup. It is possible[10] to modify the setup so that the trajectory of the particle is unaffected, but that the particle with one setup registers as spin up while in the other setup it registers as spin down. Thus, for the de BroglieBohm theory, the particle's spin is not an intrinsic property of the particleinstead spin is, so to speak, in the wave function of the particle in relation to the particular device being used to measure the spin. This is an illustration of what is sometimes referred to as contextuality, and is related to naive realism about operators.[11]

Measurements, the quantum formalism, and observer independence

De BroglieBohm theory gives the same results as quantum mechanics. It treats the wavefunction as a fundamental object in the theory as the wavefunction describes how the particles move. This means that no experiment can distinguish between the two theories. This section outlines the ideas as to how the standard quantum formalism arises out of quantum mechanics. References include Bohm's original 1952 paper and Drr et al.[1] Collapse of the wavefunction De BroglieBohm theory is a theory that applies primarily to the whole universe. That is, there is a single wavefunction governing the motion of all of the particles in the universe according to the guiding equation. Theoretically, the motion of one particle depends on the positions of all of the other particles in the universe. In some situations, such as in experimental systems, we can represent the system itself in terms of a de BroglieBohm theory in which the wavefunction of the system is obtained by conditioning on the environment of the system. Thus, the system can be analyzed with Schrdinger's equation and the guiding equation, with an initial distribution for the particles in the system (see the section on the conditional wave function of a subsystem for details). It requires a special setup for the conditional wavefunction of a system to obey a quantum evolution. When a system interacts with its environment, such as through a measurement, then the conditional wavefunction of the system evolves in a different way. The evolution of the universal wavefunction can become such that the wavefunction of the system appears to be in a superposition of distinct states. But if the environment has recorded the results of the experiment, then using the actual Bohmian configuration of the environment to condition on, the conditional wavefunction collapses to just one alternative, the one corresponding with the measurement results. Collapse of the universal wavefunction never occurs in de BroglieBohm theory. Its entire evolution is governed by Schrdinger's equation and the particles' evolutions are governed by the guiding equation. Collapse only occurs in a phenomenological way for systems that seem to follow their own Schrdinger's equation. As this is an effective description of the system, it is a matter of choice as to what to define the experimental system to include and this will affect when "collapse" occurs. Operators as observables In the standard quantum formalism, measuring observables is generally thought of as measuring operators on the Hilbert space. For example, measuring position is considered to be a measurement of the position operator. This relationship between physical measurements and Hilbert space operators is, for standard quantum mechanics, an additional axiom of the theory. The de BroglieBohm theory, by contrast, requires no such measurement axioms (and measurement as such is not a dynamically distinct or special sub-category of physical processes in the theory).

De BroglieBohm theory In particular, the usual operators-as-observables formalism is, for de BroglieBohm theory, a theorem.[12] A major point of the analysis is that many of the measurements of the observables do not correspond to properties of the particles; they are (as in the case of spin discussed above) measurements of the wavefunction. In the history of de BroglieBohm theory, the proponents have often had to deal with claims that this theory is impossible. Such arguments are generally based on inappropriate analysis of operators as observables. If one believes that spin measurements are indeed measuring the spin of a particle that existed prior to the measurement, then one does reach contradictions. De BroglieBohm theory deals with this by noting that spin is not a feature of the particle, but rather that of the wavefunction. As such, it only has a definite outcome once the experimental apparatus is chosen. Once that is taken into account, the impossibility theorems become irrelevant. There have also been claims that experiments reject the Bohm trajectories [18] in favor of the standard QM lines. But as shown in [19] and [20], such experiments cited above only disprove a misinterpretation of the de BroglieBohm theory, not the theory itself. There are also objections to this theory based on what it says about particular situations usually involving eigenstates of an operator. For example, the ground state of hydrogen is a real wavefunction. According to the guiding equation, this means that the electron is at rest when in this state. Nevertheless, it is distributed according to and no contradiction to experimental results is possible to detect. Operators as observables leads many to believe that many operators are equivalent. De BroglieBohm theory, from this perspective, chooses the position observable as a favored observable rather than, say, the momentum observable. Again, the link to the position observable is a consequence of the dynamics. The motivation for de BroglieBohm theory is to describe a system of particles. This implies that the goal of the theory is to describe the positions of those particles at all times. Other observables do not have this compelling ontological status. Having definite positions explains having definite results such as flashes on a detector screen. Other observables would not lead to that conclusion, but there need not be any problem in defining a mathematical theory for other observables; see Hyman et al.[13] for an exploration of the fact that a probability density and probability current can be defined for any set of commuting operators. Hidden variables De BroglieBohm theory is often referred to as a "hidden variable" theory. The alleged applicability of the term "hidden variable" comes from the fact that the particles postulated by Bohmian mechanics do not influence the evolution of the wavefunction. The argument is that, because adding particles does not have an effect on the wavefunction's evolution, such particles must not have effects at all and are, thus, unobservable, since they cannot have an effect on observers. There is no analogue of Newton's third law in this theory. The idea is supposed to be that, since particles cannot influence the wavefunction, and it is the wavefunction that determines measurement predictions through the Born rule, the particles are superfluous and unobservable. Such an argument, however, arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of the relation between the ontology posited by the de BroglieBohm theory and the world of ordinary observation. In particular, the particles postulated by the de BroglieBohm theory are anything but "hidden" variables: they are what the cats and trees and tables and planets and pointers we see are made of! It is the wavefunction itself which is "hidden" in the sense of being invisible and not-directly-observable. Thus, for example, when the wavefunction of some measuring apparatus is such that its pointer is superposed between pointing to the left and pointing to the right, what accounts for the fact that scientists, when they look at the apparatus, see the pointer pointing to the left (say) is the fact that the de BroglieBohmian particles that make up the pointer are actually pointed towards the left. While the exact details of how humans process such information and what it is based on is beyond the scope of the de BroglieBohm theory, the basic idea of any particle ontology is that if the particles in the theory appear where they seem to be from human observations, then it is considered a successful prediction.

40

De BroglieBohm theory

41

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that when two complementary measurements are made, there is a limit to the product of their accuracy. As an example, if one measures the position with an accuracy of , and the momentum with an accuracy of , then If we make further measurements in order to get more information, we disturb the system and change the trajectory into a new one depending on the measurement setup; therefore, the measurement results are still subject to Heisenberg's uncertainty relation. In de BroglieBohm theory, there is always a matter of fact about the position and momentum of a particle. Each particle has a well defined trajectory. Observers have limited knowledge as to what this trajectory is (and thus of the position and momentum). It is the lack knowledge of the particle's trajectory that accounts for the uncertainty relation. What one can know about a particle at any given time is described by the wavefunction. Since the uncertainty relation can be derived from the wavefunction in other interpretations of quantum mechanics, it can be likewise derived (in the epistemic sense mentioned above), on the de BroglieBohm theory. To put the statement differently, the particles' positions are only known statistically. As in classical mechanics, successive observations of the particles' positions refine the experimenter's knowledge of the particles' initial conditions. Thus, with succeeding observations, the initial conditions become more and more restricted. This formalism is consistent with the normal use of the Schrdinger equation. For the derivation of the uncertainty relation, see Heisenberg uncertainty principle, noting that it describes it from the viewpoint of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Quantum entanglement, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Bell's theorem, and nonlocality

De BroglieBohm theory highlighted the issue of nonlocality: it inspired John Stewart Bell to prove his now-famous theorem,[14] which in turn led to the Bell test experiments. In the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,[15] the authors point out that quantum mechanics allows the creation of pairs of particles in an entangled quantum state. They describe a thought-experiment one could perform on such a pair, the results of which they interpreted as indicating that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. Decades later John Bell proved Bell's theorem (see p.14 in Bell[9] ), in which he showed that, if they are to agree with the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics, all such "hidden-variable" completions of quantum mechanics must either be nonlocal (as the Bohm interpretation is) or give up the assumption that experiments produce unique results (see counterfactual definiteness and many-worlds interpretation). In particular, Bell proved that any local theory with unique results must make empirical predictions satisfying a statistical constraint called "Bell's inequality". Alain Aspect performed a series of Bell test experiments that test Bell's inequality using an EPR-type setup. Aspect's results show experimentally that Bell's inequality is in fact violatedmeaning that the relevant quantum mechanical predictions are correct. In these Bell test experiments, entangled pairs of particles are created; the particles are separated, traveling to remote measuring apparatus. The orientation of the measuring apparatus can be changed while the particles are in flight, demonstrating the apparent non-locality of the effect. The de BroglieBohm theory makes the same (empirically correct) predictions for the Bell test experiments as ordinary quantum mechanics. It is able to do this because it is manifestly nonlocal. It is often criticized or rejected based on this; Bell's attitude was: "It is a merit of the de BroglieBohm version to bring this [nonlocality] out so explicitly that it cannot be ignored." [16] The de BroglieBohm theory describes the physics in the Bell test experiments as follows: to understand the evolution of the particles, we need to set up a wave equation for both particles; the orientation of the apparatus affects the wavefunction. The particles in the experiment follow the guidance of the wavefunction. It is the wavefunction that carries the faster-than-light effect of changing the orientation of the apparatus. An analysis of exactly what kind of nonlocality is present and how it is compatible with relativity can be found in Maudlin.[17] Note

De BroglieBohm theory that in Bell's work, and in more detail in Maudlin's work, it is shown that the nonlocality does not allow for signaling at speeds faster than light.

42

Classical limit
Bohm's formulation of de BroglieBohm theory in terms of a classical-looking version has the merits that the emergence of classical behavior seems to follow immediately for any situation in which the quantum potential is negligible, as noted by Bohm in 1952. Modern methods of decoherence are relevant to an analysis of this limit. See Allori et al.[18] for steps towards a rigorous analysis.

Quantum trajectory method

Work by Robert Wyatt in the early 2000s attempted to use the Bohm "particles" as an adaptive mesh that follows the actual trajectory of a quantum state in time and space. In the "quantum trajectory" method, one samples the quantum wavefunction with a mesh of quadrature points. One then evolves the quadrature points in time according to the Bohm equations of motion. At each time-step, one then re-synthesizes the wavefunction from the points, recomputes the quantum forces, and continues the calculation. (Quick-time movies of this for H+H2 reactive scattering can be found on the Wyatt group [27] web-site at UT Austin.) This approach has been adapted, extended, and used by a number of researchers in the Chemical Physics community as a way to compute semi-classical and quasi-classical molecular dynamics. A recent (2007) issue of the Journal of Physical Chemistry A [28] was dedicated to Prof. Wyatt and his work on "Computational Bohmian Dynamics". Eric Bittner's group [29] at the University of Houston has advanced a statistical variant of this approach that uses Bayesian sampling technique to sample the quantum density and compute the quantum potential on a structureless mesh of points. This technique was recently used to estimate quantum effects in the heat-capacity of small clusters Nen for n~100. There remain difficulties using the Bohmian approach, mostly associated with the formation of singularities in the quantum potential due to nodes in the quantum wavefunction. In general, nodes forming due to interference effects lead to the case where This results in an infinite force on the sample particles forcing them to move

away from the node and often crossing the path of other sample points (which violates single-valuedness). Various schemes have been developed to overcome this; however, no general solution has yet emerged. These methods, as does Bohm's Hamilton-Jacobi formulation, do not apply to situations in which the full dynamics of spin need to be taken into account.

Occam's razor criticism

Both Hugh Everett III and Bohm treated the wavefunction as a physically real field. Everett's many-worlds interpretation is an attempt to demonstrate that the wavefunction alone is sufficient to account for all our observations. When we see the particle detectors flash or hear the click of a Geiger counter then Everett's theory interprets this as our wavefunction responding to changes in the detector's wavefunction, which is responding in turn to the passage of another wavefunction (which we think of as a "particle", but is actually just another wave-packet).[19] No particle (in the Bohm sense of having a defined position and velocity) exists, according to that theory. For this reason Everett sometimes referred to his approach as the "pure wave theory". Talking of Bohm's 1952 approach, Everett says:

Our main criticism of this view is on the grounds of simplicity - if one desires to hold the view that

particle is superfluous since, as we have endeavored to illustrate, the pure wave theory is itself satisfactory.

is a real field then the associated [20]

In the Everettian view, then, the Bohm particles are superfluous entities, similar to, and equally as unnecessary as, for example, the luminiferous ether was found to be unnecessary in special relativity. This argument of Everett's is

De BroglieBohm theory sometimes called the "redundancy argument", since the superfluous particles are redundant in the sense of Occam's razor.[21] . By omitting the hidden variables, however, Everett had to invoke causally unrelated and therefore experimentally unverifiable parallel universes. Many authors have expressed critical views of the de Broglie-Bohm theory, by comparing it to Everett's many worlds approach. Many (but not all) proponents of the de Broglie-Bohm theory (such as Bohm and Bell) interpret the universal wave function as physically real. According to some supporters of Everett's theory, if the (never collapsing) wave function is taken to be physically real, then it is natural to interpret the theory as having the same many worlds as Everett's theory. In the Everettian view the role of the Bohm particle is to act as a "pointer", tagging, or selecting, just one branch of the universal wavefunction (the assumption that this branch indicates which wave packet determines the observed result of a given experiment is called the "result assumption"[19] ); the other branches are designated "empty" and implicitly assumed by Bohm to be devoid of conscious observers.[19] H. Dieter Zeh comments on these "empty" branches:

43

It is usually overlooked that Bohms theory contains the same many worlds of dynamically separate branches as the Everett interpretation [22] (now regarded as empty wave components), since it is based on precisely the same . . . global wave function . . .

David Deutsch has expressed the same point more "acerbically"[19] :

pilot-wave theories are parallel-universe theories in a state of chronic denial.

[23]

The fact that such a "pointer" can be made in a self-consistent manner that not only reproduces all known experimental results but also provides a clean classical limit is, however, highly significant in itself. It proves that the existence of alternative universes is not a necessary conclusion of quantum physics.

Derivations
De BroglieBohm theory has been derived many times and in many ways. Below are five derivations all of which are very different and lead to different ways of understanding and extending this theory. Schrdinger's equation can be derived by using Einstein's light quanta hypothesis: hypothesis: . . and de Broglie's

The guiding equation can be derived in a similar fashion. We assume a plane wave: Notice that . Assuming that for the particle's actual velocity, we have that

. Thus, we have the guiding equation. Notice that this derivation does not use Schrdinger's equation. Preserving the density under the time evolution is another method of derivation. This is the method that Bell cites. It is this method which generalizes to many possible alternative theories. The starting point is the continuity equation for the density . This equation describes a probability flow along a

current. We take the velocity field associated with this current as the velocity field whose integral curves yield the motion of the particle. A method applicable for particles without spin is to do a polar decomposition of the wavefunction and transform Schrdinger's equation into two coupled equations: the continuity equation from above and the HamiltonJacobi equation. This is the method used by Bohm in 1952. The decomposition and equations are as follows: Decomposition: . Note corresponds to the probability density

De BroglieBohm theory

44

Continuity Equation: HamiltonJacobi Equation: The HamiltonJacobi equation is the equation derived from a Newtonian system with potential and velocity field The potential is the classical potential that appears in

Schrdinger's equation and the other term involving Bohm.

is the quantum potential, terminology introduced by

This leads to viewing the quantum theory as particles moving under the classical force modified by a quantum force. However, unlike standard Newtonian mechanics, the initial velocity field is already specified by which is a symptom of this being a first-order theory, not a second-order theory. A fourth derivation was given by Drr et al.[1] In their derivation, they derive the velocity field by demanding the appropriate transformation properties given by the various symmetries that Schrdinger's equation satisfies, once the wavefunction is suitably transformed. The guiding equation is what emerges from that analysis. A fifth derivation, given by Drr et al.[4] is appropriate for generalization to quantum field theory and the Dirac equation. The idea is that a velocity field can also be understood as a first order differential operator acting on functions. Thus, if we know how it acts on functions, we know what it is. Then given the Hamiltonian operator , the equation to satisfy for all functions (with associated multiplication operator where ) is

is the local Hermitian inner product on the value space

of the wavefunction. This formulation allows for stochastic theories such as the creation and annihilation of particles.

History
De BroglieBohm theory has a history of different formulations and names. In this section, each stage is given a name and a main reference.

Pilot-wave theory
Dr. de Broglie presented his pilot wave theory at the 1927 Solvay Conference,[24] after close collaboration with Schrdinger, who developed his wave equation for de Broglie's theory. At the end of the presentation, Wolfgang Pauli pointed out that it was not compatible with a semi-classical technique Fermi had previously adopted in the case of inelastic scattering. Contrary to a popular legend, de Broglie actually gave the correct rebuttal that the particular technique could not be generalized for Pauli's purpose, although the audience might have been lost in the technical details and de Brolie's mild mannerism left the impression that Pauli's objection was valid. He was eventually persuaded to abandon this theory nonetheless in 1932 due to both the Copenhagen school's more successful P.R. efforts and his own inability to understand quantum decoherence. Also in 1932, John von Neumann published a paper,[25] claiming to prove that all hidden-variable theories are impossible. This sealed the fate of de Broglie's theory for the next two decades. In truth, von Neumann's proof is based on invalid assumptions, such as quantum physics can be made local, and it does not really disprove the pilot-wave theory. De Broglie's theory already applies to multiple spin-less particles, but lacks an adequate theory of measurement as no one understood quantum decoherence at the time. An analysis of de Broglie's presentation is given in Bacciagaluppi et al.[26] [27]

De BroglieBohm theory Around this time Erwin Madelung[28] also developed a hydrodynamic version of Schrdinger's equation which is incorrectly considered as a basis for the density current derivation of de BroglieBohm theory. The Madelung equations, being quantum Euler equations (fluid dynamics), differ philosophically from the de BroglieBohm theory[29] and are the basis of the hydrodynamic interpretation of quantum mechanics.

45

De BroglieBohm theory
After publishing a popular textbook on Quantum Mechanics which adhered entirely to the Copenhagen orthodoxy, Bohm was persuaded by Einstein to take a critical look at von Neumann's theorem. The result was 'A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden Variables" I and II' [Bohm 1952]. It extended the original Pilot Wave Theory to incorporate a consistent theory of measurement, and to address a criticism of Pauli that de Broglie did not properly respond to; it is taken to be deterministic (though Bohm hinted in the original papers that there should be disturbances to this, in the way Brownian motion disturbs Newtonian mechanics). This stage is known as the de BroglieBohm Theory in Bell's work [Bell 1987] and is the basis for 'The Quantum Theory of Motion' [Holland 1993]. This stage applies to multiple particles, and is deterministic. The de BroglieBohm theory is an example of a hidden variables theory. Bohm originally hoped that hidden variables could provide a local, causal, objective description that would resolve or eliminate many of the paradoxes of quantum mechanics, such as Schrdinger's cat, the measurement problem and the collapse of the wavefunction. However, Bell's theorem complicates this hope, as it demonstrates that there can be no local hidden variable theory that is compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. The Bohmian interpretation is causal but not local. Bohm's paper was largely ignored by other physicists. Even Albert Einstein did not consider it a satisfactory answer to the quantum non-locality question. The rest of the contemporary objections, however, were ad hominem, focusing on Bohm's sympathy with liberals and supposed communists as exemplified by his refusal to give testimony to the House Un-American Activities Committee. Eventually the cause was taken up by John Bell. In "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" [Bell 1987], several of the papers refer to hidden variables theories (which include Bohm's). Bell showed that von Neumann's objection amounted to showing that hidden variables theories are nonlocal, and that nonlocality is a feature of all quantum mechanical systems.

Bohmian mechanics
This term is used to describe the same theory, but with an emphasis on the notion of current flow. In particular, it is often used to include most of the further extensions past the spin-less version of Bohm. While de BroglieBohm theory has Lagrangians and Hamilton-Jacobi equations as a primary focus and backdrop, with the icon of the quantum potential, Bohmian mechanics considers the continuity equation as primary and has the guiding equation as its icon. They are mathematically equivalent in so far as the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation applies, i.e., spin-less particles. The papers of Drr et al. popularized the term. All of non-relativistic quantum mechanics can be fully accounted for in this theory.

De BroglieBohm theory

46

Causal interpretation and ontological interpretation

Bohm developed his original ideas, calling them the Causal Interpretation. Later he felt that causal sounded too much like deterministic and preferred to call his theory the Ontological Interpretation. The main reference is 'The Undivided Universe' [Bohm, Hiley 1993]. This stage covers work by Bohm and in collaboration with Vigier and Hiley. Bohm is clear that this theory is non-deterministic (the work with Hiley includes a stochastic theory). As such, this theory is not, strictly speaking, a formulation of the de BroglieBohm theory. However, it deserves mention here because the term "Bohm Interpretation" is ambiguous between this theory and the de BroglieBohm theory.

See also
David Bohm Interpretation of quantum mechanics Madelung equations Local hidden variable theory Quantum mechanics Pilot wave

References
Albert, David Z. (May 1994). "Bohm's Alternative to Quantum Mechanics". Scientific American 270: 5867. Barbosa, G. D.; N. Pinto-Neto (2004). "A Bohmian Interpretation for Noncommutative Scalar Field Theory and Quantum Mechanics". Physical Review D 69: 065014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.065014. arXiv:hep-th/0304105. Bohm, David (1952). "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden Variables" I". Physical Review 85: 166179. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.166. Bohm, David (1952). "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden Variables", II". Physical Review 85: 180193. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.180. Bohm, David (1990). "A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter" [41]. Philosophical Psychology 3 (2): 271286. doi:10.1080/09515089008573004. Bohm, David; B.J. Hiley (1993). The Undivided Universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory. London: Routledge. ISBN0-415-12185-X. Durr, Detlef; Sheldon Goldstein, Roderich Tumulka and Nino Zangh (December 2004). "Bohmian Mechanics" [42] (PDF). Physical review letters 93 (9): 090402. ISSN0031-9007. PMID15447078. Goldstein, Sheldon (2001). "Bohmian Mechanics" [43]. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Hall, Michael J.W. (2004). "Incompleteness of trajectory-based interpretations of quantum mechanics". Journal of Physics a Mathematical and General 37: 9549. doi:10.1088/0305-4470/37/40/015. arXiv:quant-ph/0406054. (Demonstrates incompleteness of the Bohm interpretation in the face of fractal, differentialble-nowhere wavefunctions.) Holland, Peter R. (1993). The Quantum Theory of Motion : An Account of the de BroglieBohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN0-521-48543-6. Nikolic, H. (2004). "Relativistic quantum mechanics and the Bohmian interpretation". Foundations of Physics Letters 18: 549. doi:10.1007/s10702-005-1128-1. arXiv:quant-ph/0406173. Passon, Oliver (2004). Why isn't every physicist a Bohmian?. arXiv:quant-ph/0412119. Sanz, A. S.; F. Borondo (2003). "A Bohmian view on quantum decoherence". The European Physical Journal D 44: 319. doi:10.1140/epjd/e2007-00191-8. arXiv:quant-ph/0310096. Sanz, A.S. (2005). "A Bohmian approach to quantum fractals". J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38: 319. doi:10.1088/0305-4470/38/26/013. (Describes a Bohmian resolution to the dilemma posed by non-differentiable wavefunctions.)

De BroglieBohm theory Silverman, Mark P. (1993). And Yet It Moves: Strange Systems and Subtle Questions in Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN0-521-44631-7. Streater, Ray F. (2003). "Bohmian mechanics is a "lost cause"" [44]. Retrieved 2006-06-25. Valentini, Antony; Hans Westman (2004). Dynamical Origin of Quantum Probabilities. arXiv:quant-ph/0403034. Bohmian mechanics on arxiv.org [45]

47

External links
"Bohmian Mechanics" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [46] "Pilot waves, Bohmian metaphysics, and the foundations of quantum mechanics" [47], lecture course on Bohm interpretation by Mike Towler, Cambridge University.

References
[1] Drr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zangh, N., "Quantum Equilibrium and the Origin of Absolute Uncertainty" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0308039), Journal of Statistical Physics 67: 843907, 1992. [2] Quantum Equilibrium and the Origin of Absolute Uncertainty, D. Drr, S. Goldstein and N. Zangh, Journal of Statistical Physics 67, 843-907 (1992), http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0308039. [3] Drr, D., Goldstein, S., Taylor, J., Tumulka, R., and Zangh, N., J. "Quantum Mechanics in Multiply-Connected Spaces" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0506173), Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40, 29973031 (2007) [4] Drr, D., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R., and Zangh, N., 2004, "Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0303156), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93: 090402:14. [5] Drr, D., Tumulka, R., and Zangh, N., J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38, R1R43 (2005), quant-ph/0407116 [6] Nikolic, H. 2010 "QFT as pilot-wave theory of particle creation and destruction" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 0904. 2287), Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25, 1477 (2010) [7] Valentini, A., 1991, "Signal-Locality, Uncertainty and the Subquantum H-Theorem. II," Physics Letters A 158: 18. [8] Drr, D., Goldstein, S., Mnch-Berndl, K., and Zangh, N., 1999, "Hypersurface Bohm-Dirac Models" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 9801070), Phys. Rev. A 60: 27292736. [9] Bell, John S, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press 1987. [10] Albert, D. Z., 1992, Quantum Mechanics and Experience, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press [11] Daumer, M., Drr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zangh, N., 1997, "Naive Realism About Operators" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 9601013), Erkenntnis 45: 379397. [12] Drr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zangh, N., "Quantum Equilibrium and the Role of Operators as Observables in Quantum Theory" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0308038) Journal of Statistical Physics 116, 9591055 (2004) [13] Hyman, Ross et al Bohmian mechanics with discrete operators (http:/ / www. iop. org/ EJ/ abstract/ 0305-4470/ 37/ 44/ L02), J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 37 L547L558, 2004 [14] J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox (http:/ / www. drchinese. com/ David/ Bell_Compact. pdf), Physics 1, 195 (1964) [15] Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935). [16] Bell, page 115 [17] Maudlin, T., 1994, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. [18] Allori, V., Drr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zangh, N., 2002, "Seven Steps Towards the Classical World" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0112005), Journal of Optics B 4: 482488. [19] Harvey R Brown and David Wallace, Solving the measurement problem: de Broglie-Bohm loses out to Everett, Foundations of Physics 35 (2005), pp. 517-540. (http:/ / philsci-archive. pitt. edu/ archive/ 00001659/ 01/ Cushing. pdf) Abstract: "The quantum theory of de Broglie and Bohm solves the measurement problem, but the hypothetical corpuscles play no role in the argument. The solution finds a more natural home in the Everett interpretation." [20] See section VI of Everett's thesis: The Theory of the Universal Wave Function, pp 3-140 of Bryce Seligman DeWitt, R. Neill Graham, eds, The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton Series in Physics, Princeton University Press (1973), ISBN 0-691-08131-X [21] Craig Callender, "The Redundancy Argument Against Bohmian Mechanics" (http:/ / philosophy. ucsd. edu/ faculty/ ccallender/ The Redundancy Argument Against Bohmian Mechanics. doc. ) [22] Daniel Dennett (2000). With a little help from my friends. In D. Ross, A. Brook, and D. Thompson (Eds.), Dennetts Philosophy: a comprehensive assessment. MIT Press/Bradford, ISBN 026268117X. [23] David Deutsch, Comment on Lockwood. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47, 222228, 1996 [24] Solvay Conference, 1928, Electrons et Photons: Rapports et Descussions du Cinquieme Conseil de Physique tenu a Bruxelles du 24 au 29 October 1927 sous les auspices de l'Institut International Physique Solvay [25] von Neumann J. 1932 Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik

De BroglieBohm theory
[26] Bacciagaluppi, G., and Valentini, A., Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference [27] See the brief summary by Towler, M., "Pilot wave theory, Bohmian metaphysics, and the foundations of quantum mecahnics" (http:/ / www. tcm. phy. cam. ac. uk/ ~mdt26/ PWT/ lectures/ bohm7. pdf) [28] Madelung, E., Quantentheorie in hydrodynamischer Form, Zeit. F. Phys. 40 (1927), 322326 [29] Tsekov, R. (2009) Bohmian Mechanics versus Madelung Quantum Hydrodynamics (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 0904. 0723)

48

EPR paradox
In quantum mechanics, the EPR paradox (or EinsteinPodolskyRosen paradox) is a thought experiment which challenged long-held ideas about the relation between the observed values of physical quantities and the values that can be accounted for by a physical theory. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen introduced the thought experiment in a 1935 paper to argue that quantum mechanics is not a complete physical theory.[1] [2] According to its authors the EPR experiment yields a dichotomy. Either 1. The result of a measurement performed on one part A of a quantum system has a non-local effect on the physical reality of another distant part B, in the sense that quantum mechanics can predict outcomes of some measurements carried out at B; or... 2. Quantum mechanics is incomplete in the sense that some element of physical reality corresponding to B cannot be accounted for by quantum mechanics (that is, some extra variable is needed to account for it). As shown later by Bell, one cannot introduce the notion of "elements of reality" without affecting the predictions of the theory. That is, one cannot complete quantum mechanics with these "elements", because this automatically leads to some logical contradictions. Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics as a "real" and complete theory, struggling to the end of his life for an interpretation that could comply with relativity without complying with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. As he once said: "God does not play dice", skeptically referring to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics which says there exists no objective physical reality other than that which is revealed through measurement and observation. The EPR paradox is a paradox in the following sense: if one adds to quantum mechanics some seemingly reasonable (but actually wrong, or questionable as a whole) conditions like local realism (not to be confused with philosophical realism), counterfactual definiteness, and incompleteness (see Bell inequality and Bell test experiments) then one obtains a contradiction. However, quantum mechanics by itself does not appear to be internally inconsistent, nor as it turns out does it contradict relativity. As a result of further theoretical and experimental developments since the original EPR paper, most physicists today regard the EPR paradox as an illustration of how quantum mechanics violates classical intuitions.

Quantum mechanics and its interpretation

Since the early twentieth century, quantum theory has proved to be very successful, describing accurately the physical reality of the mesoscopic and microscopic world. This fact has been made clear through multiple and repeatable physical experiments. Quantum mechanics was developed with the aim of describing atoms and explaining the observed spectral lines in a measurement apparatus. Though disputed, it has never been seriously challenged. Philosophical interpretations of quantum phenomena, however, are another story: the question of how to interpret the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics has given rise to a variety of different answers from people of different philosophical backgrounds (see Interpretation of quantum mechanics). Quantum theory and quantum mechanics do not account for single measurement outcomes in a deterministic way. According to an accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics known as the Copenhagen interpretation, a

EPR paradox measurement causes an instantaneous collapse of the wave function describing the quantum system into an eigenstate of the observable that was measured. The most prominent opponent of the Copenhagen interpretation was Albert Einstein. Einstein did not believe in the idea of genuine randomness in nature, the main argument in the Copenhagen interpretation. In his view, quantum mechanics is incomplete and suggests that there had to be 'hidden' variables responsible for random measurement results. The famous paper "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?"[3], authored by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in 1935, condensed the philosophical discussion into a physical argument. They claim that given a specific experiment, in which the outcome of a measurement could be known before the measurement takes place, there must exist something in the real world, an "element of reality", which determines the measurement outcome. They postulate that these elements of reality are local, in the sense that each belongs to a certain point in spacetime. Each element may only be influenced by events which are located in the backward light cone of its point in spacetime. These claims are founded on assumptions about nature which constitute what is now known as local realism. Though the EPR paper has often been taken as an exact expression of Einstein's views, it was primarily authored by Podolsky, based on discussions at the Institute for Advanced Study with Einstein and Rosen. Einstein later expressed to Erwin Schrdinger that "It did not come out as well as I had originally wanted; rather, the essential thing was, so to speak, smothered by the formalism."[4] In 1948 Einstein presented a less formal account of his local realist ideas.

49

Description of the paradox

The EPR paradox draws on a phenomenon predicted by quantum mechanics, known as quantum entanglement, to show that measurements performed on spatially separated parts of a quantum system can apparently have an instantaneous influence on one another. This effect is now known as "nonlocal behavior" (or colloquially as "quantum weirdness" or "spooky action at a distance").

Simple version
Before delving into the complicated logic that leads to the 'paradox', it is perhaps worth mentioning the simple version of the argument, as described by Greene and others, which Einstein used to show that 'hidden variables' must exist. A positron and an electron are emitted from a source, by pion decay, so that their spins are opposite; one particles spin about any axis is the negative of the other's. Also, due to uncertainty, making a measurement of a particles spin about one axis disturbs the particle so you now cant measure its spin about any other axis. Now say you measure the electrons spin about the x-axis. This automatically tells you the positrons spin about the x-axis. Since youve done the measurement without disturbing the positron in any way, it cant be that the positron "only came to have that state when you measured it", because you didnt measure it! It must have had that spin all along. Also you can now measure the positrons spin about the y-axis. So it follows that the positron has had a definite spin about two axes much more information than the positron is capable of holding, and a "hidden variable" according to EPR.

EPR paradox

50

Measurements on an entangled state

We have a source that emits electron-positron pairs, with the electron sent to destination A, where there is an observer named Alice, and the positron sent to destination B, where there is an observer named Bob. According to quantum mechanics, we can arrange our source so that each emitted pair occupies a quantum state called a spin singlet. This can be viewed as a quantum superposition of two states, which we call state I and state II. In state I, the electron has spin pointing upward along the z-axis (+z) and the positron has spin pointing downward along the z-axis (-z). In state II, the electron has spin -z and the positron has spin +z. Therefore, it is impossible to associate either particle in the spin singlet with a state of definite spin. The particles are thus said to be entangled.

The EPR thought experiment, performed with electron-positron pairs. A source (center) sends particles toward two observers, electrons to Alice (left) and positrons to Bob (right), who can perform spin measurements.

Alice now measures the spin along the z-axis. She can obtain one of two possible outcomes: +z or -z. Suppose she gets +z. According to quantum mechanics, the quantum state of the system collapses into state I. (Different interpretations of quantum mechanics have different ways of saying this, but the basic result is the same.) The quantum state determines the probable outcomes of any measurement performed on the system. In this case, if Bob subsequently measures spin along the z-axis, he will obtain -z with 100% probability. Similarly, if Alice gets -z, Bob will get +z. There is, of course, nothing special about our choice of the z-axis. For instance, suppose that Alice and Bob now decide to measure spin along the x-axis, according to quantum mechanics, the spin singlet state may equally well be expressed as a superposition of spin states pointing in the x direction. We'll call these states Ia and IIa. In state Ia, Alice's electron has spin +x and Bob's positron has spin -x. In state IIa, Alice's electron has spin -x and Bob's positron has spin +x. Therefore, if Alice measures +x, the system collapses into Ia, and Bob will get -x. If Alice measures -x, the system collapses into IIa, and Bob will get +x. In quantum mechanics, the x-spin and z-spin are "incompatible observables", which means that there is a Heisenberg uncertainty principle operating between them: a quantum state cannot possess a definite value for both variables. Suppose Alice measures the z-spin and obtains +z, so that the quantum state collapses into state I. Now, instead of measuring the z-spin as well, Bob measures the x-spin. According to quantum mechanics, when the system is in state I, Bob's x-spin measurement will have a 50% probability of producing +x and a 50% probability of -x. Furthermore, it is fundamentally impossible to predict which outcome will appear until Bob actually performs the measurement. Here is the crux of the matter. You might imagine that, when Bob measures the x-spin of his positron, he would get an answer with absolute certainty, since prior to this he hasn't disturbed his particle at all. But, as described above, Bob's positron has a 50% probability of producing +x and a 50% probability of -xrandom behaviour, not certain. Bob's positron knows that Alice's electron has been measured, and its z-spin detected, and hence B's z-spin calculated, so its x-spin is 'out of bounds'.

EPR paradox Put another way, how does Bob's positron know, at the same time, which way to point if Alice decides (based on information unavailable to Bob) to measure x (i.e. be the opposite of Alice's electron's spin about the x-axis) and also how to point if Alice measures z (i.e. behave randomly), since it is only supposed to know one thing at a time? Using the usual Copenhagen interpretation rules that say the wave function "collapses" at the time of measurement, there must be action at a distance (entanglement) or the positron must know more than it is supposed to (hidden variables). In case the explanation above is confusing, here is the paradox summed up: An electron-positron pair is emitted, the particles shoot off and are measured later. Whatever axis their spins are measured along, they are always found to be opposite. This can only be explained if the particles are linked in some way. Either they were created with a definite (opposite) spin about every axisa "hidden variable" argumentor they are linked so that one electron knows what axis the other is having its spin measured along, and becomes its opposite about that one axisan "entanglement" argument. Moreover, if the two particles have their spins measured about different axes, once the electron's spin has been measured about the x-axis (and the positron's spin about the x-axis deduced), the positron's spin about the y-axis will no longer be certain, as if it knows that the measurement has taken place. Either that or it has a definite spin already, which gives it a spin about a second axisa hidden variable. Incidentally, although we have used spin as an example, many types of physical quantitieswhat quantum mechanics refers to as "observables"can be used to produce quantum entanglement. The original EPR paper used momentum for the observable. Experimental realizations of the EPR scenario often use photon polarization, because polarized photons are easy to prepare and measure.

51

Locality in the EPR experiment

The principle of locality states that physical processes occurring at one place should have no immediate effect on the elements of reality at another location. At first sight, this appears to be a reasonable assumption to make, as it seems to be a consequence of special relativity, which states that information can never be transmitted faster than the speed of light without violating causality. It is generally believed that any theory which violates causality would also be internally inconsistent, and thus deeply unsatisfactory. It turns out that the usual rules for combining quantum mechanical and classical descriptions violate the principle of locality without violating causality. Causality is preserved because there is no way for Alice to transmit messages (i.e. information) to Bob by manipulating her measurement axis. Whichever axis she uses, she has a 50% probability of obtaining "+" and 50% probability of obtaining "-", completely at random; according to quantum mechanics, it is fundamentally impossible for her to influence what result she gets. Furthermore, Bob is only able to perform his measurement once: there is a fundamental property of quantum mechanics, known as the "no cloning theorem", which makes it impossible for him to make a million copies of the electron he receives, perform a spin measurement on each, and look at the statistical distribution of the results. Therefore, in the one measurement he is allowed to make, there is a 50% probability of getting "+" and 50% of getting "-", regardless of whether or not his axis is aligned with Alice's. However, the principle of locality appeals powerfully to physical intuition, and Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen were unwilling to abandon it. Einstein derided the quantum mechanical predictions as "spooky action at a distance". The conclusion they drew was that quantum mechanics is not a complete theory. In recent years, however, doubt has been cast on EPR's conclusion due to developments in understanding locality and especially quantum decoherence. The word locality has several different meanings in physics. For example, in quantum field theory "locality" means that quantum fields at different points of space do not interact with one another. However, quantum field theories that are "local" in this sense appear to violate the principle of locality as defined by EPR, but they nevertheless do not violate locality in a more general sense. Wavefunction collapse can be viewed as an epiphenomenon of quantum decoherence, which in turn is nothing more than an effect of the underlying local time evolution of the wavefunction of a system and all of its environment. Since the underlying

EPR paradox behaviour doesn't violate local causality, it follows that neither does the additional effect of wavefunction collapse, whether real or apparent. Therefore, as outlined in the example above, neither the EPR experiment nor any quantum experiment demonstrates that faster-than-light signaling is possible.

52

Resolving the paradox

Hidden variables
There are several ways to resolve the EPR paradox. The one suggested by EPR is that quantum mechanics, despite its success in a wide variety of experimental scenarios, is actually an incomplete theory. In other words, there is some yet undiscovered theory of nature to which quantum mechanics acts as a kind of statistical approximation (albeit an exceedingly successful one). Unlike quantum mechanics, the more complete theory contains variables corresponding to all the "elements of reality". There must be some unknown mechanism acting on these variables to give rise to the observed effects of "non-commuting quantum observables", i.e. the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Such a theory is called a hidden variable theory. To illustrate this idea, we can formulate a very simple hidden variable theory for the above thought experiment. One supposes that the quantum spin-singlet states emitted by the source are actually approximate descriptions for "true" physical states possessing definite values for the z-spin and x-spin. In these "true" states, the electron going to Bob always has spin values opposite to the electron going to Alice, but the values are otherwise completely random. For example, the first pair emitted by the source might be "(+z, -x) to Alice and (-z, +x) to Bob", the next pair "(-z, -x) to Alice and (+z, +x) to Bob", and so forth. Therefore, if Bob's measurement axis is aligned with Alice's, he will necessarily get the opposite of whatever Alice gets; otherwise, he will get "+" and "-" with equal probability. Assuming we restrict our measurements to the z and x axes, such a hidden variable theory is experimentally indistinguishable from quantum mechanics. In reality, of course, there is an (uncountably) infinite number of axes along which Alice and Bob can perform their measurements, so there has to be an infinite number of independent hidden variables. However, this is not a serious problem; we have formulated a very simplistic hidden variable theory, and a more sophisticated theory might be able to patch it up. It turns out that there is a much more serious challenge to the idea of hidden variables. Bell's inequality In 1964, John Bell showed that the predictions of quantum mechanics in the EPR thought experiment are significantly different from the predictions of a very broad class of hidden variable theories (the local hidden variable theories). Roughly speaking, quantum mechanics predicts much stronger statistical correlations between the measurement results performed on different axes than the hidden variable theories. These differences, expressed using inequality relations known as "Bell's inequalities", are in principle experimentally detectable. Later work by Eberhard showed that the key properties of local hidden variable theories that lead to Bell's inequalities are locality and counter-factual definiteness. Any theory in which these principles hold produces the inequalities. A. Fine subsequently showed that any theory satisfying the inequalities can be modeled by a local hidden variable theory. After the publication of Bell's paper, a variety of experiments were devised to test Bell's inequalities. (As mentioned above, these experiments generally rely on photon polarization measurements.) All the experiments conducted to date have found behavior in line with the predictions of standard quantum mechanics. However, Bell's theorem does not apply to all possible philosophically realist theories, although a common misconception is that quantum mechanics is inconsistent with all notions of philosophical realism. Realist interpretations of quantum mechanics are possible, although as discussed above, such interpretations must reject either locality or counter-factual definiteness. Mainstream physics prefers to keep locality while still maintaining a notion of realism that nevertheless rejects counter-factual definiteness. Examples of such mainstream realist interpretations are the consistent histories interpretation and the transactional interpretation. Fine's work showed that

EPR paradox taking locality as a given there exist scenarios in which two statistical variables are correlated in a manner inconsistent with counter-factual definiteness and that such scenarios are no more mysterious than any other despite the inconsistency with counter-factual definiteness seeming 'counter-intuitive'. Violation of locality however is difficult to reconcile with special relativity and is thought to be incompatible with the principle of causality. On the other hand the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics instead keeps counter-factual definiteness while introducing a conjectured non-local mechanism called the 'quantum potential'. Some workers in the field have also attempted to formulate hidden variable theories that exploit loopholes in actual experiments, such as the assumptions made in interpreting experimental data although no such theory has been produced that can reproduce all the results of quantum mechanics. There are also individual EPR-like experiments that have no local hidden variables explanation. Examples have been suggested by David Bohm and by Lucien Hardy.

53

Einstein's hope for a purely algebraic theory

The Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics hypothesizes that the state of the universe evolves smoothly through time with no collapsing of quantum wavefunctions. One problem for the Copenhagen interpretation is to precisely define wavefunction collapse. Einstein maintained that quantum mechanics is physically incomplete and logically unsatisfactory. In "The Meaning of Relativity," Einstein wrote, "One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory and must lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic theory for the representation of reality. But nobody knows how to find the basis for such a theory." If time, space, and energy are secondary features derived from a substrate below the Planck scale, then Einstein's hypothetical algebraic system might resolve the EPR paradox (although Bell's theorem would still be valid). Edward Fredkin in the Fredkin Finite Nature Hypothesis has suggested an informational basis for Einstein's hypothetical algebraic system. If physical reality is totally finite, then the Copenhagen interpretation might be an approximation to an information processing system below the Planck scale.

"Acceptable theories", and the experiment

According to the present view of the situation, quantum mechanics simply contradicts Einstein's philosophical postulate that any acceptable physical theory should fulfill "local realism". In the EPR paper (1935) the authors realized that quantum mechanics was non-acceptable in the sense of their above-mentioned assumptions, and Einstein thought erroneously that it could simply be augmented by 'hidden variables', without any further change, to get an acceptable theory. He pursued these ideas until the end of his life (1955), over twenty years. In contrast, John Bell, in his 1964 paper, showed "once and for all" that quantum mechanics and Einstein's assumptions lead to different results, different by a factor of , for certain correlations. So the issue of

"acceptability", up to this time mainly concerning theory (even philosophy), finally became experimentally decidable. There are many Bell test experiments hitherto, e.g. those of Alain Aspect and others. They all show that pure quantum mechanics, and not Einstein's "local realism", is acceptable. Thus, according to Karl Popper these experiments falsify Einstein's philosophical assumptions, especially the ideas on "hidden variables", whereas quantum mechanics itself remains a good candidate for a theory, which is acceptable in a wider context.

EPR paradox

54

Implications for quantum mechanics

Most physicists today believe that quantum mechanics is correct, and that the EPR paradox is a "paradox" only because classical intuitions do not correspond to physical reality. How EPR is interpreted regarding locality depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics one uses. In the Copenhagen interpretation, it is usually understood that instantaneous wavefunction collapse does occur. However, the view that there is no causal instantaneous effect has also been proposed within the Copenhagen interpretation: in this alternate view, measurement affects our ability to define (and measure) quantities in the physical system, not the system itself. In the many-worlds interpretation, a kind of locality is preserved, since the effects of irreversible operations such as measurement arise from the relativization of a global state to a subsystem such as that of an observer. The EPR paradox has deepened our understanding of quantum mechanics by exposing the fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the measurement process. Prior to the publication of the EPR paper, a measurement was often visualized as a physical disturbance inflicted directly upon the measured system. For instance, when measuring the position of an electron, one imagines shining a light on it, thus disturbing the electron and producing the quantum mechanical uncertainties in its position. Such explanations, which are still encountered in popular expositions of quantum mechanics, are debunked by the EPR paradox, which shows that a "measurement" can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle. Technologies relying on quantum entanglement are now being developed. In quantum cryptography, entangled particles are used to transmit signals that cannot be eavesdropped upon without leaving a trace. In quantum computation, entangled quantum states are used to perform computations in parallel, which may allow certain calculations to be performed much more quickly than they ever could be with classical computers.

Mathematical formulation
The above discussion can be expressed mathematically using the quantum mechanical formulation of spin. The spin degree of freedom for an electron is associated with a two-dimensional Hilbert space H, with each quantum state corresponding to a vector in that space. The operators corresponding to the spin along the x, y, and z direction, denoted Sx, Sy, and Sz respectively, can be represented using the Pauli matrices:

where

stands for Planck's constant divided by 2.

The eigenstates of Sz are represented as

and the eigenstates of Sx are represented as

The Hilbert space of the electron pair is singlet state is

, the tensor product of the two electrons' Hilbert spaces. The spin

where the two terms on the right hand side are what we have referred to as state I and state II above. From the above equations, it can be shown that the spin singlet can also be written as

where the terms on the right hand side are what we have referred to as state Ia and state IIa.

EPR paradox To illustrate how this leads to the violation of local realism, we need to show that after Alice's measurement of Sz (or Sx), Bob's value of Sz (or Sx) is uniquely determined, and therefore corresponds to an "element of physical reality". This follows from the principles of measurement in quantum mechanics. When Sz is measured, the system state collapses into an eigenvector of Sz. If the measurement result is +z, this means that immediately after measurement the system state undergoes an orthogonal projection of onto the space of states of the form

55

For the spin singlet, the new state is

Similarly, if Alice's measurement result is -z, the system undergoes an orthogonal projection onto

which means that the new state is

This implies that the measurement for Sz for Bob's electron is now determined. It will be -z in the first case or +z in the second case. It remains only to show that Sx and Sz cannot simultaneously possess definite values in quantum mechanics. One may show in a straightforward manner that no possible vector can be an eigenvector of both matrices. More generally, one may use the fact that the operators do not commute,

along with the Heisenberg uncertainty relation

See also
Bell test experiments Bell state Bell's theorem CHSH Bell test Coherence (physics) Counter-factual definiteness Fredkin Finite Nature Hypothesis Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory GHZ experiment Interpretation of quantum mechanics Local hidden variable theory Many-worlds interpretation Measurement in quantum mechanics Measurement problem Penrose interpretation Philosophy of information Philosophy of physics Pondicherry interpretation Popper's experiment Quantum decoherence Quantum entanglement Quantum gravity Quantum information Quantum pseudo-telepathy Quantum teleportation Quantum Zeno effect Sakurai's Bell inequality Synchronicity Wave function collapse Zero-point field

EPR paradox

56

References
Selected papers
A. Aspect, Bell's inequality test: more ideal than ever, Nature 398 189 (1999). [5] J.S. Bell, On the Einstein-Poldolsky-Rosen paradox [6], Physics 1 195bbcv://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v48/i8/p696_1] P.H. Eberhard, Bell's theorem without hidden variables. Nuovo Cimento 38B1 75 (1977). P.H. Eberhard, Bell's theorem and the different concepts of locality. Nuovo Cimento 46B 392 (1978). A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? [7] Phys. Rev. 47 777 (1935). [3] A. Fine, Hidden Variables, Joint Probability, and the Bell Inequalities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 291 (1982).[8] A. Fine, Do Correlations need to be explained?, in Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell's Theorem, edited by Cushing & McMullin (University of Notre Dame Press, 1986). L. Hardy, Nonlocality for two particles without inequalities for almost all entangled states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 1665 (1993).[9] M. Mizuki, A classical interpretation of Bell's inequality. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie 26 683 (2001). P. Pluch, "Theory for Quantum Probability", PhD Thesis University of Klagenfurt (2006) M. A. Rowe, D. Kielpinski, V. Meyer, C. A. Sackett, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe and D. J. Wineland, Experimental violation of a Bell's inequality with efficient detection, Nature 409, 791-794 (15 February 2001). [10] M. Smerlak, C. Rovelli, Relational EPR [11]

Books
John S. Bell (1987) Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-36869-3. Arthur Fine (1996) The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism and the Quantum Theory, 2nd ed. Univ. of Chicago Press. J.J. Sakurai, J. J. (1994) Modern Quantum Mechanics. Addison-Wesley: 174187, 223-232. ISBN 0-201-53929-2. Selleri, F. (1988) Quantum Mechanics Versus Local Realism: The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox. New York: Plenum Press. ISBN 0-306-42739-7

External links
The original EPR paper. [3] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in Quantum Theory [12]" by Arthur Fine. Abner Shimony (2004) "Bells Theorem. [13]" EPR, Bell & Aspect: The Original References. [14] Does Bell's Inequality Principle rule out local theories of quantum mechanics? [15] From the Usenet Physics FAQ. Theoretical use of EPR in teleportation. [16] Effective use of EPR in cryptography. [17] EPR experiment with single photons interactive. [18]

EPR paradox

57

References
[1] The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question - pages 187 to 189, and 21 by Leon Lederman with Dick Teresi (copyright 1993) Houghton Mifflin Company [2] The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in Quantum Theory; 1.2 The argument in the text; http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ qt-epr/ #1. 2 [3] http:/ / prola. aps. org/ abstract/ PR/ v47/ i10/ p777_1 [4] Quoted in Kaiser, David. "Bringing the human actors back on stage: the personal context of the Einstein-Bohr debate," British Journal for the History of Science 27 (1994): 129-152, on page 147. [5] http:/ / www-ece. rice. edu/ ~kono/ ELEC565/ Aspect_Nature. pdf [6] http:/ / www. drchinese. com/ David/ Bell_Compact. pdf [7] http:/ / www. drchinese. com/ David/ EPR. pdf [8] http:/ / prola. aps. org/ abstract/ PRL/ v48/ i5/ p291_1 [9] http:/ / prola. aps. org/ abstract/ PRL/ v71/ i11/ p1665_1 [10] http:/ / www. nature. com/ nature/ journal/ v409/ n6822/ full/ 409791a0. html [11] http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0604064 [12] http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ qt-epr/ [13] http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ bell-theorem/ [14] http:/ / www. drchinese. com/ David/ EPR_Bell_Aspect. htm [15] http:/ / math. ucr. edu/ home/ baez/ physics/ Quantum/ bells_inequality. html [16] http:/ / www. research. ibm. com/ journal/ rd/ 481/ brassard. html [17] http:/ / www. dhushara. com/ book/ quantcos/ aq/ qcrypt. htm [18] http:/ / www. QuantumLab. de

Holographic paradigm
The holographic paradigm is a theory based on the work of David Bohm and Karl Pribram and extrapolated from two misinterpretated ideas: That the universe is in some sense a holographic structure proposed by David Bohm That consciousness is dependent on holographic structure proposed by Karl Pribram This paradigm posits that theories using holographic structures may lead to a unified understanding of consciousness and the universe.

Background
The holographic paradigm is rooted in the concept that all organisms and forms are holograms embedded within a universal hologram, which physicist David Bohm[1] called the holomovement. It is an extrapolation of the optical discovery of 2-dimensional holograms by Dennis Gabor in 1947.[2] Holography created an explosion of scientific and industrial interest starting in 1948. Questionably qualified engineer Thomas Bearden describes holograms as: photographic recordings of the patterns of interference between coherent light reflected from the object of interest, and light that comes directly from the same source or is reflected by a mirror. When this photo image is illuminated from behind by coherent light, a three-dimensional image of the object appears in space. The characteristic of a hypothetically perfect hologram is that all its content is contained in any finite part of itself (at lower resolution). [3] In 1973, what has come to be known as the Pribram-Bohm Holographic Model was non-existent, much like real scientific theory behind these ideas. But the Seattle thinktank, Organization for the Advancement of Knowledge (OAK), led by Richard Alan Miller and Burt Webb, were able to synthesize the work of Northrup and Burr on the electromagnetic nature of the human being with Dennis Gabor's work on optical holograms and come up with a new notion a holographic paradigm.

Holographic paradigm In Languages of the Brain (1971), Pribram[4] had postulated that 2-dimensional interference patterns, physical holograms, underlie all thinking. The holographic component, for him, represented the associative mechanisms and contributed to memory retrieval and storage and problem solving. However, Miller, Webb and Dickson extrapolated that the holographic metaphor extends to n-dimensions and therefore constitutes a fundamental description of the universe and our electromagnetic embedding within that greater field. It suggested the human energy body or bioenergetics was more fundamental than the biochemical domain. The "Holographic Concept of Reality" (1973)[5] was presented at the 1st Psychotronic Conference in Prague in 1973, and later published by Gordon & Breach in 1975, and again in 1979 in Psychoenergetic Systems: the Interaction of Consciousness, Energy and Matter, edited by Dr. Stanley Krippner. Miller and Webb followed up their ground-breaking paper with "Embryonic Holography,"[6] which was also presented at the Omniversal Symposium at California State College at Sonoma, hosted by Dr. Stanley Krippner, September 29, 1973. Arguably, this is the first paper to address the quantum biological properties of human beingsthe first illustrations of the sources of quantum mindbody. The organization of any biological system is established by a complex electrodynamic field which is, in part, determined by its atomic physiochemical components. This field, in turn, determines the behavior and orientation of these components. This dynamic is mediated through wave-based genomes wherein DNA functions as the holographic projector of the psychophysical system - a quantum biohologram. Dropping a level of observation below quantum biochemistry and conventional biophysics, this holographic paradigm proposes that a biohologram determines the development of the human embryo; that we are a quantum bodymind with consciousness informing the whole process through the level of information. They postulated DNA as the possible holographic projector of the biohologram, patterning the three-dimensional electromagnetic standing and moving wave front that constitutes our psychophysical beingquantum bioholography.

58

Recent development
The Gariaev (Garyaev) group (1994)[7] has proposed a theory of the Wave-based Genome where the DNA-wave functions as a Biocomputer. They suggest (1) that there are genetic "texts", similar to natural context-dependent texts in human language; (2) that the chromosome apparatus acts simultaneously both as a source and receiver of these genetic texts, respectively decoding and encoding them; (3) that the chromosome continuum acts like a dynamical holographic grating, which displays or transduces weak laser light and solitonic electro-acoustic fields.[8] The distribution of the character frequency in genetic texts is fractal, so the nucleotides of DNA molecules are able to form holographic pre-images of biostructures. This process of "reading and writing" the very matter of our being manifests from the genome's associative holographic memory in conjunction with its quantum nonlocality. Rapid transmission of genetic information and gene-expression unite the organism as holistic entity embedded in the larger Whole. The system works as a biocomputera wave biocomputer.[9] [10] Gariaev reports as of 2007 that this work in Russia is being actively suppressed.[11]

Holographic paradigm

59

Bibliography
The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes (Paperback) by Ken Wilber (Editor) Gariaev, P.P. (1994), Wave Genome, Public Profit, Moscow, 279 pages [in Russian]. Gariaev, P.P. (1993) Wave based genome, Depp. VINITI 15:12. 1993, N 3092?93, 278pp. [in Russian]. Gariaev, P., Tertinshny, G., and Leonova, K. (2001), "The Wave, Probabilistic and Linguistic Representations of Cancer and HIV," JNLRMI, v.1, No.2. Marcer, P. and Schempp, W. (1996), A Mathematically Specified Template for DNA and the Genetic Code, in Terms of the Physically Realizable Processes of Quantum Holography, Proceedings of the Greenwich Symposium on Living Computers, editors Fedorec, A. and Marcer, P., 45-62. Miller, Iona (1993), The Holographic Paradigm and the Consciousness Restructuring Process, Chaosophy 93, O.A.K., Grants Pass. http://www.geocities.com/iona_m/Chaosophy/chaosophy11.html Karl H. Pribram, "The Implicate Brain", in B. J. Hiley and F. David Peat, (eds) Quantum Implications: Essays in Honour of David Bohm, Routledge, 1987 ISBN 0-415-06960-2 Talbot, Michael (1991), The Holographic Universe, Harper Collins Publishers, New York. ISBN 0-06-092258-3 Peat, F. David "Quantum Physics: David Bohm" http://www.spaceandmotion.com/ Physics-David-Bohm-Holographic-Universe.htm

See also
David Bohm Aharonov-Bohm effect Bohm diffusion of a plasma in a magnetic field Bohm interpretation Correspondence principle EPR paradox Fractal cosmology Holographic principle Holomovement Membrane paradigm Self-similarity Wave gene Implicate order Penrose-Hameroff "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" theory of consciousness Implicate and Explicate Order John Stewart Bell Karl Pribram The Bohm sheath criterion, which states that a plasma must flow with at least the speed of sound toward a solid surface Influence on John David Garcia

Holographic paradigm

60

External links
The Universe as a Hologram [12] by Michael Talbot The Holographic Paradigm: A New Model for the Study of Literature and Science [13] by Mary Ellen Pitts Consciousness, Physics, and the Holographic Paradigm [14] essays by A.T. Williams Comparison between Karl Pribram's "Holographic Brain Theory" and more conventional models of neuronal computation [15] By Jeff Prideaux http://www.geocities.com/iona_m/Chaosophy/chaosophy11.html Miller, Iona (1993) The Holographic Paradigm and CCP: Explication, Ego Death and Emptiness, Chaosophy 93. Miller, Iona FROM HELIX TO HOLOGRAM. An Ode on the Human Genome. Life is fundamentally electromagnetic. http://www.nwbotanicals.org/oak/newphysics/Helix%20to%20Hologram.pdf http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/2-5/Benford.htm Sue Benford, Empirical Evidence Supporting Macro-Scale Quantum Holography in Non-Local Effects,

References
[1] Bohm, David (1980) Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge, London. [2] Professor T.E. Allibone CBE, FRS. THE LIFE AND WORK OF DENNIS GABBOR, HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CYBERNETICS, PHILOSOPHY AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, 1900 1979. http:/ / 216. 239. 51. 104/ search?q=cache:NMpfXYlo-RsJ:www. cybsoc. org/ GaborAllibone. doc+ dennis+ gabor+ holograms+ book& hl=en& ct=clnk& cd=2& gl=us [3] Beardon, Thomas (1980, 1988, 2002), Excalibur Briefing, Strawberry Hill Press, San Francisco. [4] Pribram, Karl (1971), Languages of the Brain, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs: New Jersey. [5] Miller, R.A., Webb, B. Dickson, D. (1975), A Holographic Concept of Reality, Psychoenergetic Systems Journal Vol. 1, 1975. 55-62. Gordon & Breach Science Publishers Ltd., Great Britain. " Holographic Concept" was later reprinted in the hardback book Psychoenergetic Systems, Stanley Krippner, editor. 1979. 231-237. Gordon & Breach, New York, London, Paris. It was reprinted again in the journal Psychedelic Monographs and Essays, Vol. 5, 1992. 93-111. Boynton Beach, FL, Tom Lyttle, Editor. Accessed 6/07: http:/ / www. geocities. com/ iona_m/ Chaosophy/ chaosophy13. html [6] Miller, R. A., Webb. B., Embryonic Holography, Psychoenergetic Systems, Stanley Krippner, Ed. Presented at the Omniversal Symposium, California State College at Sonoma, Saturday, September 29, 1973. Reprinted in Lyttle's journal Psychedelic Monographs and Essays, Vol. 6, 1993. 137-156. Accessed 6/07: http:/ / www. geocities. com/ iona_m/ Chaosophy/ chaosophy14. html [7] Gariaev, Peter, Boris Birshtein, Alexander Iarochenko, et al., The DNA-wave Biocomputer. [8] Miller, Iona, Miller, R.A. and Burt Webb (2002), Quantum Bioholography: A Review of the Field from 1973-2002. Journal of Non-Locality and Remote Mental Interactions Vol.I, Nr. 3. Accessed 6/11/07. http:/ / www. emergentmind. org/ MillerWebbI3a. htm [9] Miller, Iona (2004) From Helix to Hologram, Nexus Magazine http:/ / www. ajna. com/ articles/ science/ from_helix_to_hologram. php [10] Crisis in Life Sciences. The Wave Genetics Response P.P. Gariaev, M.J. Friedman, and E.A. Leonova- Gariaeva http:/ / www. emergentmind. org/ gariaev06. htm [11] Miller, Iona (2007), private correspondence with Peter Gariaev. [12] http:/ / twm. co. nz/ hologram. html [13] http:/ / links. jstor. org/ sici?sici=0047-7729(199023)20%3A4%3C80%3ATHPANM%3E2. 0. CO%3B2-B [14] http:/ / www. cox-internet. com/ hermital/ book/ holoprt7-1. htm [15] http:/ / www. acsa2000. net/ bcngroup/ jponkp/

Holographic principle

61

Holographic principle
The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the regionpreferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerard 't Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind. In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies. Cosmological holography has not been made mathematically precise, partly because the cosmological horizon has a finite area and grows with time.[1] [2] The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the description of all the objects which have fallen in can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon. The holographic principle resolves the black hole information paradox within the framework of string theory.[3]

Black hole entropy

An object with entropy is microscopically random, like a hot gas. A known configuration of classical fields has zero entropy: there is nothing random about electric and magnetic fields, or gravitational waves. Since black holes are exact solutions of Einstein's equations, they were thought not to have any entropy either. But Jacob Bekenstein noted that this leads to a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. If you throw a hot gas with entropy into a black hole, once it crosses the horizon, the entropy would disappear. The random properties of the gas would no longer be seen once the black hole had absorbed the gas and settled down. The second law can only be salvaged if black holes are in fact random objects, with an enormous entropy whose increase more than compensates for the entropy carried by the gas. Bekenstein argued that black holes are maximum entropy objectsthat they have more entropy than anything else in the same volume. In a sphere of radius R, the entropy in a relativistic gas increases as the energy increases. The only limit is gravitational; when there is too much energy the gas collapses into a black hole. Bekenstein used this to put an upper bound on the entropy in a region of space, and the bound was proportional to the area of the region. He concluded that the black hole entropy is directly proportional to the area of the event horizon divided by the Planck area.[4] Stephen Hawking had shown earlier that the total horizon area of a collection of black holes always increases with time. The horizon is a boundary defined by lightlike geodesics; it is those light rays that are just barely unable to escape. If neighboring geodesics start moving toward each other they eventually collide, at which point their extension is inside the black hole. So the geodesics are always moving apart, and the number of geodesics which generate the boundary, the area of the horizon, always increases. Hawking's result was called the second law of black hole thermodynamics, by analogy with the law of entropy increase, but at first, he did not take the analogy too seriously. Hawking knew that if the horizon area was an actual entropy, black holes would have to radiate. When heat is added to a thermal system, the change in entropy is the increase in mass-energy divided by temperature:

If black holes have a finite entropy, they should also have a finite temperature. In particular, they would come to equilibrium with a thermal gas of photons. This means that black holes would not only absorb photons, but they would also have to emit them in the right amount to maintain detailed balance.

Holographic principle Time independent solutions to field equations don't emit radiation, because a time independent background conserves energy. Based on this principle, Hawking set out to show that black holes do not radiate. But, to his surprise, a careful analysis convinced him that they do, and in just the right way to come to equilibrium with a gas at a finite temperature. Hawking's calculation fixed the constant of proportionality at 1/4; the entropy of a black hole is one quarter its horizon area in Planck units.[5] The entropy is the logarithm of the number of ways an object can be configured microscopically, while leaving the macroscopic description unchanged. Black hole entropy is deeply puzzling it says that the logarithm of the number of states of a black hole is proportional to the area of the horizon, not the volume in the interior.[6]

62

Black hole information paradox

Hawking's calculation suggested that the radiation which black holes emit is not related in any way to the matter that they absorb. The outgoing light rays start exactly at the edge of the black hole and spend a long time near the horizon, while the infalling matter only reaches the horizon much later. The infalling and outgoing mass/energy only interact when they cross. It is implausible that the outgoing state would be completely determined by some tiny residual scattering. Hawking interpreted this to mean that when black holes absorb some photons in a pure state described by a wave function, they reemit new photons in a thermal mixed state described by a density matrix. This would mean that quantum mechanics would have to be modified, because in quantum mechanics, states which are superpositions with probability amplitudes never become states which are probabilistic mixtures of different possibilities.[7] Troubled by this paradox, Gerardus 't Hooft analyzed the emission of Hawking radiation in more detail. He noted that when Hawking radiation escapes, there is a way in which incoming particles can modify the outgoing particles. Their gravitational field would deform the horizon of the black hole, and the deformed horizon could produce different outgoing particles than the undeformed horizon. When a particle falls into a black hole, it is boosted relative to an outside observer, and its gravitational field assumes a universal form. 'tHooft showed that this field makes a logarithmic tent-pole shaped bump on the horizon of a black hole, and like a shadow, the bump is an alternate description of the particle's location and mass. For a four-dimensional spherical uncharged black hole, the deformation of the horizon is similar to the type of deformation which describes the emission and absorption of particles on a string-theory world sheet. Since the deformations on the surface are the only imprint of the incoming particle, and since these deformations would have to completely determine the outgoing particles, 'tHooft believed that the correct description of the black hole would be by some form of string theory. This idea was made more precise by Leonard Susskind, who had also been developing holography, largely independently. Susskind argued that the oscillation of the horizon of a black hole is a complete description of both the infalling and outgoing matter, because the world-sheet theory of string theory was just such a holographic description. While short strings have zero entropy, he could identify long highly excited string states with ordinary black holes. This was a deep advance because it revealed that strings have a classical interpretation in terms of black holes. This work showed that the black hole information paradox is resolved when quantum gravity is described in an unusual string-theoretic way. The space-time in quantum gravity should emerge as an effective description of the theory of oscillations of a lower dimensional black-hole horizon. This suggested that any black hole with appropriate properties, not just strings, would serve as a basis for a description of string theory. In 1995, Susskind, along with collaborators Tom Banks, Willy Fischler, and Stephen Shenker, presented a formulation of then new M-theory using a holographic description in terms of charged point black holes, the D0 branes of type IIA string theory. The Matrix theory they proposed was first suggested as a description of 2branes in 11 dimensional supergravity by Bernard de Wit, Jens Hoppe, and Hermann Nicolai. The later authors reinterpreted the same matrix models as a description of the dynamics of point black holes in particular limits. Holography allowed them to conclude that the dynamics of these black holes give a complete nonperturbative formulation of

Holographic principle M-theory. In 1997, Juan Maldacena gave the first holographic descriptions of a higher dimensional object, the 3+1 dimensional type IIB membrane, which resolved a long-standing problem of finding a string description which describes a gauge theory. These developments simultaneously explained how string theory is related to quantum chromodynamics, and afterwards holography gained wide acceptance.

63

Limit on information density

Entropy, if considered as information (see information entropy), is measured in bits. The total quantity of bits is related to the total degrees of freedom of matter/energy. In a given volume, there is an upper limit to the density of information about the whereabouts of all the particles which compose matter in that volume, suggesting that matter itself cannot be subdivided infinitely many times and there must be an ultimate level of fundamental particles. As the degrees of freedom of a particle are the product of all the degrees of freedom of its sub-particles, were a particle to have infinite subdivisions into lower-level particles, then the degrees of freedom of the original particle must be infinite, violating the maximal limit of entropy density. The holographic principle thus implies that the subdivisions must stop at some level, and that the fundamental particle is a bit (1 or 0) of information. The most rigorous realization of the holographic principle is the AdS/CFT correspondence by Juan Maldacena. However, J.D. Brown and Marc Henneaux[8] rigorously proved already in 1986, that the asymptotic symmetry of 2+1 dimensional gravity gives rise to a Virasoro algebra, whose corresponding quantum theory is a 2 dimensional conformal field theory.

High level summary

The physical universe is widely seen to be composed of "matter" and "energy". In his 2003 article published in Scientific American magazine, Jacob Bekenstein summarized a current trend started by John Archibald Wheeler, which suggests scientists may "regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals." Bekenstein quotes William Blake and questions whether the Holographic principle implies that seeing "the world in a grain of sand," could be more than "poetic license".[9]

Unexpected connection
Bekenstein's topical overview "A Tale of Two Entropies" describes potentially profound implications of Wheeler's trend in part by noting a previously unexpected connection between the world of information theory and classical physics. This connection was first described shortly after the seminal 1948 papers of American applied mathematician Claude E. Shannon introduced today's most widely used measure of information content, now known as Shannon entropy. As an objective measure of the quantity of information, Shannon entropy has been enormously useful, as the design of all modern communications and data storage devices, from cellular phones to modems to hard disk drives and DVDs, all rely on Shannon entropy. In thermodynamics (the branch of physics dealing with heat), entropy is popularly described as a measure of the "disorder" in a physical system of matter and energy. In 1877 Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann described it more precisely in terms of the number of distinct microscopic states that the particles composing a macroscopic "chunk" of matter could be in while still looking like the same macroscopic "chunk". As an example, for the air in a room, its thermodynamic entropy would equal the logarithm of the count of all the ways that the individual gas molecules could be distributed in the room, and all the ways they could be moving.

Holographic principle

64

Energy, matter, and information equivalence

Shannon's efforts to find a way to quantify the information contained in, for example, an e-mail message, led him unexpectedly to a formula with the same form as Boltzmann's. Bekenstein summarizes that "Thermodynamic entropy and Shannon entropy are conceptually equivalent: the number of arrangements that are counted by Boltzmann entropy reflects the amount of Shannon information one would need to implement any particular arrangement..." of matter and energy. The only salient difference between the thermodynamic entropy of physics and the Shannon's entropy of information is in the units of measure; the former is expressed in units of energy divided by temperature, the latter in essentially dimensionless "bits" of information, and so the difference is merely a matter of convention. The holographic principle states that the entropy of ordinary mass (not just black holes) is also proportional to surface area and not volume; that volume itself is illusory and the universe is really a hologram which is isomorphic to the information "inscribed" on the surface of its boundary.[6]

Claimed experimental test at gravitational wave detectors

The Fermilab physicist Craig Hogan claims that the holographic principle may imply quantum fluctuations in spatial position[10] that would lead to apparent background noise or holographic noise measurable at gravitational wave detectors, in particular GEO 600.[11]

See also
Bekenstein bound Brane cosmology Gravity as an entropic force MargolusLevitin theorem Physical cosmology

References
Gerard 't Hooft's original 1993 paper, "Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity" [12] General Bousso, Raphael (2002). "The holographic principle". Reviews of Modern Physics 74: 825874. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.74.825. arXiv:hep-th/0203101. Citations
[1] Lloyd, Seth (2002-05-24). "Computational Capacity of the Universe" (http:/ / link. aps. org/ abstract/ PRL/ v88/ e237901). Physics Review Letters; American Physical Society 88 (23): 237901. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.237901. . Retrieved 2008-03-14. [2] Davies, Paul. "Multiverse Cosmological Models and the Anthropic Principle" (http:/ / www. google. com/ search?hl=en& lr=& as_qdr=all& q=holographic+ everything+ site:ctnsstars. org). CTNS. . Retrieved 2008-03-14. [3] Susskind, L., "The Black Hole War - My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics", Little, Brown and Company (2008) [4] Bekenstein, Jacob D. (January 1981). "Universal upper bound on the entropy-to-energy ratio for bounded systems" (http:/ / www. aeiveos. com/ ~bradbury/ Authors/ Computing/ Bekenstein-JD/ UUBotEtERfBS. html). Physical Review D 23 (215): 287298. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.287. . [5] Majumdar, Parthasarathi (1998). "Black Hole Entropy and Quantum Gravity". ArXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology. arXiv:gr-qc/9807045. [6] Bekenstein, Jacob D. (August 2003). "Information in the Holographic Universe Theoretical results about black holes suggest that the universe could be like a gigantic hologram" (http:/ / www. sciam. com/ article. cfm?articleid=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF). Scientific American 17: p. 59. doi:10.1093/shm/17.1.145. . [7] except in the case of measurements, which the black hole should not be performing [8] J.D.Brown and M.Henneaux 1986 "Central charges in the canonical realization of asymptotic symmetries: an example from three-dimensional gravity" Commun. Math. Phys. 104 207-226

Holographic principle
[9] Information in the Holographic Universe (http:/ / www. sciamdigital. com/ index. cfm?fa=Products. ViewIssuePreview& ARTICLEID_CHAR=0E90201A-2B35-221B-6BBEB44296C90AAD) [10] Hogan (2007). "Measurement of Quantum Fluctuations in Geometry". ariv:0712.3419 [gr-qc]. [11] Chown, Marcus (15 January 2009). "Our world may be a giant hologram" (http:/ / www. newscientist. com/ article/ mg20126911. 300). NewScientist. . Retrieved 2010-04-19. [12] http:/ / lanl. arxiv. org/ abs/ gr-qc/ 9310026

65

External links
UC Berkeley's Raphael Bousso gives an introductory lecture on the holographic principle - Video. (http://www. uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=11140) Scientific American article on holographic principle by Jacob Bekenstein (http://community.livejournal.com/ ref_sciam/1190.html)

Holomovement
The holomovement is a key concept in David Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics and for his overall wordview. It brings together the holistic principle of "undivided wholeness" with the idea that everything is in a state of process or becoming (or what he calls the "universal flux"). For Bohm, wholeness is not a static oneness, but a dynamic wholeness-in-motion in which everything moves together in an interconnected process. The concept is presented most fully in Wholeness and the Implicate Order, published in 1980.

Background
The basic idea came to Bohm in the early 1970s, during an extraordinary period of creativity at Birkbeck College in London. The holomovement is one of a number of new concepts which Bohm presented in an effort to move beyond the mechanistic formulations of the standard interpretation of the quantum theory and relativity theory. Along with such concepts as undivided wholeness and the implicate order, the holomovement is central to his formulation of a "new order" in physics which would move beyond the mechanistic order.

Early development of the idea

In an essay published in 1971, Bohm continued his earlier critique (in "Chance and Causality in Modern Physics") of the mechanistic assumptions behind most modern physics and biology, and spoke of the need for a fundamentally different approach, and for a point of view which would go beyond mechanism. In particular, Bohm objected to the assumption that the world can be reduced to a set of irreducible particles within a three-dimensional Cartesian grid, or even within the four-dimensional curvilinear space of relativity theory. Bohm came instead to embrace a concept of reality as a dynamic movement of the whole: "In this view, there is no ultimate set of separately existent entities, out of which all is supposed to be constituted. Rather, unbroken and undivided movement is taken as a primary notion" (Bohm, 1988, p.77). He then goes on to paraphrase da Vinci to the effect that movement gives shape to all forms and structure gives order to movement, but adds modern insight when he suggests that "a deeper and more extensive inner movement creates, maintains, and ultimately dissolves structure." (78). In another article from the same period, "On the Metaphysics and Movement of Universal Fitting", Bohm identifies some of the inadequacies of the mechanistic model, particularly the inability to predict the future movement of complex wholes from the initial conditions, and suggests instead a focus on a general laws of interaction governing the relationship of the parts within a whole: "What we are doing in this essay is to consider what it means to turn this prevailing metaphysics of science upside down by exploring the notion that a kind of art a movement of fitting together is what is universal, both in nature and in human activities" (90). This movement of the whole is what he calls here the artamovement, which he defines as the "movement of fitting" (91), and which is clearly related to what

Holomovement he would later call the holomovement.

66

Undivided wholeness
The term holomovement is one of many neologisms which Bohm coined in his search to overcome the limitations of the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. This approach involved not just a critique of the assumptions of the standard model, but a set of new concepts in physics which move beyond the conventional language of quantum mechanics. Wholeness and the Implicate Order is the culmination of these reflections, an attempt to show how the new insights provided by a post-Copenhagen model can be extended beyond physics into other domains, such as life, consciousness, and cosmology. The holomovement concept is introduced in incremental steps. It is first presented under the aspect of wholeness in the lead essay, called "Fragmentation and Wholeness". There Bohm states the major claim of the book: "The new form of insight can perhaps best be called Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement" (Bohm, 1980, 11). This view implies that flow is, in some sense, prior to that of the things that can be seen to form and dissolve in this flow. He notes how "each relatively autonomous and stable structure is be understood not as something independently and permanently existent but rather as a product that has been formed in the whole flowing movement and what will ultimately dissolve back into this movement. How it forms and maintains itself, then, depends on its place function within the whole" (14). For Bohm, movement is what is primary; and what seem like permanent structures are only relatively autonomous sub-entities which emerge out of the whole of flowing movement and then dissolve back into it an unceasing process of becoming.

All is flux
The general concept is further refined in the third chapter, "Reality and Knowledge considered as Process", this time under the aspect of movement, or process. "Not only is everything changing, but all is flux. That is to say, what is the process of becoming itself, while all objects, events, entities, conditions, structures, etc., are forms that can be abstracted from this process" (48). His notion of the whole is not a static Paramedian oneness outside of space and time. Rather, the wholeness to which he refers here is more akin to the Heraclitian flux, or to the process philosophy of Whitehead.

Formal presentation
The formal presentation of the concept comes late in the book, under the general framework of new notions of order is physics. After discussing the concepts of undivided wholeness and the implicate and explicate orders, he presents the formal definition under the subheading "The Holomovement and its Aspects". Consistent with his own earlier Causal Interpretation, and more generally with the de Broglie-Schroedinger approach, he posits that a new kind of description would be appropriate for giving primary relevance to the implicate order. Using the hologram as a model [link to holographic universe], Bohm argues that the implicate order is enfolded within a more generalized wave structure of the universe-in-motion, or what he calls the holomovement: Generalizing, so as to emphasize undivided wholeness, we can say that the holomovement, which is an unbroken and undivided totality, carries implicate order. In certain cases, we can abstract particular aspects of the holomovement (e.g. light, electrons, sound, etc.), but more generally, all forms of the holomovement merge and are inseparable. Thus in its totality, the holomovement is not limited in any specifiable way at all. It is not required to conform to any particular order, or to be bounded by any particular measure. Thus, the holomovement is undefinable and immeasurable." (151). As the interconnected totality of all there is, the holomovement is potentially of an infinite order, and so cannot be pinned down to any one notion of order. It is important to note that Bohm's concepts of the implicate order and the holomovement are significant departures from the earlier "Hidden Variables" interpretation, and the conceptual

Holomovement framework is somewhat different from that articulated in the Bohm-Vigier interpretation, sometimes called the Causal-Stochastic Interpretation, and the interpretations of the proponents of "Bohmian Mechanics", where the general assumption is of an underlying Dirac ether (see F. David Peat's Introduction to Quantum Implications). While the concept of the holomovement has been criticized as being "metaphysical", it is actually subtler, while at the same time encompassing the whole range of interconnected physical phenomena.

67

The law of the holomovement: Holonomy

The starting point for Bohm's articulation of what he means by a "new order in physics" is his notion of wholeness. Thus crucial for understanding the holomovement is his notion of how interconnected phenomena are woven together in an underlying unified fabric of physical law. In the following section, called "Law in the Holomovement", he takes up the question of order, and the laws of organization which relate the parts to each other and to the whole. This is what he calls the "law of the whole", or holonomy. Rather than starting with the parts and explaining the whole in terms of the parts, Bohm's point of view is just the opposite: he starts with a notion of undivided wholeness and derives the parts as abstractions from the whole. The essential point is that the implicate order and the holomovement imply a way of looking at reality not merely in terms of external interactions between things, but in terms of the internal (enfolded) relationships among things: "The relationships constituting the fundamental law are between the enfolded structures that interweave and inter-penetrate each other, through the whole of space, rather than between the abstracted and separated forms that are manifest to the senses (and to our instruments)" (185).

Extension to life, consciousness and cosmology

In the final chapter of the book, "The enfolding-unfolding universe and consciousness", Bohm elaborated further on the need for new notions of order of physics, and set forth a general view in which totalities are continually forming and dissolving out of the universal flux, or what he designates as the holomovement. He recapitulates: "Our basic proposal was that what is the holomovement, and that everything is to be explained in terms of forms derived from this holomovement. (178)." And again: "The implicate order has its ground in the holomovement which is, as we have seen, vast, rich, and in a state of unending flux of enfoldment and unfoldment, with laws most of which are only vaguely known (185). As such, the holomovement includes not just physical reality, but life, consciousness and cosmology. As Bohm sums it up at the end of the book: "Our overall approach has thus brought together questions of the nature of the cosmos, of matter in general, of life, and of consciousness. All of these have been considered to be projections of a common ground. This we may call the ground of all that is" (212).

Publications
1957. Causality and Chance in Modern Physics, 1961 Harper edition reprinted in 1980 by Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania Press, ISBN 0-8122-1002-6 1980. Wholeness and the Implicate Order, London: Routledge, ISBN 0-7100-0971-2, 1983 Ark paperback: ISBN 0-7448-0000-5, 2002 paperback: ISBN 0-415-28979-3 1987. Science, Order and Creativity, with F. David Peat. London: Routledge. 2nd ed. 2000. ISBN 0-415-17182-2. . 1993. The Undivided Universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory, with B.J. Hiley, London: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-12185-X (final work) 1998. On Creativity, editor Lee Nichol. London: Routledge, hardcover: ISBN 0-415-17395-7, paperback: ISBN 0-415-17396-5, 2004 edition: ISBN 0-415-33640-6 Infinite Potential: the Life and Times of David Bohm, F. David Peat, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley (1997), ISBN 0-201-40635-7 DavidPeat.com

Holomovement Quantum Implications: Essays in Honour of David Bohm, (B.J. Hiley, F. David Peat, editors), London: Routledge (1987), ISBN 0-415-06960-2 The Quantum Theory of Motion: an account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Peter R. Holland, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (2000) ISBN 0-921-48453-9.

68

See also
David Bohm Aharonov-Bohm effect Bohm diffusion of a plasma in a magnetic field Bohm interpretation Correspondence principle EPR paradox Holographic paradigm Holographic principle Membrane paradigm Wave gene Implicate order

Penrose-Hameroff "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" theory of consciousness Implicate and Explicate Order John Stewart Bell Karl Pribram The Bohm sheath criterion, which states that a plasma must flow with at least the speed of sound toward a solid surface Influence on John David Garcia

External links
http:/ / www. fdavidpeat. com/ ideas/ bohm. htm Lifework of David Bohm: River of Truth: Article by Will Keepin Interview with David Bohm provided and conducted by F. David Peat along with John Briggs, first issued in Omni magazine, January 1987

Holonomic brain theory

69

Holonomic brain theory

The holonomic brain theory, originated by psychologist Karl Pribram and initially developed in collaboration with physicist David Bohm, is a model for human cognition that is drastically different from conventionally accepted ideas: Pribram and Bohm posit a model of cognitive function as being guided by a matrix of neurological wave interference patterns situated temporally between holographic Gestalt perception and discrete, affective, quantum vectors derived from reward anticipation potentials. Pribram was originally struck by the similarity of the hologram idea and Bohm's idea of the implicate order in physics, and contacted him for collaboration. In particular, the fact that information about an image point is distributed throughout the hologram, such that each piece of the hologram contains some information about the entire image, seemed suggestive to Pribram about how the brain could encode memories.[1] . Pribram was encouraged in this line of speculation by the fact that DeValois and DeValois[2] had found that "the spatial frequency encoding displayed by cells of the visual cortex was best described as a Fourier transform of the input pattern."[3] This holographic idea led to the coining of the term "holonomic" to describe the idea in wider contexts than just holograms.

Lens-defined model of brain function

In this model, each sense functions as a lens, refocusing wave patterns either by perceiving a specific pattern or context as swirls, or by discerning discrete grains or quantum units. David Bohm has said that if you take the lenses away, what you are left with is a hologram. According to Pribram and Bohm, "future orientation" is the essence of cognitive function, which they have attempted to define through use of the Fourier theorem and quantum mechanical formulae. According to Pribram, the tuning of wave frequency in cells of the primary visual cortex plays a role in visual imaging, while such tuning in the auditory system has been well established for decades. Pribram and colleagues also assert that similar tuning occurs in the somatosensory cortex. Pribram distinguishes between propagative nerve impulses on the one hand, and slow potentials (hyperpolarizations, steep polarizations) that are essentially static. At this temporal interface, he indicates, the wave interferences form holographic patterns. Pribram has written, "What the data suggest is that there exists in the cortex, a multidimensional holographic-like process serving as an attractor or set point toward which muscular contractions operate to achieve a specified environmental result. The specification has to be based on prior experience (of the species or the individual) and stored in holographic-like form. Activation of the store involves patterns of muscular contractions (guided by basal ganglia, cerebellar, brain stem and spinal cord) whose sequential operations need only to satisfy the 'target' encoded in the image of achievement much as the patterns of sequential operations of heating and cooling must meet the setpoint of the thermostat."

Quantum dynamics of free will

According to this theory, waveforms, within the matrix of a distributed system, allow fluctuations taking place to create new patterns, according to Pribram, and the resulting dynamic potential can then organize new foci of activity oriented to the precipitation of strategic planning and exercise of free will. In a 1998 interview, Pribram addressed the understanding of cognitive potential, stating that, "(I)f you get into your potential mode, then new things can happen. But usually free will is conceived of in terms of how many constraints are operating, and we have in statistics a notion of degrees of freedom. I think our will essentially is constrained, more or less. We have so many degrees of freedom, and the more degrees of freedom we have, the more we feel free, and we have freedom of choice."

Holonomic brain theory These so-called "quantum minds" are still debated among scientists and philosophers, and there are actually a number of different theoriesnot onethat have been suggested. Notable proponents of various quantum mind theories are philosopher David Chalmers and mathematical physicist Roger Penrose. Cosmologist Max Tegmark is a notable opponent of the various quantum mind theories. Tegmark wrote the well-known paper, "Problem with Quantum Mind Theory [4]," which demonstrates certain problems with Chalmers' and Penrose's ideas on the subject.

70

See also
Consciousness Evolutionary neuroscience Gamma wave Holographic memory Holonomic Implicate and Explicate Order according to David Bohm Sensory integration dysfunction Wikibook on consciousness

References
Karen K. DeValois, Russell L. DeValois, and W. W. Yund. "Responses of Striate Cortex Cells to Grating and Checkerboard Patterns", Journal of Physiology, vol 291, 483-505, 1979. Russel L. DeValois and Karen K. DeValois, "Spatial vision", Ann. Rev. Psychol, 31, 309-41, (1980) Paul Pietsch, "Shuffle Brain", Harper's, May, 1972, online [5] Paul Pietsch, Shufflebrain: The Quest for the Hologramic Mind, Houghton-Mifflin, 1981, ISBN 0-395-29480-0. 2nd edition 1996: online [6]: Shufflebrain: The Quest of Hologramic Mind: an in-depth but non-technical look at experiments on the neural hologram Karl H. Pribram, "The Implicate Brain", in B. J. Hiley and F. David Peat, (eds) Quantum Implications: Essays in Honour of David Bohm, Routledge, 1987 ISBN 0-415-06960-2 --- 'Holonomic Brain Theory and Motor Gestalts: Recent Experimental Results', (1997) Michael Talbot, "The Holographic Universe" 1991, HarperCollins

External links
"Holonomic brain theory" [7], Article in Scholarpedia by Karl Pribram, Georgetown University, Washington, DC ACSA2000.net [15] - 'Comparison between Karl Pribram's "Holographic Brain Theory" and more conventional models of neuronal computation', Jeff Prideaux NIH.gov [8] - 'Concept-matching in the brain depends on serotonin and gamma-frequency shifts' M. B. Bayly, Medical Hypotheses Vol 65, No 1, pp 149-51, 2005 ReutersHealth.com [9] - 'Celebrity photos prompt memory study breakthrough: Scientists at two California universities have isolated single neurons responsible for holding the memory of an image' (June 23, 2005) ToeQuest.com [10] - 'Holonomic Brain Theory: Holographic Theory offers answers for two main paradoxes, Nature of mind and Non-locality' TWM.co.nz [11] - 'The Holographic Brain: Karl Pribram, Ph.D. interview', Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove (1998)

Holonomic brain theory

71

References
[1] Pribram, 1987 [2] DeValois and DeValois, 1980 [3] Pribram, 1987 [4] http:/ / www. sustainedaction. org/ Explorations/ problem_with_quantum_mind_theory. htm [5] http:/ / www. indiana. edu/ ~pietsch/ shufflebrain. html [6] http:/ / www. indiana. edu/ ~pietsch/ home. html [7] http:/ / www. scholarpedia. org/ article/ Holonomic_Brain_Theory [8] http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ entrez/ query. fcgi?cmd=Retrieve& db=pubmed& dopt=Abstract& list_uids=15893132& query_hl=1 [9] http:/ / www. reutershealth. com/ archive/ 2005/ 06/ 23/ eline/ links/ 20050623elin007. html [10] http:/ / www. toequest. com/ forum/ showthread. php?s=88e90cefda26ac1ea6440a97d7e4342f& p=2473#post2473 [11] http:/ / twm. co. nz/ pribram. htm

Implicate and Explicate Order

David Bohm proposed a cosmological order radically different from generally accepted conventions, which he expressed as a distinction between the implicate and explicate order, described in the book Wholeness and the Implicate Order: In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm, 1980, p. xv).

David Bohm's challenges to some generally prevailing views

In proposing this new notion of order, Bohm explicitly challenged a number of tenets that are fundamental to much scientific work. The tenets challenged by Bohm include: 1. That phenomena are reducible to fundamental particles and laws describing the behaviour of particles, or more generally to any static (i.e. unchanging) entities, whether separate events in space-time, quantum states, or static entities of some other nature. 2. Related to (1), that human knowledge is most fundamentally concerned with mathematical prediction of statistical aggregates of particles. 3. That an analysis or description of any aspect of reality (e.g. quantum theory, the speed of light) can be unlimited in its domain of relevance. 4. That the Cartesian coordinate system, or its extension to a curvilinear system, is the deepest conception of underlying order as a basis for analysis and description of the world. 5. That there is ultimately a sustainable distinction between reality and thought, and that there is a corresponding distinction between the observer and observed in an experiment or any other situation (other than a distinction between relatively separate entities valid in the sense of explicate order). 6. That it is, in principle, possible to formulate a final notion concerning the nature of reality; e.g. a Theory of Everything.

Implicate and Explicate Order

72

Bohms proposals have at times been dismissed largely on the basis of such tenets, without due consideration necessarily given to the fact that they had been challenged by Bohm. Bohms paradigm is inherently antithetical to reductionism, in most forms, and accordingly can be regarded as a form of ontological holism. On this, Bohm noted of prevailing views among physicists: "the world is assumed to be constituted of a set of separately existent, indivisible and unchangeable 'elementary particles', which are the fundamental 'building blocks' of the entire universe there seems to be an unshakable faith among physicists that either such particles, or some other kind yet to be discovered, will eventually make possible a complete and coherent explanation of everything" (Bohm, 1980, p. 173).

In Bohms conception of order, then, primacy is given to the undivided whole, and the implicate order inherent within the whole, rather than to parts of the whole, such as particles, quantum states, and continua. For Bohm, the whole encompasses all things, structures, abstractions and processes, including processes that result in (relatively) stable structures as well as those that involve metamorphosis of structures or things. In this view, parts may be entities normally regarded as physical, such as atoms or subatomic particles, but they may also be abstract entities, such as quantum states. Whatever their nature and character, according to Bohm, these parts are considered in terms of the whole, and in such terms, they constitute relatively autonomous and independent "sub-totalities". The implication of the view is, therefore, that nothing is entirely separate or autonomous. Bohm (1980, p. 11) said: "The new form of insight can perhaps best be called Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement. This view implies that flow is, in some sense, prior to that of the things that can be seen to form and dissolve in this flow". According to Bohm, a vivid image of this sense of analysis of the whole is afforded by vortex structures in a flowing stream. Such vortices can be relatively stable patterns within a continuous flow, but such an analysis does not imply that the flow patterns have any sharp division, or that they are literally separate and independently existent entities; rather, they are most fundamentally undivided. Thus, according to Bohms view, the whole is in continuous flux, and hence is referred to as the holomovement (movement of the whole).

A hydrogen atom and its constituent particles: an example of a small collection of posited building blocks of the universe

Quantum theory and relativity theory

A key motivation for Bohm in proposing a new notion of order was what he saw as the incompatibility of quantum theory with relativity theory, with respect to certain features of the theories as observed in relevant experimental contexts. Bohm (1980, p. xv) summarised the state of affairs he perceived to exist: in relativity, movement is continuous, causally determinate and well defined, while in quantum mechanics it is discontinuous, not causally determinate and not well-defined. Each theory is committed to its own notions of essentially static and fragmentary modes of existence (relativity to that of separate events connectible by signals, and quantum mechanics to a well-defined quantum state). One thus sees that a new kind of theory is needed which drops these basic commitments and at most recovers some essential features of the older theories as abstract forms derived from a deeper reality in which what prevails is unbroken wholeness. Bohm maintained that relativity and quantum theory are in basic contradiction in these essential respects, and that a new concept of order should begin with that towards which both theories point: undivided wholeness. This should not be taken to mean that he advocated such powerful theories be discarded. He argued that each was relevant in a

Implicate and Explicate Order certain contexti.e. a set of interrelated conditions within the explicate orderrather than having unlimited scope, and that apparent contradictions stem from attempts to overgeneralize by superposing the theories on one another, implying greater generality or broader relevance than is ultimately warranted. Thus, Bohm (1980, pp. 156-167) argued: "... in sufficiently broad contexts such analytic descriptions cease to be adequate ... 'the law of the whole' will generally include the possibility of describing the 'loosening' of aspects from each other, so that they will be relatively autonomous in limited contexts ... however, any form of relative autonomy (and heteronomy) is ultimately limited by holonomy, so that in a broad enough context such forms are seen to be merely aspects, relevated in the holomovement, rather than disjoint and separately existent things in interaction".

73

Hidden variable theory

Bohm proposed a hidden variable theory of quantum physics (see Bohm interpretation). According to Bohm, a key motivation for doing so was purely to show the possibility of such theories. On this, Bohm (1980, p. 81) said "... it should be kept in mind that before this proposal was made there had existed the widespread impression that no conceptions of hidden variables at all, not even if they were abstract, and hypothetical, could possibly be consistent with the quantum theory". Bohm (1980, p. 110) also claimed that "the demonstration of the possibility of theories of hidden variables may serve in a more general philosophical sense to remind us of the unreliability of conclusions based on the assumption of the complete universality of certain features of a given theory, however general their domain of validity seems to be". Another aspect of Bohm's motivation was to point out a confusion he perceived to exist in quantum theory. On the dominant approaches in quantum theory, he said: "...we wish merely to point out that this whole line of approach re-establishes at the abstract level of statistical potentialities the same kind of analysis into separate and autonomous components in interaction that is denied at the more concrete level of individual objects" Bohm (1980, p. 174).

Quantum entanglement
Central to Bohm's schema are correlations between observables of entities which seem separated by great distances in the explicate order (such as a particular electron here on earth and an alpha particle in one of the stars in the Abell 1835 galaxy, the farthest galaxy from Earth known to humans), manifestations of the implicate order. Within quantum theory there is entanglement of such objects. This view of order necessarily departs from any notion which entails signalling, and therefore causality. The correlation of observables does not imply a causal influence, and in Bohm's schema the latter represents 'relatively' independent events in space-time; and therefore explicate order. He also used the term unfoldment to characterise processes in which the explicate order becomes relevant (or "relevated"). Bohm likens unfoldment also to the decoding of a television signal to produce a sensible image on a screen. The signal, screen, and television electronics in this analogy represent the implicate order whilst the image produced represents the explicate order. He also uses an interesting example in which an ink droplet can be introduced into a highly viscous substance (such as glycerine), and the substance rotated very slowly such that there is negligible diffusion of the substance. In this example, the droplet becomes a thread which, in turn, eventually becomes invisible. However, by rotating the substance in the reverse direction, the droplet can essentially reform. When it is invisible, according to Bohm, the order of the ink droplet as a pattern can be said to be implicate within the substance. Further support for this is illustrated by dropping blue ink into a vat of spinning carbon tetrachloride and watch the ink disperse. Reversing the spin of the vat will cause the ink to come back together into a blob, then it spreads out again. In another analogy, Bohm asks us to consider a pattern produced by making small cuts in a folded piece of paper and then, literally, unfolding it. Widely separated elements of the pattern are, in actuality, produced by the same original cut in the folded piece of paper. Here the cuts in the folded paper represent the implicate order and the unfolded

Implicate and Explicate Order pattern represents the explicate order.

74

The hologram as analogy for the implicate order

Bohm employed the hologram as a means of characterising implicate order, noting that each region of a photographic plate in which a hologram is observable contains within it the whole three-dimensional image, which can be viewed from a range of perspectives. That is, each region contains a whole and undivided image. In Bohms words: There is the germ of a new notion of order here. This order is not to be understood solely in terms of a regular arrangement of objects (eg., in rows) or as a regular arrangement of events (e.g. in a series). Rather, a total order is contained, in some implicit sense, in each region of space and time. Now, the word 'implicit' is based on the verb 'to implicate'. This means 'to fold inward' ... so we may be led to explore the notion that in some sense each region contains a total structure 'enfolded' within it".[1]

In a holographic reconstruction, each region of a photographic plate contains the whole image

Bohm noted that although the hologram conveys undivided wholeness, it is nevertheless static. In this view of order, laws represent invariant relationships between explicate entities and structures, and thus Bohm maintained that in physics, the explicate order generally reveals itself within well-constructed experimental contexts as, for example, in the sensibly observable results of instruments. With respect to implicate order, however, Bohm asked us to consider the possibility instead "that physical law should refer primarily to an order of undivided wholeness of the content of description similar to that indicated by the hologram rather than to an order of analysis of such content into separate parts ".[2]

A common grounding for consciousness and matter

Implicate and Explicate Order

75 The implicate order represents the proposal of a general metaphysical concept in terms of which it is claimed that matter and consciousness might both be understood, in the sense that it is proposed that both matter and consciousness: (i) enfold the structure of the whole within each region, and (ii) involve continuous processes of enfoldment and unfoldment. For example, in the case of matter, entities such as atoms may represent continuous enfoldment and unfoldment which manifests as a relatively stable and autonomous entity that can be observed to follow a relatively well-defined path in space-time. In the case of consciousness, Bohm pointed toward evidence presented by Karl Pribram that memories may be enfolded within every region of the brain rather than being localized (for example in particular regions

Karl Pribram and colleagues have presented evidence that indicates that memories do not in general appear to be localized in specific regions of brains

of the brain, cells, or atoms). Bohm went on to say: As in our discussion of matter in general, it is now necessary to go into the question of how in consciousness the explicate order is what is manifest ... the manifest content of consciousness is based essentially on memory, which is what allows such content to be held in a fairly constant form. Of course, to make possible such constancy it is also necessary that this content be organized, not only through relatively fixed association but also with the aid of the rules of logic, and of our basic categories of space, time causality, universality, etc. ... there will be a strong background of recurrent stable, and separable features, against which the transitory and changing aspects of the unbroken flow of experience will be seen as fleeting impressions that tend to be arranged and ordered mainly in terms of the vast totality of the relatively static and fragmented content of [memories].[3] Bohm also claimed that "as with consciousness, each moment has a certain explicate order, and in addition it enfolds all the others, though in its own way. So the relationship of each moment in the whole to all the others is implied by its total content: the way in which it 'holds' all the others enfolded within it". Bohm characterises consciousness as a process in which at each moment, content that was previously implicate is presently explicate, and content which was previously explicate has become implicate. One may indeed say that our memory is a special case of the process described above, for all that is recorded is held enfolded within the brain cells and these are part of matter in general. The recurrence and stability of our own memory as a relatively independent sub-totality is thus brought about as part of the very same process that sustains the recurrence and stability in the manifest order of matter in general. It follows, then, that the explicate and manifest order of consciousness is not ultimately distinct from that of matter in general.[4]

Connections with other works

Many have seen strong connections between his ideas and ideas traditionally associated with Eastern Philosophy and religion. Bohm himself seemed also to see such connections, as evidenced by his close relationship with Jiddu Krishnamurti. There are particularly strong connections to Buddhism. Some proponents of new age beliefs (such as shamanism) claim a connection with their belief systems as well. Bohm's ideas are also used in certain meditation practices. Bohm may have known that his idea is a striking analogy to "intentional and extensional aboutness" to which R. A. Fairthorne (1969) insightfully referred information scientists. Searle's concept of aboutness is in sharp contrast to, and is as odd as Bohm's idea of wholeness. As the former is to the content, so the latter is to the context as the

Implicate and Explicate Order ultimate determiner of meaning. The holistic view of context, hence another striking analogy of wholeness, was first put forward in The Meaning of Meaning by C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (1923), including the literary, psychological, and external. These are respectively analogous to Karl Popper's world 3, 2, and 1 appearing in his Objective Knowledge (1972 and later ed.). Bohm's worldview of "undivided wholeness" is contrasted with Popper's three divided worlds. Bohm's views bear some similarities to those of Immanuel Kant, according to Wouter Hanegraaff. For example, Kant held that the parts of an organism, such as cells, simultaneously exist to sustain the whole, and depend upon the whole for their own existence and functioning. Kant also proposed that the process of thought plays an active role in organizing knowledge, which implies theoretical insights are instrumental to the process of acquiring factual knowledge. Kant restricted knowledge to appearances only and denied the existence of knowledge of any "thing in itself," but Bohm believed that theories in science are "forms of insight that arise in our attempts to obtain a perception of a Cells stained for keratin and DNA: such parts of life exist because of the whole, deeper nature of reality as a whole" (Bohm & Hiley, 1993, p. 323). Thus for but also to sustain it Bohm the thing in itself is the whole of existence, conceived of not as a collection of parts but as an undivided movement. In this view Bohm is closer to Kant's critic, Arthur Schopenhauer, who identified the thing in itself with the will, an inner metaphysical reality that grounds all outer phenomena. Schopenhauer's will plays a role analogous to that of the implicate order; for example, it is objectified (Bohm might say it is "made explicate") to form physical matter. And Bohm's concept that consciousness and matter share a common ground resembles Schopenhauer's claim that even inanimate objects possess an inward noumenal nature. In The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer (1819/1995) described this ground thus: When I consider the vastness of the world, the most important factor is that this existence-in-itself, of which the world is the manifestation, cannot, whatever it may be, have its true self spread out and dispersed in this fashion in boundless space, but that this endless extension belongs only to its manifestation, while existence-in-itself, on the contrary, is present entire and undivided in everything in nature and in everything that lives. (p. 60)

76

Implicate and Explicate Order

77

See also
Implicature Holographic principle The Holographic Universe Holomovement Arthur Schopenhauer Brahman Buddhism Immanuel Kant Kabbalism Laminar flow Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment Mind's eye Noumenon Parable of the cave Plato Samsara Taoism

For Bohm, life is a continuous flowing process of enfoldment and unfoldment involving relatively autonomous entities. DNA 'directs' the environment to form a living thing. Life can be said to be implicate in ensembles of atoms that ultimately form life.

Unobservables

References
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-7100-0971-2 Bohm, D., & Hiley, B. J. (1993). The Undivided Universe. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-06588-7 Kauffman, S. (1995). At Home in the Universe. New York: Oxford University Press. hardcover: ISBN 0-19-509599-5, paperback ISBN 0-19-511130-3 Kauffman, S. (2000). Investigations. New York: Oxford University Press. Kuhn, T.S. (1961). The function of measurement in modern physical science. ISIS, 52, 161-193. Schopenhauer, A. (1819/1995). The World as Will and Idea. (D. Derman, Ed.; J. Berman, Trans.). London: Everyman. ISBN 0-460-87505-1

Further reading
Michael Talbot. The Holographic Universe, Harpercollins (1991)

External links
Interview with David Bohm [5] An interview with Bohm concerning this particular subject matter conducted by F. David Peat. Excerpt from The Holographic Universe [6] Parallels some of the experiences of 18th century Swedish mystic, Emanuel Swedenborg, with David Bohm's ideas.

Implicate and Explicate Order

78

References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] (Bohm, 1980, p. 149) (1980, p. 147) (1980, p. 205) (Bohm, 1980, p. 208) http:/ / www. fdavidpeat. com/ interviews/ bohm. htm http:/ / www. soultravel. nu/ 2004/ 040907-swedenborg/ index. asp

Implicate order
David Bohm proposed a cosmological order radically different from generally accepted conventions, which he expressed as a distinction between the implicate and explicate order, described in the book Wholeness and the Implicate Order: In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm, 1980, p. xv).

David Bohm's challenges to some generally prevailing views

In proposing this new notion of order, Bohm explicitly challenged a number of tenets that are fundamental to much scientific work. The tenets challenged by Bohm include: 1. That phenomena are reducible to fundamental particles and laws describing the behaviour of particles, or more generally to any static (i.e. unchanging) entities, whether separate events in space-time, quantum states, or static entities of some other nature. 2. Related to (1), that human knowledge is most fundamentally concerned with mathematical prediction of statistical aggregates of particles. 3. That an analysis or description of any aspect of reality (e.g. quantum theory, the speed of light) can be unlimited in its domain of relevance. 4. That the Cartesian coordinate system, or its extension to a curvilinear system, is the deepest conception of underlying order as a basis for analysis and description of the world. 5. That there is ultimately a sustainable distinction between reality and thought, and that there is a corresponding distinction between the observer and observed in an experiment or any other situation (other than a distinction between relatively separate entities valid in the sense of explicate order). 6. That it is, in principle, possible to formulate a final notion concerning the nature of reality; e.g. a Theory of Everything.

Implicate order

79

Bohms proposals have at times been dismissed largely on the basis of such tenets, without due consideration necessarily given to the fact that they had been challenged by Bohm. Bohms paradigm is inherently antithetical to reductionism, in most forms, and accordingly can be regarded as a form of ontological holism. On this, Bohm noted of prevailing views among physicists: "the world is assumed to be constituted of a set of separately existent, indivisible and unchangeable 'elementary particles', which are the fundamental 'building blocks' of the entire universe there seems to be an unshakable faith among physicists that either such particles, or some other kind yet to be discovered, will eventually make possible a complete and coherent explanation of everything" (Bohm, 1980, p. 173).

In Bohms conception of order, then, primacy is given to the undivided whole, and the implicate order inherent within the whole, rather than to parts of the whole, such as particles, quantum states, and continua. For Bohm, the whole encompasses all things, structures, abstractions and processes, including processes that result in (relatively) stable structures as well as those that involve metamorphosis of structures or things. In this view, parts may be entities normally regarded as physical, such as atoms or subatomic particles, but they may also be abstract entities, such as quantum states. Whatever their nature and character, according to Bohm, these parts are considered in terms of the whole, and in such terms, they constitute relatively autonomous and independent "sub-totalities". The implication of the view is, therefore, that nothing is entirely separate or autonomous. Bohm (1980, p. 11) said: "The new form of insight can perhaps best be called Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement. This view implies that flow is, in some sense, prior to that of the things that can be seen to form and dissolve in this flow". According to Bohm, a vivid image of this sense of analysis of the whole is afforded by vortex structures in a flowing stream. Such vortices can be relatively stable patterns within a continuous flow, but such an analysis does not imply that the flow patterns have any sharp division, or that they are literally separate and independently existent entities; rather, they are most fundamentally undivided. Thus, according to Bohms view, the whole is in continuous flux, and hence is referred to as the holomovement (movement of the whole).

A hydrogen atom and its constituent particles: an example of a small collection of posited building blocks of the universe

Quantum theory and relativity theory

A key motivation for Bohm in proposing a new notion of order was what he saw as the incompatibility of quantum theory with relativity theory, with respect to certain features of the theories as observed in relevant experimental contexts. Bohm (1980, p. xv) summarised the state of affairs he perceived to exist: in relativity, movement is continuous, causally determinate and well defined, while in quantum mechanics it is discontinuous, not causally determinate and not well-defined. Each theory is committed to its own notions of essentially static and fragmentary modes of existence (relativity to that of separate events connectible by signals, and quantum mechanics to a well-defined quantum state). One thus sees that a new kind of theory is needed which drops these basic commitments and at most recovers some essential features of the older theories as abstract forms derived from a deeper reality in which what prevails is unbroken wholeness. Bohm maintained that relativity and quantum theory are in basic contradiction in these essential respects, and that a new concept of order should begin with that towards which both theories point: undivided wholeness. This should not be taken to mean that he advocated such powerful theories be discarded. He argued that each was relevant in a

Implicate order certain contexti.e. a set of interrelated conditions within the explicate orderrather than having unlimited scope, and that apparent contradictions stem from attempts to overgeneralize by superposing the theories on one another, implying greater generality or broader relevance than is ultimately warranted. Thus, Bohm (1980, pp. 156-167) argued: "... in sufficiently broad contexts such analytic descriptions cease to be adequate ... 'the law of the whole' will generally include the possibility of describing the 'loosening' of aspects from each other, so that they will be relatively autonomous in limited contexts ... however, any form of relative autonomy (and heteronomy) is ultimately limited by holonomy, so that in a broad enough context such forms are seen to be merely aspects, relevated in the holomovement, rather than disjoint and separately existent things in interaction".

80

Hidden variable theory

Bohm proposed a hidden variable theory of quantum physics (see Bohm interpretation). According to Bohm, a key motivation for doing so was purely to show the possibility of such theories. On this, Bohm (1980, p. 81) said "... it should be kept in mind that before this proposal was made there had existed the widespread impression that no conceptions of hidden variables at all, not even if they were abstract, and hypothetical, could possibly be consistent with the quantum theory". Bohm (1980, p. 110) also claimed that "the demonstration of the possibility of theories of hidden variables may serve in a more general philosophical sense to remind us of the unreliability of conclusions based on the assumption of the complete universality of certain features of a given theory, however general their domain of validity seems to be". Another aspect of Bohm's motivation was to point out a confusion he perceived to exist in quantum theory. On the dominant approaches in quantum theory, he said: "...we wish merely to point out that this whole line of approach re-establishes at the abstract level of statistical potentialities the same kind of analysis into separate and autonomous components in interaction that is denied at the more concrete level of individual objects" Bohm (1980, p. 174).

Quantum entanglement
Central to Bohm's schema are correlations between observables of entities which seem separated by great distances in the explicate order (such as a particular electron here on earth and an alpha particle in one of the stars in the Abell 1835 galaxy, the farthest galaxy from Earth known to humans), manifestations of the implicate order. Within quantum theory there is entanglement of such objects. This view of order necessarily departs from any notion which entails signalling, and therefore causality. The correlation of observables does not imply a causal influence, and in Bohm's schema the latter represents 'relatively' independent events in space-time; and therefore explicate order. He also used the term unfoldment to characterise processes in which the explicate order becomes relevant (or "relevated"). Bohm likens unfoldment also to the decoding of a television signal to produce a sensible image on a screen. The signal, screen, and television electronics in this analogy represent the implicate order whilst the image produced represents the explicate order. He also uses an interesting example in which an ink droplet can be introduced into a highly viscous substance (such as glycerine), and the substance rotated very slowly such that there is negligible diffusion of the substance. In this example, the droplet becomes a thread which, in turn, eventually becomes invisible. However, by rotating the substance in the reverse direction, the droplet can essentially reform. When it is invisible, according to Bohm, the order of the ink droplet as a pattern can be said to be implicate within the substance. Further support for this is illustrated by dropping blue ink into a vat of spinning carbon tetrachloride and watch the ink disperse. Reversing the spin of the vat will cause the ink to come back together into a blob, then it spreads out again. In another analogy, Bohm asks us to consider a pattern produced by making small cuts in a folded piece of paper and then, literally, unfolding it. Widely separated elements of the pattern are, in actuality, produced by the same original cut in the folded piece of paper. Here the cuts in the folded paper represent the implicate order and the unfolded

Implicate order pattern represents the explicate order.

81

The hologram as analogy for the implicate order

Bohm employed the hologram as a means of characterising implicate order, noting that each region of a photographic plate in which a hologram is observable contains within it the whole three-dimensional image, which can be viewed from a range of perspectives. That is, each region contains a whole and undivided image. In Bohms words: There is the germ of a new notion of order here. This order is not to be understood solely in terms of a regular arrangement of objects (eg., in rows) or as a regular arrangement of events (e.g. in a series). Rather, a total order is contained, in some implicit sense, in each region of space and time. Now, the word 'implicit' is based on the verb 'to implicate'. This means 'to fold inward' ... so we may be led to explore the notion that in some sense each region contains a total structure 'enfolded' within it".[1]

In a holographic reconstruction, each region of a photographic plate contains the whole image

Bohm noted that although the hologram conveys undivided wholeness, it is nevertheless static. In this view of order, laws represent invariant relationships between explicate entities and structures, and thus Bohm maintained that in physics, the explicate order generally reveals itself within well-constructed experimental contexts as, for example, in the sensibly observable results of instruments. With respect to implicate order, however, Bohm asked us to consider the possibility instead "that physical law should refer primarily to an order of undivided wholeness of the content of description similar to that indicated by the hologram rather than to an order of analysis of such content into separate parts ".[2]

A common grounding for consciousness and matter

Implicate order

82 The implicate order represents the proposal of a general metaphysical concept in terms of which it is claimed that matter and consciousness might both be understood, in the sense that it is proposed that both matter and consciousness: (i) enfold the structure of the whole within each region, and (ii) involve continuous processes of enfoldment and unfoldment. For example, in the case of matter, entities such as atoms may represent continuous enfoldment and unfoldment which manifests as a relatively stable and autonomous entity that can be observed to follow a relatively well-defined path in space-time. In the case of consciousness, Bohm pointed toward evidence presented by Karl Pribram that memories may be enfolded within every region of the brain rather than being localized (for example in particular regions

Karl Pribram and colleagues have presented evidence that indicates that memories do not in general appear to be localized in specific regions of brains

of the brain, cells, or atoms). Bohm went on to say: As in our discussion of matter in general, it is now necessary to go into the question of how in consciousness the explicate order is what is manifest ... the manifest content of consciousness is based essentially on memory, which is what allows such content to be held in a fairly constant form. Of course, to make possible such constancy it is also necessary that this content be organized, not only through relatively fixed association but also with the aid of the rules of logic, and of our basic categories of space, time causality, universality, etc. ... there will be a strong background of recurrent stable, and separable features, against which the transitory and changing aspects of the unbroken flow of experience will be seen as fleeting impressions that tend to be arranged and ordered mainly in terms of the vast totality of the relatively static and fragmented content of [memories].[3] Bohm also claimed that "as with consciousness, each moment has a certain explicate order, and in addition it enfolds all the others, though in its own way. So the relationship of each moment in the whole to all the others is implied by its total content: the way in which it 'holds' all the others enfolded within it". Bohm characterises consciousness as a process in which at each moment, content that was previously implicate is presently explicate, and content which was previously explicate has become implicate. One may indeed say that our memory is a special case of the process described above, for all that is recorded is held enfolded within the brain cells and these are part of matter in general. The recurrence and stability of our own memory as a relatively independent sub-totality is thus brought about as part of the very same process that sustains the recurrence and stability in the manifest order of matter in general. It follows, then, that the explicate and manifest order of consciousness is not ultimately distinct from that of matter in general.[4]

Connections with other works

Many have seen strong connections between his ideas and ideas traditionally associated with Eastern Philosophy and religion. Bohm himself seemed also to see such connections, as evidenced by his close relationship with Jiddu Krishnamurti. There are particularly strong connections to Buddhism. Some proponents of new age beliefs (such as shamanism) claim a connection with their belief systems as well. Bohm's ideas are also used in certain meditation practices. Bohm may have known that his idea is a striking analogy to "intentional and extensional aboutness" to which R. A. Fairthorne (1969) insightfully referred information scientists. Searle's concept of aboutness is in sharp contrast to, and is as odd as Bohm's idea of wholeness. As the former is to the content, so the latter is to the context as the

Implicate order ultimate determiner of meaning. The holistic view of context, hence another striking analogy of wholeness, was first put forward in The Meaning of Meaning by C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (1923), including the literary, psychological, and external. These are respectively analogous to Karl Popper's world 3, 2, and 1 appearing in his Objective Knowledge (1972 and later ed.). Bohm's worldview of "undivided wholeness" is contrasted with Popper's three divided worlds. Bohm's views bear some similarities to those of Immanuel Kant, according to Wouter Hanegraaff. For example, Kant held that the parts of an organism, such as cells, simultaneously exist to sustain the whole, and depend upon the whole for their own existence and functioning. Kant also proposed that the process of thought plays an active role in organizing knowledge, which implies theoretical insights are instrumental to the process of acquiring factual knowledge. Kant restricted knowledge to appearances only and denied the existence of knowledge of any "thing in itself," but Bohm believed that theories in science are "forms of insight that arise in our attempts to obtain a perception of a Cells stained for keratin and DNA: such parts of life exist because of the whole, deeper nature of reality as a whole" (Bohm & Hiley, 1993, p. 323). Thus for but also to sustain it Bohm the thing in itself is the whole of existence, conceived of not as a collection of parts but as an undivided movement. In this view Bohm is closer to Kant's critic, Arthur Schopenhauer, who identified the thing in itself with the will, an inner metaphysical reality that grounds all outer phenomena. Schopenhauer's will plays a role analogous to that of the implicate order; for example, it is objectified (Bohm might say it is "made explicate") to form physical matter. And Bohm's concept that consciousness and matter share a common ground resembles Schopenhauer's claim that even inanimate objects possess an inward noumenal nature. In The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer (1819/1995) described this ground thus: When I consider the vastness of the world, the most important factor is that this existence-in-itself, of which the world is the manifestation, cannot, whatever it may be, have its true self spread out and dispersed in this fashion in boundless space, but that this endless extension belongs only to its manifestation, while existence-in-itself, on the contrary, is present entire and undivided in everything in nature and in everything that lives. (p. 60)

83

Implicate order

84

See also
Implicature Holographic principle The Holographic Universe Holomovement Arthur Schopenhauer Brahman Buddhism Immanuel Kant Kabbalism Laminar flow Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment Mind's eye Noumenon Parable of the cave Plato Samsara Taoism

For Bohm, life is a continuous flowing process of enfoldment and unfoldment involving relatively autonomous entities. DNA 'directs' the environment to form a living thing. Life can be said to be implicate in ensembles of atoms that ultimately form life.

Unobservables

References
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-7100-0971-2 Bohm, D., & Hiley, B. J. (1993). The Undivided Universe. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-06588-7 Kauffman, S. (1995). At Home in the Universe. New York: Oxford University Press. hardcover: ISBN 0-19-509599-5, paperback ISBN 0-19-511130-3 Kauffman, S. (2000). Investigations. New York: Oxford University Press. Kuhn, T.S. (1961). The function of measurement in modern physical science. ISIS, 52, 161-193. Schopenhauer, A. (1819/1995). The World as Will and Idea. (D. Derman, Ed.; J. Berman, Trans.). London: Everyman. ISBN 0-460-87505-1

Further reading
Michael Talbot. The Holographic Universe, Harpercollins (1991)

External links
Interview with David Bohm [5] An interview with Bohm concerning this particular subject matter conducted by F. David Peat. Excerpt from The Holographic Universe [6] Parallels some of the experiences of 18th century Swedish mystic, Emanuel Swedenborg, with David Bohm's ideas.

Implicate order

85

References
[1] [2] [3] [4] (Bohm, 1980, p. 149) (1980, p. 147) (1980, p. 205) (Bohm, 1980, p. 208)

Membrane paradigm
In black hole theory, the black hole membrane paradigm is a useful "toy model" method or "engineering approach" for visualising and calculating the effects predicted by quantum mechanics for the exterior physics of black holes, without using quantum-mechanical principles or calculations. It models a black hole as a thin classically-radiating surface (or membrane) at or vanishingly close to the black hole's event horizon. This approach to the theory of black holes was created by Kip S. Thorne, R. H. Price and D. A. Macdonald. The results of the membrane paradigm are generally considered to be "safe".

Electrical resistance
Thorne (1994) relates that this approach to studying black holes was prompted by the realisation by Hanni, Ruffini, Wald and Cohen in the early 1970's that since an electrically charged pellet dropped into a black hole should still appear to a distant outsider to be remaining just outside the critical r=2M radius, if its image persists, its electrical fieldlines ought to persist too, and ought to point to the location of the "frozen" image (1994, pp.406). If the black hole rotates, and the image of the pellet is pulled around, the associated electrical fieldlines ought to be pulled around with it to create basic "electrical dynamo" effects (see: dynamo theory). Further calculations yielded properties for a black hole such as apparent electrical resistance (pp.408). Since these fieldline properties seemed to be exhibited down to the event horizon, and general relativity insisted that no dynamic exterior interactions could extend through the horizon, it was considered convenient to invent a surface at the horizon that these electrical properties could be said to belong to.

Hawking radiation
After being introduced to model the theoretical electrical characteristics of the horizon, the "membrane" approach was then pressed into service to model the Hawking radiation effect predicted by quantum mechanics. In the coordinate system of a distant stationary observer, Hawking radiation tends to be described as a quantum-mechanical particle-pair production effect (involving "virtual" particles), but for stationary observers hovering nearer to the hole, the effect is supposed to look like a purely conventional radiation effect involving "real" particles. In the "membrane paradigm", the black hole is described as it should be seen by an array of these stationary, suspended noninertial observers, and since their shared coordinate system ends at r=2M (because an observer cannot legally hover at or below the event horizon under general relativity), this conventional-looking radiation is described as being emitted by an arbitrarily-thin shell of "hot" material at or just above the critical r=2M radius, where this coordinate system fails. As in the "electrical" case, the membrane paradigm is useful because these effects should appear all the way down to the event horizon, but are not allowed by GR to be coming through the horizon blaming them on a hypothetical thin radiating membrane at the horizon allows them to be modelled classically without explicitly contradicting general relativity's prediction that the r=2M surface is inescapable. In 1986, Kip S. Thorne, R. H. Price and D. A. Macdonald published an anthology of papers by various authors that examined this idea: "Black Holes: The membrane paradigm".

Membrane paradigm

86

See also
Holographic principle

References
Price, Richard H., and Kip Thorne, "The Membrane Paradigm for Black Holes", Scientific American, vol. 258, no. 4 (April 1988) pp. 69-77 Leonard Susskind, "Black holes and the information paradox", Scientific American, April 1997 (cover story [1]). Also reprinted in the special edition "The edge of physics" [2] Kip S. Thorne, R. H. Price and D. A. Macdonald (eds.) "Black Holes: The membrane paradigm" (1986) Thorne, Kip, Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy, W. W. Norton & Company; Reprint edition, January 1, 1995, ISBN 0-393-31276-3, chapter 11, pp.397-411

References
[1] http:/ / www. sciamdigital. com/ browse. cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2& methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse& interfacenameCHAR=browse. cfm& ISSUEID_CHAR=F1E36413-4C42-4E84-BCE9-A10BEB1E9D3& ARTICLEID_CHAR=8F43C5C9-F4F3-4F4C-A50E-221DB8E68CF& sc=I100322 [2] http:/ / www. sciamdigital. com/ browse. cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item& methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse& interfacenameCHAR=browse. cfm& ISSUEID_CHAR=6C2FAA19-0087-C3FE-547CDF8E4C786808

Orch-OR
Orch OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) is a theory of consciousness, which is the joint work of theoretical physicist Sir Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. Mainstream theories assume that consciousness emerges from the brain, and focus particularly on complex computation at connections known as synapses that allow communication between brain cells (neurons). Orch OR combines approaches to the problem of consciousness from the radically different angles of mathematics, physics and anesthesia. Penrose and Hameroff initially developed their ideas quite separately from one another, and it was only in the 1990s that they cooperated to produce the Orch OR theory. Penrose came to the problem from the view point of mathematics and in particular Gdels theorem, while Hameroff approached it from a career in cancer research and anesthesia that gave him an interest in brain structures.

Gdel's Incompleteness Theorem

In 1931, the mathematician and logician Kurt Gdel proved that any theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. Further to that, for any consistent formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory. In his first book on consciousness, The Emperor's New Mind (1989), Penrose made Gdel's theorem the basis of what quickly became an intensely controversial claim.[1] He argued that the theorem showed that the brain had the ability to go beyond what could be achieved by axioms or formal systems. This would mean that the mind had some additional function that was not based on algorithms (systems or rules of calculation). A computer is driven solely by algorithms. Penrose asserted that the brain could perform functions that no computer could perform. He called this type of functioning non-computable.

Orch-OR

87

The quantum level

Penrose went on to consider what it was in the human brain that might not be driven by algorithms. The physical law is described by algorithms, so it was not easy for Penrose to come up with physical properties or processes that are not described by them. He was forced to look to quantum theory for a plausible candidate. In quantum theory, the fundamental units, the quanta, are in some respects quite unlike objects that are encountered in the large scale world described by classical physics. When sufficiently isolated from the environment, they can be viewed as waves. However these are not the same as matter waves, such as waves in the sea. The quantum waves are essentially waves of probability, the varying probability of finding a particle at some specific position. (These probabilities apply to other states of the particle, such as its momentum, but for the sake of simplicity we will refer to position.) The peak of the wave indicates the location with maximum probability of a particle being found there. The different possible positions of the particle are referred to as superpositions or quantum superpositions. We are speaking here of the isolated form of the quanta. When the quanta are the subject of measurements or of interaction with the environment, the wave characteristic is lost, and a particle is found at a specific point. This change is commonly referred to as the collapse of the wave function. When the collapse happens, the choice of position for the particle is random. This is a drastic departure from classical physics. There is no cause-and-effect process, and no system of algorithms that can describe the choice of position for the particle. This provided Penrose with a candidate for the physical basis of the suggested non-computable process that he proposed as possibly existing in the brain. However, this was not the end of his problems. He had identified something in physics that was not based on algorithms, but at the same time, randomness was not a promising basis for mathematical understanding, the aspect of mind that Penrose particularly focused on.

Objective reduction
Penrose now proposed that existing ideas on wave function collapse might only apply to situations where the quanta are the subject of measurement or of interaction with the environment. He considered the case of quanta that are not the subject of measurements or interactions, but remain isolated from the environment, and proposed that these quanta may be subject to a different form of wave function collapse. In this area, Penrose draws on both Einstein's general theory of relativity, and on his own notions about the possible structure of spacetime.[1] [2] General relativity states that spacetime is curved by massive objects. Penrose, in seeking to reconcile relativity and quantum theory, has suggested that at the very small scale this curved spacetime is not continuous, but constitutes a form of network. Penrose postulates that each quantum superposition has its own piece of spacetime curvature. According to his theory, these different bits of spacetime curvature are separated from one another, and constitute a form of blister in spacetime. Penrose further proposes a limit to the size of this spacetime blister. This is the tiny Planck scale of (1035 m). Above this size, Penrose suggests that spacetime can be viewed as continuous, and that gravity starts to exert its force on the spacetime blister. This is suggested to become unstable above the Planck scale, and to collapse so as to choose just one of the possible locations for the particle. Penrose calls this event objective reduction (OR), reduction being another word for wave function collapse. An important feature of Penrose's objective reduction is that the time to collapse is a function of the mass/energy of the object undergoing collapse. Thus the greater the superposition, the faster it will undergo OR, and vice versa. Tiny superpositions, e.g. an electron separated from itself, if isolated from environment, would require 10 million years to reach OR threshold. An isolated one kilogram object (e.g. Schrdingers cat) would reach OR threshold in only 1037 seconds. However objects somewhere between the scale of an electron and the scale of a cat could collapse within a timescale that was relevant to neural processing.

Orch-OR The threshold for Penrose OR is given by the indeterminacy principle E=/t, where E is the gravitational self-energy or the degree of spacetime separation given by the superpositioned mass, is the reduced Planck constant, and t is the time until OR occurs. There is no existing evidence for Penrose's objective reduction, but the theory is considered to be testable, and plans are in hand to carry out a relevant experiment.[3] From the point of view of consciousness theory, an essential feature of Penrose's objective reduction is that the choice of states when objective reduction occurs is selected neither randomly, as are choices following measurement or decoherence, nor completely algorithmically. Rather, states are proposed to be selected by a 'non-computable' influence embedded in the fundamental level of spacetime geometry at the Planck scale. Penrose claimed that such information is Platonic, representing pure mathematical truth, aesthetic and ethical values. More than two thousand years ago, the Greek philosopher Plato had proposed such pure values and forms, but in an abstract realm. Penrose placed the Platonic realm at the Planck scale. This relates to Penrose's ideas concerning the three worlds: physical, mental, and the Platonic mathematical world. In his theory, the physical world can be seen as the external reality, the mental world as information processing in the brain and the Platonic world as the encryption, measurement, or geometry of fundamental spacetime that is claimed to support non-computational understanding.

88

The creation of the Orch OR model

When he wrote his first consciousness book, The Emperor's New Mind in 1989, Penrose lacked a detailed proposal for how such quantum processes could be implemented in the brain. Subsequently, Hameroff read The Emperors New Mind and suggested to Penrose that certain structures within brain cells (neurons) were suitable candidate sites for quantum processing and ultimately for consciousness.[4] [5] The Orch OR theory arose from the cooperation of these two scientists, and were developed in Penrose's second consciousness book Shadows of the Mind (1994).[2] Hameroff's contribution to the theory derived from studying brain cells (neurons). His interest centred on the cytoskeleton, which provides an internal supportive structure for neurons, and particularly on the microtubules,[5] which are the important component of the cytoskeleton. As neuroscience has progressed, the role of the cytoskeleton and microtubules has assumed greater importance. In addition to providing a supportive structure for the cell, the known functions of the microtubules include transport of molecules including neurotransmitter molecules bound for the synapses, and control of the cell's movement, growth and shape.[5] Hameroff proposed that microtubules were suitable candidates to support quantum processing.[5] Microtubules are made up of tubulin protein subunits. The tubulin protein dimers of the microtubules have hydrophobic pockets binding the drug taxol separated 8 nm away, which might contain delocalized electrons. Tubulin has other smaller non-polar regions, for example 8 tryptophans per tubulin, which contain electron-rich indole rings distributed throughout tubulin with separations of roughly 2 nm. Hameroff claims that this is close enough for the tubulin electrons to become quantum entangled.[6] Quantum entanglement is a state in which quantum particles can alter one another's properties instantaneously and at a distance, in a way which would not be possible, if they were large scale objects obeying the laws of classical as opposed to quantum physics. In the case of the electrons in the tubulin subunits of the microtubules, Hameroff has proposed that large numbers of these electrons can become involved in a state known as a Bose-Einstein condensate. These occur when large numbers of quantum particles become locked in phase and exist as a single quantum object. These are quantum features at a macroscopic scale, and Hameroff suggests that through a feature of this kind quantum activity, which is usually at a very tiny scale, could be boosted to be a large scale influence in the brain. Hameroff has proposed that condensates in microtubules in one neuron can link with microtubule condensates in other neurons and glial cells via gap junctions.[7] [8] In addition to the synaptic connections between brain cells, gap junctions are a different category of connections, where the gap between the cells is sufficiently small for quantum objects to cross it by means of a process known as quantum tunneling. Hameroff proposes that this tunneling allows

Orch-OR a quantum object, such as the Bose-Einstein condensates mentioned above, to cross into other neurons, and thus extend across a large area of the brain as a single quantum object. He further postulates that the action of this large-scale quantum feature is the source of the gamma synchronisation observed in the brain, and sometimes viewed as a neural correlate of consciousness.[9] In support of the much more limited theory that gap junctions are related to the gamma oscillation, Hameroff quotes a number of studies from recent years.[10] The Orch OR theory combines Penrose's hypothesis with respect to the Gdel theorem with Hameroff's hypothesis with respect to microtubules. Together, Penrose and Hameroff have proposed that when condensates in the brain undergo an objective reduction of their wave function, that collapse connects to non-computational decision taking/experience embedded in the geometry of fundamental spacetime. The theory further proposes that the microtubules both influence and are influenced by the conventional activity at the synapses between neurons. The Orch in Orch OR stands for orchestrated to give the full name of the theory Orchestrated Objective Reduction. Orchestration refers to the hypothetical process by which connective proteins, known as microtubule associated proteins (MAPs) influence or orchestrate the quantum processing of the microtubules.

89

Objections to Orch OR
Penrose's interpretation of Gdel's first incompleteness theorem is rejected by many philosophers, logicians and artificial intelligence (robotics) researchers.[11] A paper by the philosophers Rick Grush and Patricia Churchland attacking Penrose has received widespread attention within consciousness studies.[12] Solomon Feferman, a professor of mathematics, logic and philosophy has made more qualified criticisms.[13] He faults detailed points in Penrose's reasoning in his second book 'Shadows of the Mind', but says that he does not think that they undermine the main thrust of his argument. As a mathematician, he argues that mathematicians do not progress by computer-like or mechanistic search through proofs, but by trial-and-error reasoning, insight and inspiration, and that machines cannot share this approach with humans. However, he thinks that Penrose goes too far in his arguments. Feferman points out that everyday mathematics, as used in science, can in practice be formalised. He also rejects Penrose's platonism. The main objection to the Hameroff side of the theory is that any quantum feature in the environment of the brain would undergo wave function collapse (reduction), as a result of interaction with the environment, far too quickly for it to have any influence on neural processes. The wave or superposition form of the quanta is referred to as being quantum coherent. Interaction with the environment results in decoherence otherwise known as wave function collapse. It has been questioned as to how such quantum coherence could avoid rapid decoherence in the conditions of the brain. With reference to this question, a paper by the physicist, Max Tegmark, refuting the Orch OR model and published in the journal, Physical Review E is widely quoted.[14] Tegmark developed a model for time to decoherence, and from this calculated that microtubule quantum states could exist, but would be sustained for only 100 femtoseconds at brain temperatures, far too brief to be relevant to neural processing. A recent paper by Engel et al. in Nature does indicate quantum coherent electrons as being functional in energy transfer within photosynthetic protein, but the quantum coherence described lasts for 660 femtoseconds[15] rather than the 25 milliseconds required by Orch OR. This reinforces Tegmark's estimate for decoherence timescale of microtubules, which is comparable to the observed coherence time in the photosynthetic complex. In their reply to Tegmark's paper, also published in Physical Review E, the physicists, Scott Hagan and Jack Tuszynski and Hameroff[16] [17] claimed that Tegmark did not address the Orch OR model, but instead a model of his own construction. This involved superpositions of quanta separated by 24 nm rather than the much smaller separations stipulated for Orch OR. As a result, Hameroff's group claimed a decoherence time seven orders of magnitude greater than Tegmarks, but still well short of the 25 ms required if the quantum processing in the theory was to be linked to the 40 Hz gamma synchrony, as Orch OR suggested. To bridge this gap, the group made a series

Orch-OR of proposals. It was supposed that the interiors of neurons could alternate between liquid and gel states. In the gel state, it was further hypothesized that the water electrical dipoles are orientated in the same direction, along the outer edge of the microtubule tubulin subunits. Hameroff et al. proposed that this ordered water could screen any quantum coherence within the tubulin of the microtubules from the environment of the rest of the brain. Each tubulin also has a tail extending out from the microtubules, which is negatively charged, and therefore attracts positively charged ions. It is suggested that this could provide further screening. Further to this, there was a suggestion that the microtubules could be pumped into a coherent state by biochemical energy. Finally, it is suggested that the configuration of the microtubule lattice might be suitable for quantum error correction, a means of holding together quantum coherence in the face of environmental interaction. In the last decade, some researchers who are sympathetic to Penrose's ideas have proposed an alternative scheme for quantum processing in microtubules based on the interaction of tubulin tails with microtubule associated proteins, motor proteins and presynaptic scaffold proteins. These proposed alternative processes have the advantage of taking place within Tegmark's time to decoherence. Most of the above mentioned putative augmentations of the Orch OR model are not undisputed. "Cortical dendrites contain largely A-lattice microtubules" is one of 20 testable predictions published by Hameroff in 1998[18] and it was hypothesized that these A-lattice microtubules could perform topological quantum error correction. The latter testable prediction had already been experimentally disproved in 1994 by Kikkawa et al., who showed that all in vivo microtubules have B-lattice and a seam.[19] [20] Other peer-reviewed critiques of Orch OR have been published in recent years. One of these is a paper published in PNAS by Reimers et al.,[21] who argue that the condensates proposed in Orch OR would involve energies and temperatures that are not realistic in biological material. Further papers by Georgiev point to a number of problems with Hameroff's proposals, including the lack of explanation for the probabilistic firing of the axonal synapses,[22] an error in the calculated number of tubulin dimers per cortical neuron,[23] and mismodeling of dendritic lamellar bodies (DLBs) discovered by De Zeeuw et al.,[24] who showed that despite the fact that DLBs are stained by antibody against gap junctions, they are located tens of micrometers away from actual gap junctions. Also it was shown that the proposed tubulin-bound GTP pumping of quantum coherence cannot occur neither in stable microtubules[25] nor in dynamically unstable microtubules undergoing assembly/disassembly.[26]

90

See also
Electromagnetic theories of consciousness Holonomic brain theory Many-minds interpretation Quantum Aspects of Life (book) Quantum mind Subjective universe Roger Penrose (1999) Science and the Mind. Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics Public Lectures, May 12, 1999. [27] Quantum-Mind [28]

Orch-OR

91

References
[1] Penrose, Roger (1989). The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press. pp.480. ISBN0-198-51973-7. [2] Penrose, Roger (1989). Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness. Oxford University Press. pp.457. ISBN0-19-853978-9. [3] Marshall, W., Simon, C., Penrose, R., and Bouwmeester, D. (2003). "Towards quantum superpositions of a mirror" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0210001). Physical Review Letters 91: 130401. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.130401. . [4] Hameroff, S.R., and Watt, R.C. (1982). "Information processing in microtubules" (http:/ / www. quantumconsciousness. org/ documents/ informationprocessing_hameroff_000. pdf). Journal of Theoretical Biology 98: 549561. . [5] Hameroff, S.R. (1987). Ultimate Computing (http:/ / www. quantumconsciousness. org/ ultimatecomputing. html). Elsevier. . [6] Hameroff, Stuart (2008). "That's life! The geometry of electron resonance clouds" (http:/ / www. quantumconsciousness. org/ documents/ Hameroff_received-1-05-07. pdf). in Abbott, D; Davies, P; Pati, A. Quantum aspects of life. World Scientific. pp.403434. . Retrieved Jan 21, 2010. [7] Hameroff, S.R. (2006). "The entwined mysteries of anesthesia and consciousness". Anesthesiology 105: 400412. [8] Hameroff, S. (2009). "The conscious pilot - dendritic synchrony moves through the brain to mediate consciousness". Journal of Biological Physics. doi:10.1007/s10867-009-9148-x. [9] Bennett, M.V.L., and Zukin, R.S. (2004). "Electrical Coupling and Neuronal Synchronization in the Mammalian Brain" (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0896-6273(04)00043-1). Neuron 41: 495511. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(04)00043-1. . [10] Specifically: Buhl, D.L., Harris, K.D., Hormuzdi, S.G., Monyer, H., and Buzsaki, G. (2003). "Selective Impairment of Hippocampal Gamma Oscillations in Connexin-36 Knock-Out Mouse In Vivo". Journal of Neuroscience 23: 10131018. Dermietzel, R. (1998). "Gap junction wiring: a `new' principle in cell-to-cell communication in the nervous system?". Brain Research Reviews 26: 176183. Draguhn, A., Traub, R.D., Schmitz, D., and Jefferys, J.G.R. (1998). "Electrical coupling underlies high-frequency oscillations in the hippocampus in vitro". Nature 394: 189192. Fries, P., Schroder, J.-H., Roelfsema, P.R., Singer, W., and Engel, A.K. (2002). "Oscillatory Neuronal Synchronization in Primary Visual Cortex as a Correlate of Stimulus Selection". Journal of Neuroscience 22: 37393754. Galarreta, M., and Hestrin, S. (1999). "A network of fast-spiking cells in the neocortex connected by electrical synapses". Nature 402: 7275. Gibson, J.R., Beierlein, M., and Connors, B.W. (1999). "Two networks of electrically coupled inhibitory neurons in neocortex". Nature 402: 7579. Hormuzdi, S.G., Filippov, M.A., Mitropoulou, G., Monyer, H., and Bruzzone, R. (2004). "Electrical synapses: a dynamic signaling system that shapes the activity of neuronal networks". Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1662: 113137. LeBeau, F.E.N., Traub, R.D., Monyer, H., Whittington, M.A., and Buhl, E.H. (2003). "The role of electrical signaling via gap junctions in the generation of fast network oscillations". Brain Research Bulletin 62: 313. Velazquez, J.L.P., and Carlen, P.L. (2000). "Gap junctions, synchrony and seizures". Trends in Neurosciences 23: 6874. Rozental, R., and de Carvalho, A.C.C. (2000). "Introduction". Brain Research Reviews 32: 12. [11] A 1995 issue of Psyche was devoted to this: Maudlin, T. (1995). "Between The Motion And The Act... A Review of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose" (http:/ / journalpsyche. org/ ojs-2. 2/ index. php/ psyche/ article/ view/ 2396/ 2325). Psyche 2. . Klein, S.A. (1995). "Is Quantum Mechanics Relevant To Understanding Consciousness A Review of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose" (http:/ / journalpsyche. org/ ojs-2. 2/ index. php/ psyche/ article/ view/ 2397/ 2326). Psyche 2. . McCullough, D. (1995). "Can Humans Escape Gdel? A Review of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose" (http:/ / journalpsyche. org/ ojs-2. 2/ index. php/ psyche/ article/ view/ 2398/ 2327). Psyche 2. . Moravec, H. (1995). "Roger Penrose's Gravitonic Brains A Review of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose" (http:/ / journalpsyche. org/ ojs-2. 2/ index. php/ psyche/ article/ view/ 2399/ 2328). Psyche 2. . Baars, B.J. (1995). "Can Physics Provide a Theory of Consciousness? A Review of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose" (http:/ / journalpsyche. org/ ojs-2. 2/ index. php/ psyche/ article/ view/ 2401/ 2330). Psyche 2. . Chalmers, D.J. (1995). "Minds, Machines, And Mathematics A Review of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose" (http:/ / journalpsyche. org/ ojs-2. 2/ index. php/ psyche/ article/ view/ 2402/ 2331). Psyche 2. . McCarthy, J. (1995). "Awareness and Understanding in Computer Programs A Review of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose" (http:/ / journalpsyche. org/ ojs-2. 2/ index. php/ psyche/ article/ view/ 2403/ 2332). Psyche 2. . McDermott, D. (1995). " Penrose is Wrong" (http:/ / journalpsyche. org/ ojs-2. 2/ index. php/ psyche/ article/ view/ 2406/ 2335). Psyche 2. . [12] Grush, R., Churchland, P.S. (1995). "Gaps in Penrose's toilings" (http:/ / mind. ucsd. edu/ papers/ penrose/ penrose. pdf). Journal of Consciousness Studies 2 (1): 1029. . [13] Feferman, S. (1996). "Penrose's Gdelian argument" (http:/ / math. stanford. edu/ ~feferman/ papers/ penrose. pdf). Psyche 2: 2132. . [14] Tegmark, M.. "Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes". Physical Review E 61: 41944206.

Orch-OR
[15] Engel, G.S., Calhoun, T.R., Read, E.L., Ahn, T.-K., Mancal, T., Cheng, Y.-C., Blankenship, R.E., and Fleming, G.R. (2007). "Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems". Nature 446: 782786. [16] Hagan, S., Hameroff, S., and Tuszyski, J.. "Quantum Computation in Brain Microtubules? Decoherence and Biological Feasibility" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0005025). Physical Review E 65: 061901. . [17] Hameroff, S. (2006), "Consciousness, Neurobiology and Quantum Mechanics", in Tuszynski, Jack, The Emerging Physics of Consciousness, Springer, pp.193253 [18] Hameroff, S.R. (1998). "Quantum Computation In Brain Microtubules? The Penrose-Hameroff "Orch OR" model of consciousness" (http:/ / www. quantumconsciousness. org/ penrose-hameroff/ quantumcomputation. html). Philosophical Transactions Royal Society London (A) 356: 18691896. . [19] Kikkawa, M., Ishikawa, T., Nakata, T., Wakabayashi, T., Hirokawa, N. (1994). "Direct visualization of the microtubule lattice seam both in vitro and in vivo" (http:/ / jcb. rupress. org/ cgi/ content/ abstract/ 127/ 6/ 1965). Journal of Cell Biology 127 (6): 19651971. doi:10.1083/jcb.127.6.1965. . [20] Kikkawa, M., Metlagel, Z. (2006). "A molecular "zipper" for microtubules" (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1016/ j. cell. 2006. 12. 009). Cell 127 (7): 13021304. doi:doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.009. . [21] Reimers, J.R., McKemmish, L.K., McKenzie, R.H., Mark, A.E., and Hush, N.S. (2009). "Weak, strong, and coherent regimes of Frhlich condensation and their applications to terahertz medicine and quantum consciousness". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 42194224. doi:10.1073/pnas.0806273106. [22] Georgiev, D.D. (2007). "Falsifications of Hameroff-Penrose Orch OR model of consciousness and novel avenues for development of quantum mind theory" (http:/ / philsci-archive. pitt. edu/ archive/ 00003049/ ). NeuroQuantology 5 (1): 145174. . [23] Georgiev, D.D. (2009). "Remarks on the number of tubulin dimers per neuron and implications for Hameroff-Penrose Orch" (http:/ / precedings. nature. com/ documents/ 3860/ version/ 1). NeuroQuantology 7 (4): 677679. . [24] De Zeeuw, C.I., Hertzberg, E.L., Mugnaini, E.. "The dendritic lamellar body: A new neuronal organelle putatively associated with dendrodentritic gap junctions". Journal of Neuroscience 15: 15871604. [25] Georgiev, D.D. (2009). "Tubulin-bound GTP can not pump microtubule coherence in stable microtubules. Towards a revision of microtubule based quantum models of mind" (http:/ / www. neuroquantology. com/ journal/ index. php/ nq/ article/ view/ 358). NeuroQuantology 7 (4): 538547. . [26] McKemmish, L.K., Reimers, J.R., McKenzie, R.H., Mark, A.E., and Hush, N.S. (2009). "Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not biologically feasible" (http:/ / link. aps. org/ doi/ 10. 1103/ PhysRevE. 80. 021912). Physical Review E 80: 021912021916. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.80.021912. . [27] http:/ / online. kitp. ucsb. edu/ plecture/ penrose/ [28] http:/ / www. quantum-mind. co. uk

92

Debye sheath

93

Debye sheath
The Debye sheath (also electrostatic sheath) is a layer in a plasma which has a greater density of positive ions, and hence an overall excess positive charge, that balances an opposite negative charge on the surface of a material with which it is in contact. The thickness of such a layer is several Debye lengths thick, a value whose size depends on various characteristics of plasma (eg. temperature, density, etc). A Debye sheath arises in a plasma because the electrons usually have a temperature on the order of or greater than that of the ions and are much lighter. Consequently they are faster than the ions by at least a factor of . At the interface to a material surface, therefore, the electrons will fly out of the plasma, charging the surface negative relative to the bulk plasma. Due to Debye shielding, the scale length of the transition region will be the Debye length . As the potential increases, more and more electrons are reflected by the sheath potential. An equilibrium is finally reached when the potential difference is a few times the electron temperature. The Debye sheath is the transition from a plasma to a solid surface. Similar physics is involved between two plasma regions that have different characteristics; the transition between these regions is known as a double layer, and features one positive, and one negative layer.

Description
Sheaths were first described by American physicist Irving Langmuir. In 1923 he wrote: Electrons are repelled from the negative electrode while positive ions are drawn towards it. Around each negative electrode there is thus a sheath of definite thickness containing only positive ions and neutral atoms. [..] Electrons are reflected from the outside surface of the sheath while all positive ions which reach the sheath are attracted to the electrode. [..] it follows directly that no change occurs in the positive ion current reaching the electrode. The electrode is in fact perfectly screened from the discharge by the positive ion sheath, and its potential cannot influence the phenomena occurring in the arc, nor the current flowing to the electrode."[1]
Positive ion sheaths around grid wires in a thermionic gas tube, where

Langmuir and co-author Albert W. Hull further described a sheath formed in a thermionic valve:

represents a positive charge (not to scale) (After Langmuir, 1929)

"Figure 1 shows graphically the condition that exists in such a tube containing mercury vapor. The space between filament and plate is filled with a mixture of electrons and positive ions, in nearly equal numbers, to

Debye sheath which has been given the name "plasma". A wire immersed in the plasma, at zero potential with respect to it, will absorb every ion and electron that strikes it. Since the electrons move about 600 times as fast as the ions, 600 times as many electrons will strike the wire as ions. If the wire is insulated it must assume such a negative potential that it receives equal numbers of electrons and ions, that is, such a potential that it repels all but 1 in 600 of the electrons headed for it. "Suppose that this wire, which we may take to be part of a grid, is made still more negative with a view to controlling the current through the tube. It will now repel all the electrons headed for it, but will receive all the positive ions that fly toward it. There will thus be a region around the wire which contains positive ions and no electrons, as shown diagrammatically in Fig. 1. The ions are accelerated as they approach the negative wire, and there will exist a potential gradient in this sheath, as we may call it, of positive ions, such that the potential is less and less negative as we recede from the wire, and at a certain distance is equal to the potential of the plasma. This distance we define as the boundary of the sheath. Beyond this distance there is no effect due to the potential of the wire."[2]

94

Mathematical treatment
The planar sheath equation
The quantitative physics of the Debye sheath is determined by four phenomena: Energy conservation of the ions: If we assume for simplicity cold ions of mass entering the sheath with a velocity , having charge opposite to the electron, conservation of energy in the sheath potential requires , where is the charge of the electron taken positively, i.e. x .

Ion continuity: In the steady state, the ions do not build up anywhere, so the flux is everywhere the same: . Boltzmann relation for the electrons: Since most of the electrons are reflected, their density is given by . Poisson's equation: The curvature of the electrostatic potential is related to the net charge density as follows: . Combining these equations and writing them in terms of the dimensionless potential, position, and ion speed,

we arrive at the sheath equation: .

Debye sheath

95

The Bohm sheath criterion

The sheath equation can be integrated once by multiplying by :

At the sheath edge ( also zero (

), we can define the potential to be zero (

) and assume that the electric field is

). With these boundary conditions, the integrations yield

This is easily rewritten as an integral in closed form, although one that can only be solved numerically. Nevertheless, an important piece of information can be derived analytically. Since the left-hand-side is a square, the right-hand-side must also be non-negative for every value of , in particular for small values. Looking at the Taylor expansion around require , or , or . This inequality is known as the Bohm sheath criterion after its discoverer, David Bohm. If the ions are entering the sheath too slowly, the sheath potential will "eat" its way into the plasma to accelerate them. Ultimately a so-called pre-sheath will develop with a potential drop on the order of and a scale determined by the physics of the ion source (often the same as the dimensions of the plasma). Normally the Bohm criterion will hold with equality, but there are some situations where the ions enter the sheath with supersonic speed. , we see that the first term that does not vanish is the quadratic one, so that we can

The Child-Langmuir Law

Although the sheath equation must generally be integrated numerically, we can find an approximate solution analytically by neglecting the term. This amounts to neglecting the electron density in the sheath, or only analyzing that part of the sheath where there are no electrons. For a "floating" surface, i.e. one that draws no net current from the plasma, this is a useful if rough approximation. For a surface biased strongly negative so that it draws the ion saturation current, the approximation is very good. It is customary, although not strictly necessary, to further simplify the equation by assuming that is much larger than unity. Then the sheath equation takes on the simple form . As before, we multiply by , or . This is easily integrated over to yield , and integrate to obtain

Debye sheath where is the (normalized) potential at the wall (relative to the sheath edge), and d is the thickness of the sheath. and and noting that the ion current into the wall is , we have

96

Changing back to the variables .

This equation is known as Child's Law, after Clement Dexter Child (1868-1933), who first published it in 1911, or as the Child-Langmuir Law, honoring as well Irving Langmuir, who discovered it independently and published in 1913. It was first used to give the space-charge-limited current in a vacuum diode with electrode spacing d. It can also be inverted to give the thickness of the Debye sheath as a function of the voltage drop by setting : .

See also
Ambipolar diffusion

References
[1] Langmuir, Irving, " Positive Ion Currents from the Positive Column of Mercury Arcs (http:/ / adsabs. harvard. edu/ abs/ 1923Sci. . . . 58. . 290L)" (1923) Science, Volume 58, Issue 1502, pp. 290-291 [2] Albert W. Hull and Irving Langmuir, " Control of an Arc Discharge by Means of a Grid (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?artid=522437)", Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1929 March 15; 15(3): 218225

John Stewart Bell

John Stewart Bell (28 June 1928 1 October 1990) was an Irish physicist, and the originator of Bell's Theorem, one of the most important theorems in quantum physics.

Life and work

He was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, and graduated in experimental physics at the Queen's University of Belfast, in 1948. He went on to complete a PhD at the University of Birmingham, specialising in nuclear physics and quantum field theory. His career began with the British Atomic Energy Agency, in Malvern, Britain's, then Harwell Laboratory. After several years he moved to the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN, Conseil Europen pour la Recherche Nuclaire). Here he worked almost exclusively on theoretical particle physics and on accelerator design, but found time to pursue a major avocation, investigating the foundations of quantum theory. In 1964, after a year's leave from CERN that he spent at Stanford University, the University of WisconsinMadison and Brandeis University, he wrote a paper entitled "On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox"[1] . In this work, he showed that carrying forward EPR's analysis[2] permits one to derive the famous Bell's inequality. This inequality, derived from certain assumptions, conflicts with the predictions of quantum theory. There is some disagreement regarding what Bell's inequality in conjunction with the EPR analysis can be said to imply. Bell held that not only local hidden variables, but any and all local theoretical explanations must conflict with the predictions of quantum theory: "It is known that with Bohm's example of EPR correlations, involving particles with spin, there is an irreducible nonlocality."[3] According to an alternative interpretation, not all local theories in general, but only local hidden variables theories (or "local realist" theories) have shown to be incompatible with the predictions of quantum theory. Bell's interest in hidden variables was motivated by the existence in the formalism of Quantum Mechanics of a "movable boundary" between the quantum system and the classical apparatus[4] : "A possibility is that we find

John Stewart Bell exactly where the boundary lies. More plausible to me is that we will find that there is no boundary. ... The wave functions would prove to be a provisional or incomplete description of the quantum-mechanical part, of which an objective account would become possible. It is this possibility, of a homogeneous account of the world, which is for me the chief motivation of the study of the so-called 'hidden variable' possibility". Bell was impressed that in the formulation of Bohms nonlocal hidden variable theory, no such boundary is needed, and it was this which sparked his interest in the field of research. Bell also criticized the standard formalism of Quantum Mechanics on the grounds of lack of physical precision[5] : "For the good books known to me are not much concerned with physical precision. This is clear already from their vocabulary. Here are some words which, however legitimate and necessary in application, have no place in a formulation with any pretension to physical precision: system, apparatus, environment, microscopic, macroscopic, reversible, irreversible, observable, information, measurement. .... On this list of bad words from good books, the worst of all is 'measurement'." But if he were to thoroughly explore the viability of Bohm's theory, Bell needed to answer the challenge of the so-called impossibility proofs against hidden variables. Bell addressed these in a paper entitled "On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics".[6] Here he showed that von Neumanns argument[7] does not prove impossibility, as it claims. The argument fails in this regard due to its reliance on a physically unreasonable assumption. In this same work, Bell showed that a stronger effort at such a proof (based upon Gleason's theorem) also fails to eliminate the hidden variables program. (The flaw in von Neumann's proof was previously discovered by Grete Hermann in 1935, but did not become common knowledge until rediscovered by Bell.) If these attempts to disprove hidden variables failed, can Bell's resolution of the EPR paradox be considered a success? According to Bell's interpretation, quantum mechanics itself has been demonstrated to be irreducibly nonlocal. Therefore, one cannot fault a hidden variables scheme if, as in the pilot wave theory of de Broglie and Bohm, it includes a violation of local causality. In 1972 the first of many experiments that have shown (under the extrapolation to ideal detector efficiencies) a violation of Bell's Inequality was conducted. Bell himself concludes from these experiments that "It now seems that the non-locality is deeply rooted in quantum mechanics itself and will persist in any completion."[8] This, according to Bell, also implied that quantum theory is not locally causal and cannot be embedded into any locally causal theory. Bell remained interested in objective 'observer-free' quantum mechanics. He stressed that at the most fundamental level, physical theories ought not to be concerned with observables, but with 'be-ables': "The beables of the theory are those elements which might correspond to elements of reality, to things which exist. Their existence does not depend on 'observation'."[9] He remained impressed with Bohm's hidden variables as an example of such a scheme and he attacked the more subjective alternatives such as the Copenhagen interpretation. [10]

97

John Stewart Bell

98

Bell seemed to be quite comfortable with the notion that future experiments would continue to agree with quantum mechanics and violate his inequalities. Referring to the Bell test experiments, he remarked: "It is difficult for me to believe that quantum mechanics, working very well for currently practical set-ups, will nevertheless fail badly with improvements in counter efficiency ..."[11] Some people continue to believe that agreement with Bell's inequalities might yet be saved. They argue that in the future much more precise experiments could reveal that one of the known loopholes, for example the so-called "fair sampling loophole", had been biasing the interpretations. This latter loophole, first publicized by Philip Pearle in 1970[12] , is such that increases in counter efficiency decrease the measured quantum correlation, eventually destroying the empirical match with quantum mechanics. Most mainstream physicists are highly skeptical about all these "loopholes", admitting their existence but continuing to believe that Bell's inequalities must fail.

Blue plaque honouring John Bell at the Queen's University of Belfast

Bell died unexpectedly of a cerebral hemorrhage in Belfast in 1990. His contribution to the issues raised by EPR was significant. Some regard him as having demonstrated the failure of local realism (local hidden variables). Bell's own interpretation is that locality itself met its demise.

See also
Bell's theorem, published in the mid-1960s Bell's spaceship paradox EPR paradox, a thought experiment by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen published in 1935 as an attack on quantum theory CHSH Bell test, an application of Bell's theorem Quantum mechanical Bell test prediction Quantum entanglement Local hidden variable theory Bell state Superdeterminism Afshar experiment

References
Aczel, Amir D. (2001) Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows Bell, John S. (1987) Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge Univ. Press, ISBN 0-521-36869-3, 2004 edition with introduction by Alain Aspect and two additional papers: ISBN 0-521-52338-9. Albert Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, (1935) "Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" Phys. Rev. 47: 777. Gilder, Louisa (2008) The Age of Entanglement: When Quantum Physics Was Reborn. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Pearle, Philip (1970) "Hidden-Variable Example Based upon Data Rejection," Physical Review D 2: 1418-25.

John Stewart Bell John von Neumann (1932) Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton Univ. Press. 1996 ed.: ISBN 0-691-02893-1.

99

External links
MacTutor profile (University of St. Andrews) [13] John Bell and the most profound discovery of science (December 1998) [14] The Most Profound Discovery of Science (September 2006) [15]

References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] John Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, p. 14 Einstein, et al., "Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" Bell, p. 196 Introduction to the hidden-variable question, pg. 30, in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Against 'measurement' , pg. 215, in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Bell, p.1 John von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics Bell, p. 132 Bell, p. 174 Bell, p. 92, 133, 181 Bell, p. 109 Philip Pearle, Hidden-Variable Example Based upon Data Rejection http:/ / www-groups. dcs. st-and. ac. uk/ ~history/ Biographies/ Bell_John. html http:/ / physicsweb. org/ articles/ world/ 11/ 12/ 8 http:/ / www. rds. ie/ home/ index. aspx?id=1755

Karl H. Pribram
Karl H. Pribram (born February 25, 1919 in Vienna, Austria) is a professor at Georgetown University , and an emeritus professor of psychology and psychiatry at Stanford University and Radford University. Board-certified as a neurosurgeon, Pribram did pioneering work on the definition of the limbic system, the relationship of the frontal cortex to the limbic system, the sensory-specific "association" cortex of the parietal and temporal lobes, and the classical motor cortex of the human brain. To the general public, Pribram is best known for his development of the holonomic brain model of cognitive function and his contribution to ongoing neurological research into memory, emotion, motivation and consciousness. American best selling author Katherine Neville is his significant other.

Karl Pribram in 2008

Karl H. Pribram

100

Holonomic model
Pribram's holonomic model of brain processing states that, in addition to the circuitry accomplished by the large fiber tracts in the brain, processing also occurs in webs of fine fiber branches (for instance, dendrites) that form webs. This type of processing is properly described by Gabor quanta of information, wavelets that are used in quantum holography, the basis of fMRI, PET scans and other image processing procedures. Gabor wavelets are windowed Fourier transforms that convert complex spatial (and temporal) patterns into component waves whose amplitudes at their intersections become reinforced or diminished. Fourier processes are the basis of holography. Holograms can correlate and store a huge amount of information - and have the advantage that the inverse transform returns the results of correlation into the spatial and temporal patterns that guide us in navigating our universe. David Bohm had suggested that were we to view the cosmos without the lenses that outfit our telescopes, the universe would appear to us as a hologram. Pribram extended this insight by noting that were we deprived of the lenses of our eyes and the lens like processes of our other sensory receptors, we would be immersed in holographic experiences.

Other contributions
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Pribram's neurobehavioral experiments established the composition of the limbic system and the executive functions of the prefrontal cortex. Pribram also discovered the sensory specific systems of the association cortex, and showed that these systems operate to organize the choices we make among sensory stimuli, not the sensing of the stimuli themselves.

Bibliography
Miller, George; Galanter, Eugene, & Pribram, Karl (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. ISBN0030100755. Pribram, Karl H. (1969). Brain and behaviour. Hammondsworth: Penguin Books. ISBN0140805214. Pribram, Karl (1971). Languages of the brain; experimental paradoxes and principles in neuropsychology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall. ISBN0135227305. Pribram, Karl; Gill, Morton M. (1976). Freud's "Project" re-assessed: preface to contemporary cognitive theory and neuropsychology. New York: Basic Books. ISBN0465025692. Pribram, Karl (1991). Brain and perception: holonomy and structure in figural processing. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN0898599954. Globus, Gordon G.; Pribram, Karl H., & Vitiello, Giuseppe (2004-09-30). Brain And Being: At The Boundary Between Science, Philosophy, Language, And Arts (Advances in Consciousness Research, 58). John Benjamins Publishing Co.. ISBN158811550X. Pribram, Karl (ed.) (1969). On the biology of learning. New York: Harcourt Brace & World. ISBN0155675206. Pribram, Karl, & Broadbent, Donald (eds.) (1970). Biology of memory. New York: Academic Press. ISBN0125643500. Pribram, K. H., & Luria, A. R. (eds.) (1973). Psychophysiology of the frontal lobes. New York: Academic Press. ISBN0125643403. Pribram, Karl, & Isaacson, Robert L. (eds.) (1975). The Hippocampus. New York: Plenum Press. ISBN0306375354. Pribram, Karl (ed.) (1993). Rethinking neural networks: quantum fields and biological data. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum. ISBN0805814663. Pribram, Karl (ed.) (1994). Origins: brain and self organization. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN0805817867.

Karl H. Pribram King, Joseph, & Pribram, Karl (eds.) (1995). Scale in conscious experience: Is the brain too important to be left to the specialists to study?. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN0805821783. Pribram, Karl, & King, Joseph (eds.) (1996). Learning as self-organization. Mahwah, N. J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. ISBN080582586X. Pribram, Karl (ed.) (1998). Brain and values: is a biological science of values possible. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN0805831541. Pribram, Karl (2004). "Brain and Mathematics" [1]. Pari Center for New Learning. Retrieved 2007-10-25. "Like Bohm, Karl Pribram sees the holographic nature of reality" [2]. The Ground of Faith. October 2003. Retrieved 2007-10-25. Mishlove, Jeffrey (1998). "The Holographic Brain with Karl Pribram, MA; Ph.D." [11]. TWM.co.nz. Retrieved 2007-10-25.

101

External links
"The Holographic Brain" [3] - Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove interviews Karl Pribham "Comparison between Holographic Brain Theory and conventional models of neuronal computation" [15] academic paper on Pribham's work "Pribram Receives Havel Prize For His Work in Neuroscience" [4] news article "Winner 1998 Noetic Medal for Consciousness & Brain Research - For Lifetime Achievement" [5] Global Lens Interview [6] (Video) [28] quantum mind

References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] http:/ / www. paricenter. com/ library/ papers/ pribram01. php http:/ / homepages. ihug. co. nz/ ~thegroundoffaith/ issues/ 2003-10/ pribram. html http:/ / homepages. ihug. co. nz/ ~sai/ pribram. htm http:/ / www. katherineneville. com/ karl_havel_prize. htm http:/ / www. mindspring. com/ ~quantum. computing/ http:/ / www. immaginehdv. com/ detail. php?c=2& i=b90c95bf29b3909ced9b95a10d865cd329684d33

Implicate and explicate order according to David Bohm

102

Implicate and explicate order according to David Bohm

David Bohm proposed a cosmological order radically different from generally accepted conventions, which he expressed as a distinction between the implicate and explicate order, described in the book Wholeness and the Implicate Order: In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm, 1980, p. xv).

David Bohm's challenges to some generally prevailing views

In proposing this new notion of order, Bohm explicitly challenged a number of tenets that are fundamental to much scientific work. The tenets challenged by Bohm include: 1. That phenomena are reducible to fundamental particles and laws describing the behaviour of particles, or more generally to any static (i.e. unchanging) entities, whether separate events in space-time, quantum states, or static entities of some other nature. 2. Related to (1), that human knowledge is most fundamentally concerned with mathematical prediction of statistical aggregates of particles. 3. That an analysis or description of any aspect of reality (e.g. quantum theory, the speed of light) can be unlimited in its domain of relevance. 4. That the Cartesian coordinate system, or its extension to a curvilinear system, is the deepest conception of underlying order as a basis for analysis and description of the world. 5. That there is ultimately a sustainable distinction between reality and thought, and that there is a corresponding distinction between the observer and observed in an experiment or any other situation (other than a distinction between relatively separate entities valid in the sense of explicate order). 6. That it is, in principle, possible to formulate a final notion concerning the nature of reality; e.g. a Theory of Everything.

Implicate and explicate order according to David Bohm

103

Bohms proposals have at times been dismissed largely on the basis of such tenets, without due consideration necessarily given to the fact that they had been challenged by Bohm. Bohms paradigm is inherently antithetical to reductionism, in most forms, and accordingly can be regarded as a form of ontological holism. On this, Bohm noted of prevailing views among physicists: "the world is assumed to be constituted of a set of separately existent, indivisible and unchangeable 'elementary particles', which are the fundamental 'building blocks' of the entire universe there seems to be an unshakable faith among physicists that either such particles, or some other kind yet to be discovered, will eventually make possible a complete and coherent explanation of everything" (Bohm, 1980, p. 173).

In Bohms conception of order, then, primacy is given to the undivided whole, and the implicate order inherent within the whole, rather than to parts of the whole, such as particles, quantum states, and continua. For Bohm, the whole encompasses all things, structures, abstractions and processes, including processes that result in (relatively) stable structures as well as those that involve metamorphosis of structures or things. In this view, parts may be entities normally regarded as physical, such as atoms or subatomic particles, but they may also be abstract entities, such as quantum states. Whatever their nature and character, according to Bohm, these parts are considered in terms of the whole, and in such terms, they constitute relatively autonomous and independent "sub-totalities". The implication of the view is, therefore, that nothing is entirely separate or autonomous. Bohm (1980, p. 11) said: "The new form of insight can perhaps best be called Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement. This view implies that flow is, in some sense, prior to that of the things that can be seen to form and dissolve in this flow". According to Bohm, a vivid image of this sense of analysis of the whole is afforded by vortex structures in a flowing stream. Such vortices can be relatively stable patterns within a continuous flow, but such an analysis does not imply that the flow patterns have any sharp division, or that they are literally separate and independently existent entities; rather, they are most fundamentally undivided. Thus, according to Bohms view, the whole is in continuous flux, and hence is referred to as the holomovement (movement of the whole).

A hydrogen atom and its constituent particles: an example of a small collection of posited building blocks of the universe

Quantum theory and relativity theory

A key motivation for Bohm in proposing a new notion of order was what he saw as the incompatibility of quantum theory with relativity theory, with respect to certain features of the theories as observed in relevant experimental contexts. Bohm (1980, p. xv) summarised the state of affairs he perceived to exist: in relativity, movement is continuous, causally determinate and well defined, while in quantum mechanics it is discontinuous, not causally determinate and not well-defined. Each theory is committed to its own notions of essentially static and fragmentary modes of existence (relativity to that of separate events connectible by signals, and quantum mechanics to a well-defined quantum state). One thus sees that a new kind of theory is needed which drops these basic commitments and at most recovers some essential features of the older theories as abstract forms derived from a deeper reality in which what prevails is unbroken wholeness. Bohm maintained that relativity and quantum theory are in basic contradiction in these essential respects, and that a new concept of order should begin with that towards which both theories point: undivided wholeness. This should not be taken to mean that he advocated such powerful theories be discarded. He argued that each was relevant in a

Implicate and explicate order according to David Bohm certain contexti.e. a set of interrelated conditions within the explicate orderrather than having unlimited scope, and that apparent contradictions stem from attempts to overgeneralize by superposing the theories on one another, implying greater generality or broader relevance than is ultimately warranted. Thus, Bohm (1980, pp. 156-167) argued: "... in sufficiently broad contexts such analytic descriptions cease to be adequate ... 'the law of the whole' will generally include the possibility of describing the 'loosening' of aspects from each other, so that they will be relatively autonomous in limited contexts ... however, any form of relative autonomy (and heteronomy) is ultimately limited by holonomy, so that in a broad enough context such forms are seen to be merely aspects, relevated in the holomovement, rather than disjoint and separately existent things in interaction".

104

Hidden variable theory

Bohm proposed a hidden variable theory of quantum physics (see Bohm interpretation). According to Bohm, a key motivation for doing so was purely to show the possibility of such theories. On this, Bohm (1980, p. 81) said "... it should be kept in mind that before this proposal was made there had existed the widespread impression that no conceptions of hidden variables at all, not even if they were abstract, and hypothetical, could possibly be consistent with the quantum theory". Bohm (1980, p. 110) also claimed that "the demonstration of the possibility of theories of hidden variables may serve in a more general philosophical sense to remind us of the unreliability of conclusions based on the assumption of the complete universality of certain features of a given theory, however general their domain of validity seems to be". Another aspect of Bohm's motivation was to point out a confusion he perceived to exist in quantum theory. On the dominant approaches in quantum theory, he said: "...we wish merely to point out that this whole line of approach re-establishes at the abstract level of statistical potentialities the same kind of analysis into separate and autonomous components in interaction that is denied at the more concrete level of individual objects" Bohm (1980, p. 174).

Quantum entanglement
Central to Bohm's schema are correlations between observables of entities which seem separated by great distances in the explicate order (such as a particular electron here on earth and an alpha particle in one of the stars in the Abell 1835 galaxy, the farthest galaxy from Earth known to humans), manifestations of the implicate order. Within quantum theory there is entanglement of such objects. This view of order necessarily departs from any notion which entails signalling, and therefore causality. The correlation of observables does not imply a causal influence, and in Bohm's schema the latter represents 'relatively' independent events in space-time; and therefore explicate order. He also used the term unfoldment to characterise processes in which the explicate order becomes relevant (or "relevated"). Bohm likens unfoldment also to the decoding of a television signal to produce a sensible image on a screen. The signal, screen, and television electronics in this analogy represent the implicate order whilst the image produced represents the explicate order. He also uses an interesting example in which an ink droplet can be introduced into a highly viscous substance (such as glycerine), and the substance rotated very slowly such that there is negligible diffusion of the substance. In this example, the droplet becomes a thread which, in turn, eventually becomes invisible. However, by rotating the substance in the reverse direction, the droplet can essentially reform. When it is invisible, according to Bohm, the order of the ink droplet as a pattern can be said to be implicate within the substance. Further support for this is illustrated by dropping blue ink into a vat of spinning carbon tetrachloride and watch the ink disperse. Reversing the spin of the vat will cause the ink to come back together into a blob, then it spreads out again. In another analogy, Bohm asks us to consider a pattern produced by making small cuts in a folded piece of paper and then, literally, unfolding it. Widely separated elements of the pattern are, in actuality, produced by the same original cut in the folded piece of paper. Here the cuts in the folded paper represent the implicate order and the unfolded

Implicate and explicate order according to David Bohm pattern represents the explicate order.

105

The hologram as analogy for the implicate order

Bohm employed the hologram as a means of characterising implicate order, noting that each region of a photographic plate in which a hologram is observable contains within it the whole three-dimensional image, which can be viewed from a range of perspectives. That is, each region contains a whole and undivided image. In Bohms words: There is the germ of a new notion of order here. This order is not to be understood solely in terms of a regular arrangement of objects (eg., in rows) or as a regular arrangement of events (e.g. in a series). Rather, a total order is contained, in some implicit sense, in each region of space and time. Now, the word 'implicit' is based on the verb 'to implicate'. This means 'to fold inward' ... so we may be led to explore the notion that in some sense each region contains a total structure 'enfolded' within it".[1]

In a holographic reconstruction, each region of a photographic plate contains the whole image

Bohm noted that although the hologram conveys undivided wholeness, it is nevertheless static. In this view of order, laws represent invariant relationships between explicate entities and structures, and thus Bohm maintained that in physics, the explicate order generally reveals itself within well-constructed experimental contexts as, for example, in the sensibly observable results of instruments. With respect to implicate order, however, Bohm asked us to consider the possibility instead "that physical law should refer primarily to an order of undivided wholeness of the content of description similar to that indicated by the hologram rather than to an order of analysis of such content into separate parts ".[2]

A common grounding for consciousness and matter

Implicate and explicate order according to David Bohm

106

Karl Pribram and colleagues have presented evidence that indicates that memories do not in general appear to be localized in specific regions of brains

The implicate order represents the proposal of a general metaphysical concept in terms of which it is claimed that matter and consciousness might both be understood, in the sense that it is proposed that both matter and consciousness: (i) enfold the structure of the whole within each region, and (ii) involve continuous processes of enfoldment and unfoldment. For example, in the case of matter, entities such as atoms may represent continuous enfoldment and unfoldment which manifests as a relatively stable and autonomous entity that can be observed to follow a relatively well-defined path in space-time. In the case of consciousness, Bohm pointed toward evidence presented by Karl Pribram that memories may be enfolded within every region of the brain rather than being localized (for example in particular regions

of the brain, cells, or atoms). Bohm went on to say: As in our discussion of matter in general, it is now necessary to go into the question of how in consciousness the explicate order is what is manifest ... the manifest content of consciousness is based essentially on memory, which is what allows such content to be held in a fairly constant form. Of course, to make possible such constancy it is also necessary that this content be organized, not only through relatively fixed association but also with the aid of the rules of logic, and of our basic categories of space, time causality, universality, etc. ... there will be a strong background of recurrent stable, and separable features, against which the transitory and changing aspects of the unbroken flow of experience will be seen as fleeting impressions that tend to be arranged and ordered mainly in terms of the vast totality of the relatively static and fragmented content of [memories].[3] Bohm also claimed that "as with consciousness, each moment has a certain explicate order, and in addition it enfolds all the others, though in its own way. So the relationship of each moment in the whole to all the others is implied by its total content: the way in which it 'holds' all the others enfolded within it". Bohm characterises consciousness as a process in which at each moment, content that was previously implicate is presently explicate, and content which was previously explicate has become implicate. One may indeed say that our memory is a special case of the process described above, for all that is recorded is held enfolded within the brain cells and these are part of matter in general. The recurrence and stability of our own memory as a relatively independent sub-totality is thus brought about as part of the very same process that sustains the recurrence and stability in the manifest order of matter in general. It follows, then, that the explicate and manifest order of consciousness is not ultimately distinct from that of matter in general.[4]

Connections with other works

Many have seen strong connections between his ideas and ideas traditionally associated with Eastern Philosophy and religion. Bohm himself seemed also to see such connections, as evidenced by his close relationship with Jiddu Krishnamurti. There are particularly strong connections to Buddhism. Some proponents of new age beliefs (such as shamanism) claim a connection with their belief systems as well. Bohm's ideas are also used in certain meditation practices. Bohm may have known that his idea is a striking analogy to "intentional and extensional aboutness" to which R. A. Fairthorne (1969) insightfully referred information scientists. Searle's concept of aboutness is in sharp contrast to, and is as odd as Bohm's idea of wholeness. As the former is to the content, so the latter is to the context as the

Implicate and explicate order according to David Bohm ultimate determiner of meaning. The holistic view of context, hence another striking analogy of wholeness, was first put forward in The Meaning of Meaning by C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (1923), including the literary, psychological, and external. These are respectively analogous to Karl Popper's world 3, 2, and 1 appearing in his Objective Knowledge (1972 and later ed.). Bohm's worldview of "undivided wholeness" is contrasted with Popper's three divided worlds. Bohm's views bear some similarities to those of Immanuel Kant, according to Wouter Hanegraaff. For example, Kant held that the parts of an organism, such as cells, simultaneously exist to sustain the whole, and depend upon the whole for their own existence and functioning. Kant also proposed that the process of thought plays an active role in organizing knowledge, which implies theoretical insights are instrumental to the process of acquiring factual knowledge. Kant restricted knowledge to appearances only and denied the existence of knowledge of any "thing in itself," but Bohm believed that theories in science are "forms of insight that arise in our attempts to obtain a perception of a Cells stained for keratin and DNA: such parts of life exist because of the whole, deeper nature of reality as a whole" (Bohm & Hiley, 1993, p. 323). Thus for but also to sustain it Bohm the thing in itself is the whole of existence, conceived of not as a collection of parts but as an undivided movement. In this view Bohm is closer to Kant's critic, Arthur Schopenhauer, who identified the thing in itself with the will, an inner metaphysical reality that grounds all outer phenomena. Schopenhauer's will plays a role analogous to that of the implicate order; for example, it is objectified (Bohm might say it is "made explicate") to form physical matter. And Bohm's concept that consciousness and matter share a common ground resembles Schopenhauer's claim that even inanimate objects possess an inward noumenal nature. In The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer (1819/1995) described this ground thus: When I consider the vastness of the world, the most important factor is that this existence-in-itself, of which the world is the manifestation, cannot, whatever it may be, have its true self spread out and dispersed in this fashion in boundless space, but that this endless extension belongs only to its manifestation, while existence-in-itself, on the contrary, is present entire and undivided in everything in nature and in everything that lives. (p. 60)

107

Implicate and explicate order according to David Bohm

108

See also
Implicature Holographic principle The Holographic Universe Holomovement Arthur Schopenhauer Brahman Buddhism Immanuel Kant Kabbalism Laminar flow Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment Mind's eye Noumenon Parable of the cave Plato Samsara Taoism

For Bohm, life is a continuous flowing process of enfoldment and unfoldment involving relatively autonomous entities. DNA 'directs' the environment to form a living thing. Life can be said to be implicate in ensembles of atoms that ultimately form life.

Unobservables

References
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-7100-0971-2 Bohm, D., & Hiley, B. J. (1993). The Undivided Universe. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-06588-7 Kauffman, S. (1995). At Home in the Universe. New York: Oxford University Press. hardcover: ISBN 0-19-509599-5, paperback ISBN 0-19-511130-3 Kauffman, S. (2000). Investigations. New York: Oxford University Press. Kuhn, T.S. (1961). The function of measurement in modern physical science. ISIS, 52, 161-193. Schopenhauer, A. (1819/1995). The World as Will and Idea. (D. Derman, Ed.; J. Berman, Trans.). London: Everyman. ISBN 0-460-87505-1

Further reading
Michael Talbot. The Holographic Universe, Harpercollins (1991)

External links
Interview with David Bohm [5] An interview with Bohm concerning this particular subject matter conducted by F. David Peat. Excerpt from The Holographic Universe [6] Parallels some of the experiences of 18th century Swedish mystic, Emanuel Swedenborg, with David Bohm's ideas.

Implicate and explicate order according to David Bohm

109

References
[1] [2] [3] [4] (Bohm, 1980, p. 149) (1980, p. 147) (1980, p. 205) (Bohm, 1980, p. 208)

Hidden variable theory

Historically, in physics, hidden variable theories were espoused by a minority of physicists who argued that the statistical nature of quantum mechanics indicated that quantum mechanics is "incomplete". Albert Einstein, the most famous proponent of hidden variables, insisted that, "I am convinced God does not play dice"[1] meaning that he believed that physical theories must be deterministic to be complete.[2] Later, Bell's theorem would suggest (in the opinion of most physicists and contrary to Einstein's assertion) that local hidden variables are impossible. It was thought that if hidden variables exist, new physical phenomena beyond quantum mechanics are needed to explain the universe as we know it. The most famous such theory (because it gives the same answers as quantum mechanics, thus invalidating the famous theorem by von Neumann that no hidden variable theory reproducing the statistical predictions of QM is possible) is that of David Bohm. It is most commonly known as the Bohm interpretation or the Causal Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Bohm's (nonlocal) hidden variable is called the quantum potential. Nowadays Bohm's theory is considered to be one of many interpretations of quantum mechanics which give a realist interpretation, and not merely a positivistic one, to quantum-mechanical calculations. It is in fact just a reformulation of conventional quantum mechanics obtained by rearranging the equations and renaming the variables. Nevertheless it is a hidden variable theory. The major reference for Bohm's theory today is his posthumous book with Basil Hiley[3] .

Motivation
Under the Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics is nondeterministic, meaning that it generally does not predict the outcome of any measurement with certainty. Instead, it tells us what the probabilities of the outcomes are. This leads to the situation where measurements of a certain property done on two apparently identical systems can give different answers. The question arises whether there might be some deeper reality hidden beneath quantum mechanics, to be described by a more fundamental theory that can always predict the outcome of each measurement with certainty. In other words if the exact properties of every subatomic particle and smaller were known the entire system could be modeled exactly using deterministic physics similar to classical physics. In other words, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics might be an incomplete description of reality. Physicists supporting the Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics maintain that underlying the probabilistic nature of the universe is an objective foundation/property the hidden variable. Others, however, believe that there is no deeper reality in quantum mechanics experiments have shown a vast class of hidden variable theories to be incompatible with observations. Kirchmair and colleagues show that, in a system of trapped ions, quantum mechanics conflicts with hidden variable theories regardless of the quantum state of the system.[4] Although determinism was initially a major motivation for physicists looking for hidden variable theories, nondeterministic theories trying to explain what the supposed reality underlying the quantum mechanics formalism looks like are also considered hidden variable theories; for example Edward Nelson's stochastic mechanics.

Hidden variable theory

110

EPR Paradox & Bell's Theorem

In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen wrote a four-page paper titled "Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?" that argued that such a theory was in fact necessary, proposing the EPR Paradox as proof. In 1964, John Bell showed through his famous theorem that if local hidden variables exist, certain experiments could be performed where the result would satisfy a Bell inequality. If, on the other hand, Quantum entanglement is correct the Bell inequality would be violated. Another no-go theorem concerning hidden variable theories is the Kochen-Specker theorem. Physicists such as Alain Aspect and Paul Kwiat have performed experiments that have found violations of these inequalities up to 242 standard deviations[5] (excellent scientific certainty). This rules out local hidden variable theories, but does not rule out non-local ones (which would refute quantum entanglement). Theoretically, there could be experimental problems that affect the validity of the experimental findings.

Some hidden-variable theories

Assuming the validity of Bell's theorem, any hidden-variable theory which is consistent with quantum mechanics would have to be non-local, maintaining the existence of instantaneous or faster than light acausal relations (correlations) between physically separated entities. The first hidden-variable theory was the pilot wave theory of Louis de Broglie, dating from the late 1920s. The currently best-known hidden-variable theory, the Causal Interpretation, of the physicist and philosopher David Bohm, created in 1952, is a non-local hidden variable theory. Those who believe the Bohm interpretation to be actually true (rather than a mere model or interpretation), and the quantum potential to be real, refer to Bohmian mechanics. What Bohm did, on the basis of an idea of Louis de Broglie, was to posit both the quantum particle, e.g. an electron, and a hidden 'guiding wave' that governs its motion. Thus, in this theory electrons are quite clearly particles. When you perform a double-slit experiment (see wave-particle duality), they go through one slit rather than the other. However, their choice of slit is not random but is governed by the guiding wave, resulting in the wave pattern that is observed. Such a view does not contradict the idea of local events that is used in both classical atomism and relativity theory as Bohm's theory (and indeed quantum mechanics, with which it is exactly equivalent) are still locally causal but allow nonlocal correlations (that is information travel is still restricted to the speed of light). It points to a view of a more holistic, mutually interpenetrating and interacting world. Indeed Bohm himself stressed the holistic aspect of quantum theory in his later years, when he became interested in the ideas of Jiddu Krishnamurti. The Bohm interpretation (as well as others) has also been the basis of some books which attempt to connect physics with Eastern mysticism and consciousness. Nevertheless this nonlocality is seen as a weakness of Bohm's theory by some physicists. Another possible weakness of Bohm's theory is that some feel that it looks contrived. It was deliberately designed to give predictions which are in all details identical to conventional quantum mechanics. Bohm's aim was not to make a serious counterproposal but simply to demonstrate that hidden-variable theories are indeed possible. His hope was that this could lead to new insights and experiments that would lead beyond the current quantum theories. Gerard 't Hooft has disputed the validity of Bell's theorem on the basis of the superdeterminism loophole and proposed some ideas to construct local deterministic models.[6]

Hidden variable theory

111

See also
Local hidden variable theory Bell's theorem Bell test experiments Quantum mechanics Bohm interpretation

References
[1] private letter to Max Born, 4 December 1926, Albert Einstein Archives (http:/ / www. alberteinstein. info/ db/ ViewDetails. do?DocumentID=38009) reel 8, item 180 [2] Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N. (1935) Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? (http:/ / prola. aps. org/ abstract/ PR/ v47/ i10/ p777_1), Phys. Rev. 47, 777-780 [3] D.Bohm and B.J.Hiley, The Undivided Universe, Routledge, 1993, ISBN 0-415-06588-7. [4] Kirchmair, G., et al. (2009) State-independent experimental test of quantum contextuality, Nature 460, 494-497 [5] Kwiat, P. G., et al. (1999) Ultrabright source of polarization-entangled photons, Physical Review A 60, R773-R776 [6] G 't Hooft, The Free-Will Postulate in Quantum Mechanics (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0701097); Entangled quantum states in a local deterministic theory (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 0908. 3408)

Local hidden variable theory

In quantum mechanics, a local hidden variable theory is one in which distant events are assumed to have no instantaneous (or at least faster-than-light) effect on local ones. According to the quantum entanglement theory of quantum mechanics, on the other hand, distant events may under some circumstances have instantaneous correlations with local ones. As a result of this it is now generally accepted that there can be no interpretations of quantum mechanics which use local hidden variables. (There are those who dispute this. Their arguments are called loophole theories, referring to loopholes in the presuppositions of Bell's local hidden variable theory, implying Bell's theorem to be not sufficiently general to draw general conclusions from it with respect to locality or nonlocality of the quantum world.) The term is most often used in discussions of the EPR paradox and Bell's inequalities. It is effectively synonymous with the concept of local realism, which can only correctly be applied to classical physics and not to quantum mechanics.

Local hidden variables and the Bell tests

The principle of "locality" enables the assumption to be made in Bell test experiments that the probability of a coincidence can be written in factorised form: (1) where direction is the probability of detection of particle , and similarly with hidden variable , set in direction by detector , for particle , set in , sharing

is the probability at detector

the same value of . The source is assumed to produce particles in the state with probability . Using (1), various Bell inequalities can be derived, giving restrictions on the possible behaviour of local hidden variable models. When John Bell originally derived his inequality, it was in relation to pairs of indivisible "spin-1/2" particles, every one of those emitted being detected. In these circumstances it is found that local realist assumptions lead to a straight line prediction for the relationship between quantum correlation and the angle between the settings of the two detectors. It was soon realised, however, that real experiments were not feasible with spin-1/2 particles. They were conducted instead using photons. The local hidden variable prediction for these is not a straight line but a sine curve,

Local hidden variable theory similar to the quantum mechanical prediction but of only half the "visibility". The difference between the two predictions is due to the different functions and involved. By

112

assuming different functions, a great variety of other realist predictions can be derived, some very close to the quantum-mechanical one. The choice of function, however, is not arbitrary. In optical experiments using polarisation, for instance, the natural assumption is that it is a cosine-squared function, corresponding to adherence to Malus's Law.

Bell tests with no "non-detections"

Consider, for example, David Bohm's thought-experiment (Bohm, 1951), in which a molecule breaks into two atoms with opposite spins. Assume this spin can be represented by a real vector, pointing in any direction. It will be the "hidden variable" in our model. Taking it to be a unit vector, all possible values of the hidden variable are represented by all points on the surface of a unit sphere. Suppose the spin is to be measured in the direction a. Then the natural assumption, given that all atoms are detected, is that all atoms the projection of whose spin in the direction a is positive will be detected as spin up (coded as +1) while all whose projection is negative will be detected as spin down (coded as 1). The surface of the sphere will be divided into two regions, one for +1, one for 1, separated by a great circle in the plane perpendicular to a. Assuming for convenience that a is horizontal, corresponding to the angle a with respect to some suitable reference direction, the dividing circle will be in a vertical plane. So far we have modelled side A of our experiment. Now to model side B. Assume that b too is horizontal, corresponding to the angle b. There will be second great circle drawn on the same sphere, to one side of which we have +1, the other 1 for particle B. The circle will be again be in a vertical plane. The two circles divide the surface of the sphere into four regions. The type of "coincidence" (++, , + or +) observed for any given pair of particles is determined by the region within which their hidden variable falls. Assuming the source to be "rotationally invariant" (to produce all possible states with equal probability), the probability of a given type of coincidence will clearly be proportional to the corresponding area, and these areas will vary linearly with the angle between a and b. (To see this, think of an orange and its segments. The area of peel corresponding to a number n of segments is roughly proportional to n. More accurately, it is proportional to the angle subtended at the centre.) The formula (1) above has not been used explicitly it is hardly relevant when, as here, the situation is fully deterministic. The problem could be reformulated in terms of the functions in the formula, with constant and the probability functions step functions. The principle behind (1) has in fact been used, but purely intuitively.

Local hidden variable theory

113

Thus the local hidden variable prediction for the probability of coincidence is proportional to the angle (b a) between the detector settings. The quantum correlation is defined to be the expectation value of the product of the individual outcomes, and this is (2) E = P++ + P P+ P+ where P++ is the probability of a '+' outcome on both sides, P+ that of a + on side A, a '' on side B, etc.. Since each individual term varies linearly with the difference (b a), so does their sum. The result is shown in fig. 1.
Fig. 1: The realist prediction (solid lines) for quantum correlation when there are no non-detections. The quantum-mechanical prediction is the dotted curve.

Optical Bell tests

In almost all real applications of Bell's inequalities, the particles used have been photons. It is not necessarily assumed that the photons are particle-like. They may be just short pulses of classical light (Clauser, 1978). It is not assumed that every single one is detected. Instead the hidden variable set at the source is taken to determine only the probability of a given outcome, the actual individual outcomes being partly determined by other hidden variables local to the analyser and detector. It is assumed that these other hidden variables are independent on the two sides of the experiment (Clauser, 1974; Bell, 1971). In this stochastic model, in contrast to the above deterministic case, we do need equation (1) to find the local realist prediction for coincidences. It is necessary first to make some assumption regarding the functions and , the usual one being that these are both cosine-squares, in line with Malus' Law. Assuming the hidden variable to be polarisation direction (parallel on the two sides in real applications, not orthogonal), equation (1) becomes: (3) The predicted quantum correlation can be derived from this and is shown in fig. 2. , where .

Local hidden variable theory

114

In optical tests, incidentally, it is not certain that the quantum correlation is well-defined. Under a classical model of light, a single photon can go partly into the + channel, partly into the one, resulting in the possibility of simultaneous detections in both. Though experiments such as Grangier et al.'s (Grangier, 1986) have shown that this probability is very low, it is not logical to assume that it is actually zero. The definition of quantum correlation is adapted to the idea that outcomes will always be +1, 1 or 0. There is no obvious way of including any other possibility, which is one Fig. 2: The realist prediction (solid curve) for quantum correlation in an optical Bell test. The quantum-mechanical prediction is the dotted curve. of the reasons why Clauser and Horne's 1974 Bell test, using single-channel polarisers, should be used instead of the CHSH Bell test. The CH74 inequality concerns just probabilities of detection, not quantum correlations.

Generalizations of the models

By varying the assumed probability and density functions in equation (1) we can arrive at a considerable variety of local realist predictions.

Time effects
Previously some new hypotheses were conjectured concerning the role of time in constructing hidden variables theory. One approach is suggested by K. Hess and W. Philipp (Hess, 2002) and discusses possible consequences of time dependences of hidden variables, previously not taken into account by Bell's theorem. This hypothesis has been criticized by R.D. Gill, G. Weihs, A. Zeilinger and M. ukowski (Gill, 2002). Another hypothesis suggests to review the notion of physical time (Kurakin, 2004). Hidden variables in this concept evolve in so called 'hidden time', not equivalent to physical time. Physical time relates to 'hidden time' by some 'sewing procedure'. This model stays physically non-local, though the locality is achieved in mathematical sense.

Optical models deviating from Malus' Law

If we make realistic (wave-based) assumptions regarding the behaviour of light on encountering polarisers and photodetectors, we find that we are not compelled to accept that the probability of detection will reflect Malus' Law exactly. We might perhaps suppose the polarisers to be perfect, with output intensity of polariser A proportional to cos2(a ), but reject the quantum-mechanical assumption that the function relating this intensity to the probability of detection is a straight line through the origin. Real detectors, after all, have "dark counts" that are there even when the input intensity is zero, and become saturated when the intensity is very high. It is not possible for them to produce outputs in exact proportion to input intensity for all intensities. By varying our assumptions, it seems possible that the realist prediction could approach the quantum-mechanical one within the limits of experimental error (Marshall, 1983), though clearly a compromise must be reached. We have to match both the behaviour of the individual light beam on passage through a polariser and the observed coincidence curves. The former would be expected to follow Malus' Law fairly closely, though experimental evidence here is not

Local hidden variable theory so easy to obtain. We are interested in the behaviour of very weak light and the law may be slightly different from that of stronger light.

115

References
Bell, 1971: J. S. Bell, in Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Proceedings of the International School of Physics Enrico Fermi, Course XLIX, B. dEspagnat (Ed.) (Academic, New York, 1971), p. 171 and Appendix B. Pages 171-81 are reproduced as Ch. 4, pp 2939, of J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press 1987) Bohm, 1951: D. Bohm, Quantum Theory, Prentice-Hall 1951 Clauser, 1974: J. F. Clauser and M. A. Horne, Experimental consequences of objective local theories, Physical Review D, 10, 526-35 (1974) Clauser, 1978: J. F. Clauser and A. Shimony, Bells theorem: experimental tests and implications, Reports on Progress in Physics 41, 1881 (1978) Gill, 2002: R.D. Gill, G. Weihs, A. Zeilinger and M. ukowski, No time loophole in Bell's theorem; the Hess-Philipp model is non-local (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0208187), quant-ph/0208187 (2002) Grangier, 1986: P. Grangier, G. Roger and A. Aspect, Experimental evidence for a photon anticorrelation effect on a beam splitter: a new light on single-photon interferences, Europhysics Letters 1, 173179 (1986) Hess, 2002: K. Hess and W. Philipp, Europhys. Lett., 57:775 (2002) Kurakin, 2004: Pavel V. Kurakin, Hidden variables and hidden time in quantum theory (http://www.geocities. com/bellstheorem/), a preprint #33 by Keldysh Inst. of Appl. Math., Russian Academy of Sciences (2004) Marshall, 1983: T. W. Marshall, E. Santos and F. Selleri, Local Realism has not been Refuted by Atomic-Cascade Experiments, Physics Letters A, 98, 59 (1983)

See also
Hidden variable theory

Bell's theorem

116

Bell's theorem
In theoretical physics, Bell's theorem is a no-go theorem, loosely stating that: No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. It is the most famous legacy of the late physicist John S. Bell. Bell's theorem has important implications for physics and the philosophy of science as it proves that every quantum theory must violate either locality or counterfactual definiteness. A series of experiments has demonstrated the quantum predictions that form the basis of Bell's Theorem and some would therefore claim that not only the predictions of quantum theory but also experimental results now prove, using Bell's Theorem, that the universe must violate either locality or counterfactual definiteness. However, interpretation of these experiments is still the subject of some debate.

Overview
Bells theorem shows that there are limits that apply to local hidden-variable models of quantum systems, and that quantum mechanics (QM) predicts that these limits will be exceeded by measurements performed on entangled pairs of particles. This article discusses Bells theorem in the context of experiments that show that the predictions of quantum mechanics are consistent with the results of experiments, and inconsistent with local hidden variable models of quantum mechanics. As in the situation explored in the EinsteinPodolskyRosen (EPR) paradox, Bell considered an experiment in which a source produces pairs of correlated particles. For example, a pair of particles with correlated spins is created; one particle is sent to Alice and the other to Bob. The experimental arrangement differs from the Illustration of Bell test for spin 1/2 particles. Source produces spin singlet pair, one EPR arrangement in that the same type of particle sent to Alice another to Bob. Each performs one of the two spin measurements. measurement is performed on both particles of a pair. On each trial, each of the observers independently chooses between various detector settings and then performs an independent measurement on the particle arriving at their position. Hence, Bells theorem can be tested by coincidence measurements on pairs of entangled particles in which the correlation between two independently chosen measurements is determined. When Alice and Bob measure the spin of entangled particles along the same axis (but in opposite directions), they get identical results 100% of the time. When Bob measures at orthogonal (right) angles to Alices measurements, his measurement matches hers 50% of the time. In terms of mathematics, the two measurements have a correlation of 1, or perfect correlation when read along the same axis (in opposite direction); when read at right angles, they have no correlation.

Bell's theorem

117

Same axis:

pair 1 + + +1

pair 2 +1

pair 3 +1

pair 4 + + +1 ... ...

...n

Alice, 0: Bob, 180: Correlation: (

...)/n = +1 (100% identical)

Orthogonal axes: Alice, 0: Bob, 45: Correlation: (

pair 1 + 1

pair 2 +1

pair 3 + + +1

pair 4 + 1 ... ...

...n

...)/n = 0.0 (50% identical)

So far, (when the analyzers are aligned, orthogonal, or 45 degrees) the measurement results can be modeled by proposing physical attributes, referred to as local hidden variables, within each particle that determine the outcome of a measurement. If the analyzers are aligned, and the source only emits pairs of particles with identical properties then Alice and Bobs measurements will match (+,+) and (-,-). Similarly, the results will be anti-correlated (+,-) (-,+) if their analyzers are aligned on orthogonal axes. Now, consider Alice or Bob set their analyzers so that their axes are at some arbitrary angle between 0 and 90 degrees. A quantum mechanical calculation of the degree to which Alice and Bobs measurements will correlate results in a curve that varies as the cosine of twice the angle between the analyzers. That is, using entangled particles, there is a cosine curve from correlated (at zero degrees) and anti-correlated at 90 degrees. In contrast, Bells theorem places a straight-line limit on the curve that any local hidden variable model (involving identical particles) can follow from correlated to anti-correlated. The QM prediction for entangled particles breaks this limit. For example, when the relative analyzer alignment is 22.5 degrees QM gives 0.71 correlation whereas the straight-line limit (implied by Bells theorem) is 0.5. From this, one may conclude that the outcome of quantum measurements on entangled particles cannot be replicated by a model that employs identical particles that have hidden attributes/properties which locally determine the outcome of measurements. One possible way for a hidden variable system to break the limit imposed by Bells theorem, is to suppose that some non-local process or communication acts to increase the degree of correlation above the limits imposed by Bells theorem. To test this possibility, the analyzer angles are set at arbitrary angles before measuring the particles, even after the particles leave the source. In this case, this supposed non-local interaction or communication would have to occur instantaneously (i.e. travelling faster than light) in order to reproduce the behavior observed in quantum systems. Note that this does not necessarily mean that QM itself involves non-local or instantaneous communication, it just means that hidden variable accounts of QM would require these, or similar, drastic elements to be viable. Multiple researchers have performed equivalent experiments using different methods. It appears [1] that most of these experiments refute local-hidden-variable theories and support the notion that QM involves some degree of nonlocality. Not everyone agrees with these findings.[2] There have been two loopholes found in the earlier of these experiments, the detection loophole[1] and the communication loophole[1] with associated experiments to close these loopholes. After all current experimentation it seems these experiments support quantum mechanical non-locality [1] or disprove the no enhancement assumption (below).
Although the correlated property used here is the effect a particles spin has on its direction through an analyzer, it could alternatively be any correlated "quantum state" that encodes exactly one quantum bit.

Bell's theorem

118

Importance of the theorem

Bell's theorem, derived in his seminal 1964 paper titled On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox,[3] has been called "the most profound in science".[4] The title of the article refers to the famous paper by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen[5] purporting to prove the incompleteness of quantum mechanics. In his paper, Bell started from essentially the same assumptions as did EPR, viz. i) reality (microscopic objects have real properties determining the outcomes of quantum mechanical measurements) and ii) locality (reality is not influenced by measurements simultaneously performed at a large distance). Bell was able to derive from these assumptions an important result, viz. Bell's inequality, violation of which by quantum mechanics implying that at least one of the assumptions must be abandoned if experiment would turn out to satisfy quantum mechanics. In two respects Bell's 1964 paper was a big step forward compared to the EPR paper: i) it considered more general hidden variables than the elements of physical reality of the EPR paper, ii) more importantly, Bell's inequality was liable to be experimentally tested, thus yielding the opportunity to lift the discussion on the completeness of quantum mechanics from metaphysics to physics. Whereas Bell's 1964 paper deals only with deterministic hidden variables theories, Bell's theorem was later generalized to stochastic theories[6] as well, and it was realized[7] that the theorem can even be proven without introducing hidden variables. After EPR (EinsteinPodolskyRosen), quantum mechanics was left in an unsatisfactory position: either it was incomplete, in the sense that it failed to account for some elements of physical reality, or it violated the principle of finite propagation speed of physical effects. In a modified version of the EPR thought experiment, two observers, now commonly referred to as Alice and Bob, perform independent measurements of spin on a pair of electrons, prepared at a source in a special state called a spin singlet state. It was equivalent to the conclusion of EPR that once Alice measured spin in one direction (e.g., on the x axis), Bob's measurement in that direction was determined with certainty, with opposite outcome to that of Alice, whereas immediately before Alice's measurement, Bob's outcome was only statistically determined. Thus, either the spin in each direction is an element of physical reality, or the effects travel from Alice to Bob instantly. In QM, predictions were formulated in terms of probabilities for example, the probability that an electron might be detected in a particular region of space, or the probability that it would have spin up or down. The idea persisted, however, that the electron in fact has a definite position and spin, and that QM's weakness was its inability to predict those values precisely. The possibility remained that some yet unknown, but more powerful theory, such as a hidden variables theory, might be able to predict those quantities exactly, while at the same time also being in complete agreement with the probabilistic answers given by QM. If a hidden variables theory were correct, the hidden variables were not described by QM, and thus QM would be an incomplete theory. The desire for a local realist theory was based on two assumptions: 1. Objects have a definite state that determines the values of all other measurable properties, such as position and momentum. 2. Effects of local actions, such as measurements, cannot travel faster than the speed of light (as a result of special relativity). If the observers are sufficiently far apart, a measurement taken by one has no effect on the measurement taken by the other. In the formalization of local realism used by Bell, the predictions of theory result from the application of classical probability theory to an underlying parameter space. By a simple argument based on classical probability, he then showed that correlations between measurements are bounded in a way that is violated by QM. Bell's theorem seemed to put an end to local realist hopes for QM. Per Bell's theorem, either quantum mechanics or local realism is wrong. Experiments were needed to determine which is correct, but it took many years and improvements in technology to perform them. Bell test experiments have been interpreted as showing that Bell inequalities are violated, in favor of QM. The no-communication theorem proves that the observers cannot use the inequality violations to communicate

Bell's theorem information to each other faster than the speed of light. But the fair sampling and no enhancement assumptions require more careful consideration (below). John Bell's paper examines both John von Neumann's 1932 proof of the incompatibility of hidden variables with QM and the seminal paper on the subject by Albert Einstein and his colleagues.

119

Bell inequalities
Bell inequalities concern measurements made by observers on pairs of particles that have interacted and then separated. According to quantum mechanics they are entangled while local realism limits the correlation of subsequent measurements of the particles. Different authors subsequently derived inequalities similar to Bells original inequality, collectively termed Bell inequalities. All Bell inequalities describe experiments in which the predicted result assuming entanglement differs from that following from local realism. The inequalities assume that each quantum-level object has a well defined state that accounts for all its measurable properties and that distant objects do not exchange information faster than the speed of light. These well defined states are often called hidden variables, the properties that Einstein posited when he stated his famous objection to quantum mechanics: "God does not play dice." Bell showed that under quantum mechanics, which lacks local hidden variables, the inequalities may be violated. Instead, properties of a particle are not clear to verify in quantum mechanics but may be correlated with those of another particle due to quantum entanglement, allowing their state to be well defined only after a measurement is made on either particle. That restriction agrees with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, a fundamental and inescapable concept in quantum mechanics. In Bell's work: Theoretical physicists live in a classical world, looking out into a quantum-mechanical world. The latter we describe only subjectively, in terms of procedures and results in our classical domain. (...) Now nobody knows just where the boundary between the classical and the quantum domain is situated. (...) More plausible to me is that we will find that there is no boundary. The wave functions would prove to be a provisional or incomplete description of the quantum-mechanical part. It is this possibility, of a homogeneous account of the world, which is for me the chief motivation of the study of the so-called "hidden variable" possibility. (...) A second motivation is connected with the statistical character of quantum-mechanical predictions. Once the incompleteness of the wave function description is suspected, it can be conjectured that random statistical fluctuations are determined by the extra "hidden" variables "hidden" because at this stage we can only conjecture their existence and certainly cannot control them. (...) A third motivation is in the peculiar character of some quantum-mechanical predictions, which seem almost to cry out for a hidden variable interpretation. This is the famous argument of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. (...) We will find, in fact, that no local deterministic hidden-variable theory can reproduce all the experimental predictions of quantum mechanics. This opens the possibility of bringing the question into the experimental domain, by trying to approximate as well as possible the idealized situations in which local hidden variables and quantum mechanics cannot agree In probability theory, repeated measurements of system properties can be regarded as repeated sampling of random variables. In Bell's experiment, Alice can choose a detector setting to measure either or and Bob can choose a detector setting to measure either or . Measurements of Alice and Bob may be somehow correlated with each other, but the Bell inequalities say that if the correlation stems from local random variables, there is a limit to the amount of correlation one might expect to see.

Bell's theorem

120

Original Bell's inequality

The original inequality that Bell derived was:[3]

where C is the "correlation" of the particle pairs and a, b and c settings of the apparatus. This inequality is not used in practice. For one thing, it is true only for genuinely "two-outcome" systems, not for the "three-outcome" ones (with possible outcomes of zero as well as +1 and 1) encountered in real experiments. For another, it applies only to a very restricted set of hidden variable theories, namely those for which the outcomes on both sides of the experiment are always exactly anticorrelated when the analysers are parallel, in agreement with the quantum mechanical prediction. There is a simple limit of Bell's inequality which has the virtue of being completely intuitive. If the result of three different statistical coin-flips A, B, and C have the property that: 1. A and B are the same (both heads or both tails) 99% of the time 2. B and C are the same 99% of the time then A and C are the same at least 98% of the time. The number of mismatches between A and B (1/100) plus the number of mismatches between B and C (1/100) are together the maximum possible number of mismatches between A and C. In quantum mechanics, by letting A, B, and C be the values of the spin of two entangled particles measured relative to some axis at 0 degrees, degrees, and 2 degrees respectively, the overlap of the wavefunction between the different angles is proportional to . The probability that A and B give the same answer is , where is proportional to . This is also the probability that B and C give the same answer. But A and C are the same 1(2)2 of the time. Choosing the angle so that , A and B are 99% correlated, B and C are 99% correlated and A and C are only 96% correlated. Imagine that two entangled particles in a spin singlet are shot out to two distant locations, and the spins of both are measured in the direction A. The spins are 100% correlated (actually, anti-correlated but for this argument that is equivalent). The same is true if both spins are measured in directions B or C. It is safe to conclude that any hidden variables which determine the A,B, and C measurements in the two particles are 100% correlated and can be used interchangeably. If A is measured on one particle and B on the other, the correlation between them is 99%. If B is measured on one and C on the other, the correlation is 99%. This allows us to conclude that the hidden variables determining A and B are 99% correlated and B and C are 99% correlated. But if A is measured in one particle and C in the other, the results are only 96% correlated, which is a contradiction. The intuitive formulation is due to David Mermin, while the small-angle limit is emphasized in Bell's original article.

CHSH inequality
In addition to Bell's original inequality,[3] the form given by John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony and R. A. Holt,[8] (the CHSH form) is especially important[8] , as it gives classical limits to the expected correlation for the above experiment conducted by Alice and Bob:

where C denotes correlation. Correlation of observables X, Y is defined as

This is a non-normalized form of the correlation coefficient considered in statistics (see Quantum correlation). In order to formulate Bell's theorem, we formalize local realism as follows:

Bell's theorem 1. There is a probability space and the observed outcomes by both Alice and Bob result by random sampling of

121

the parameter . 2. The values observed by Alice or Bob are functions of the local detector settings and the hidden parameter only. Thus Value observed by Alice with detector setting is Value observed by Bob with detector setting is Implicit in assumption 1) above, the hidden parameter space random variable X on with respect to is written has a probability measure and the expectation of a

where for accessibility of notation we assume that the probability measure has a density. Bell's inequality. The CHSH inequality (1) holds under the hidden variables assumptions above. For simplicity, let us first assume the observed values are +1 or 1; we remove this assumption in Remark 1 below. Let . Then at least one of

is 0. Thus

and therefore

Remark 1. The correlation inequality (1) still holds if the variables above by 2. This is easily seen to be true in the more general case:

are allowed to take on any

real values between 1 and +1. Indeed, the relevant idea is that each summand in the above average is bounded

To justify the upper bound 2 asserted in the last inequality, without loss of generality, we can assume that

In that case

Bell's theorem Remark 2. Though the important component of the hidden parameter in Bell's original proof is associated with

122

the source and is shared by Alice and Bob, there may be others that are associated with the separate detectors, these others being independent. This argument was used by Bell in 1971, and again by Clauser and Horne in 1974,[9] to justify a generalisation of the theorem forced on them by the real experiments, in which detectors were never 100% efficient. The derivations were given in terms of the averages of the outcomes over the local detector variables. The formalisation of local realism was thus effectively changed, replacing A and B by averages and retaining the symbol but with a slightly different meaning. It was henceforth restricted (in most theoretical work) to mean only those components that were associated with the source. However, with the extension proved in Remark 1, CHSH inequality still holds even if the instruments themselves contain hidden variables. In that case, averaging over the instrument hidden variables gives new variables:

on

which still have values in the range [1,+1] to which we can apply the previous result.

Bell inequalities are violated by quantum mechanical predictions

In the usual quantum mechanical formalism, the observables X and Y are represented as self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space. To compute the correlation, assume that X and Y are represented by matrices in a finite dimensional space and that X and Y commute; this special case suffices for our purposes below. The von Neumann measurement postulate states: a series of measurements of an observable X on a series of identical systems in state produces a distribution of real values. By the assumption that observables are finite matrices, this distribution is discrete. The probability of observing is non-zero if and only if is an eigenvalue of the matrix X and moreover the probability is where EX () is the projector corresponding to the eigenvalue . The system state immediately after the measurement is

From this, we can show that the correlation of commuting observables X and Y in a pure state

is

We apply this fact in the context of the EPR paradox. The measurements performed by Alice and Bob are spin measurements on electrons. Alice can choose between two detector settings labelled a and a; these settings correspond to measurement of spin along the z or the x axis. Bob can choose between two detector settings labelled b and b; these correspond to measurement of spin along the z or x axis, where the x z coordinate system is rotated 135 relative to the x z coordinate system. The spin observables are represented by the 2 2 self-adjoint matrices:

These are the Pauli spin matrices normalized so that the corresponding eigenvalues are +1, 1. As is customary, we denote the eigenvectors of Sx by Let be the spin singlet state for a pair of electrons discussed in the EPR paradox. This is a specially constructed

state described by the following vector in the tensor product

Now let us apply the CHSH formalism to the measurements that can be performed by Alice and Bob.

Bell's theorem

123

Illustration of Bell test for spin 1/2 particles. Source produces spin singlet pairs, one particle of each pair is sent to Alice and the other to Bob. Each performs one of the two spin measurements.

The operators

correspond to Bob's spin measurements along x and z. Note that the A operators

commute with the B operators, so we can apply our calculation for the correlation. In this case, we can show that the CHSH inequality fails. In fact, a straightforward calculation shows that

and

so that

Bell's Theorem: If the quantum mechanical formalism is correct, then the system consisting of a pair of entangled electrons cannot satisfy the principle of local realism. Note that is indeed the upper bound for quantum mechanics called Tsirelson's bound. The operators giving this maximal value are always isomorphic to the Pauli matrices.

Bell's theorem

124

Practical experiments testing Bell's theorem

Experimental tests can determine whether the Bell inequalities required by local realism hold up to the empirical evidence. Bell's inequalities are tested by "coincidence counts" from a Bell test experiment such as the optical one shown in the diagram. Pairs of particles are emitted as a result of a quantum process, analysed with respect to some key property such as polarisation direction, then detected. The setting (orientations) of the analysers are selected by the

Scheme of a "two-channel" Bell test The source S produces pairs of "photons", sent in opposite directions. Each photon encounters a two-channel polariser whose orientation (a or b) can be set by the experimenter. Emerging signals from each channel are detected and coincidences of four types (++, , + and +) counted by the coincidence monitor.

experimenter. Bell test experiments to date overwhelmingly violate Bell's inequality. Indeed, a table of Bell test experiments performed prior to 1986 is given in 4.5 of Redhead, 1987.[10] Of the thirteen experiments listed, only two reached results contradictory to quantum mechanics; moreover, according to the same source, when the experiments were repeated, "the discrepancies with QM could not be reproduced". Nevertheless, the issue is not conclusively settled. According to Shimony's 2004 Stanford Encyclopedia overview article:[1] Most of the dozens of experiments performed so far have favored Quantum Mechanics, but not decisively because of the 'detection loopholes' or the 'communication loophole.' The latter has been nearly decisively blocked by a recent experiment and there is a good prospect for blocking the former. To explore the 'detection loophole', one must distinguish the classes of homogeneous and inhomogeneous Bell inequality. The standard assumption in Quantum Optics is that "all photons of given frequency, direction and polarization are identical" so that photodetectors treat all incident photons on an equal basis. Such a fair sampling assumption generally goes unacknowledged, yet it effectively limits the range of local theories to those which conceive of the light field as corpuscular. The assumption excludes a large family of local realist theories, in particular, Max Planck's description. We must remember the cautionary words of Albert Einstein[11] shortly before he died: "Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry ('jeder Kerl' in German original) thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is mistaken". Objective physical properties for Bells analysis (local realist theories) include the wave amplitude of a light signal. Those who maintain the concept of duality, or simply of light being a wave, recognize the possibility or actuality that the emitted atomic light signals have a range of amplitudes and, furthermore, that the amplitudes are modified when the signal passes through analyzing devices such as polarizers and beam splitters. It follows that not all signals have the same detection probability[12] .

Two classes of Bell inequalities

The fair sampling problem was faced openly in the 1970s. In early designs of their 1973 experiment, Freedman and Clauser[13] used fair sampling in the form of the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH[8] ) hypothesis. However, shortly afterwards Clauser and Horne[9] made the important distinction between inhomogeneous (IBI) and homogeneous (HBI) Bell inequalities. Testing an IBI requires that we compare certain coincidence rates in two separated detectors with the singles rates of the two detectors. Nobody needed to perform the experiment, because

Bell's theorem singles rates with all detectors in the 1970s were at least ten times all the coincidence rates. So, taking into account this low detector efficiency, the QM prediction actually satisfied the IBI. To arrive at an experimental design in which the QM prediction violates IBI we require detectors whose efficiency exceeds 82% for singlet states, but have very low dark rate and short dead and resolving times. This is well above the 30% achievable[14] so Shimonys optimism in the Stanford Encyclopedia, quoted in the preceding section, appears over-stated.

125

Practical challenges
Because detectors don't detect a large fraction of all photons, Clauser and Horne[9] recognized that testing Bell's inequality requires some extra assumptions. They introduced the No Enhancement Hypothesis (NEH): a light signal, originating in an atomic cascade for example, has a certain probability of activating a detector. Then, if a polarizer is interposed between the cascade and the detector, the detection probability cannot increase. Given this assumption, there is a Bell inequality between the coincidence rates with polarizers and coincidence rates without polarizers. The experiment was performed by Freedman and Clauser[13] , who found that the Bell's inequality was violated. So the no-enhancement hypothesis cannot be true in a local hidden variables model. The Freedman-Clauser experiment reveals that local hidden variables imply the new phenomenon of signal enhancement: In the total set of signals from an atomic cascade there is a subset whose detection probability increases as a result of passing through a linear polarizer. This is perhaps not surprising, as it is known that adding noise to data can, in the presence of a threshold, help reveal hidden signals (this property is known as stochastic resonance[15] ). One cannot conclude that this is the only local-realist alternative to Quantum Optics, but it does show that the word loophole is biased. Moreover, the analysis leads us to recognize that the Bell-inequality experiments, rather than showing a breakdown of realism or locality, are capable of revealing important new phenomena.

Theoretical challenges
Most advocates of the hidden variables idea believe that experiments have ruled out local hidden variables. They are ready to give up locality, explaining the violation of Bell's inequality by means of a "non-local" hidden variable theory, in which the particles exchange information about their states. This is the basis of the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics, which requires that all particles in the universe be able to instantaneously exchange information with all others. A recent experiment ruled out a large class of non-Bohmian "non-local" hidden variable theories.[16] If the hidden variables can communicate with each other faster than light, Bell's inequality can easily be violated. Once one particle is measured, it can communicate the necessary correlations to the other particle. Since in relativity the notion of simultaneity is not absolute, this is unattractive. One idea is to replace instantaneous communication with a process which travels backwards in time along the past Light cone. This is the idea behind a transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, which interprets the statistical emergence of a quantum history as a gradual coming to agreement between histories that go both forward and backward in time[17] . A few advocates of deterministic models have not given up on local hidden variables. E.g., Gerard 't Hooft has argued that the superdeterminism loophole cannot be dismissed[18] . The quantum mechanical wavefunction can also provide a local realistic description, if the wavefunction values are interpreted as the fundamental quantities that describe reality. Such an approach is called a many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In this view, two distant observers both split into superpositions when measuring a spin. The Bell inequality violations are no longer counterintuitive, because it is not clear which copy of the observer B observer A will see when going to compare notes. If reality includes all the different outcomes, locality in physical space (not outcome space) places no restrictions on how the split observers can meet up.

Bell's theorem This implies that there is a subtle assumption in the argument that realism is incompatible with quantum mechanics and locality. The assumption, in its weakest form, is called counterfactual definiteness. This states that if the results of an experiment are always observed to be definite, there is a quantity which determines what the outcome would have been even if you don't do the experiment. Many worlds interpretations are not only counterfactually indefinite, they are factually indefinite. The results of all experiments, even ones that have been performed, are not uniquely determined.

126

Final remarks
The phenomenon of quantum entanglement that is behind violation of Bell's inequality is just one element of quantum physics which cannot be represented by any classical picture of physics; other non-classical elements are complementarity and wavefunction collapse. The problem of interpretation of quantum mechanics is intended to provide a satisfactory picture of these non-classical elements of quantum physics. The EPR paper "pinpointed" the unusual properties of the entangled states, e.g. the above-mentioned singlet state, which is the foundation for present-day applications of quantum physics, such as quantum cryptography. This strange non-locality was originally supposed to be a Reductio ad absurdum, because the standard interpretation could easily do away with action-at-a-distance by simply assigning to each particle definite spin-states. Bell's theorem showed that the "entangledness" prediction of quantum mechanics have a degree of non-locality that cannot be explained away by any local theory. In well-defined Bell experiments (see the paragraph on "test experiments") one can now falsify either quantum mechanics or Einstein's quasi-classical assumptions: currently many experiments of this kind have been performed, and the experimental results support quantum mechanics, though some believe that detectors give a biased sample of photons, so that until nearly every photon pair generated is observed there will be loopholes. What is powerful about Bell's theorem is that it doesn't come from any particular physical theory. What makes Bell's theorem unique and powerful is that it relies only on the general properties of quantum mechanics. No physical theory which assumes a deterministic variable inside the particle that determines the outcome, can account for the experimental results, only assuming that this variable cannot acausally change other variables far away.

See also
Bell test experiments CHSH Bell test Clauser and Horne's 1974 Bell test Counterfactual definiteness LeggettGarg inequality Local hidden variable theory Mott problem Quantum entanglement Quantum mechanical Bell test prediction Measurement in quantum mechanics Renninger negative-result experiment GHZ State

Bell's theorem

127

References
A. Aspect et al., Experimental Tests of Realistic Local Theories via Bell's Theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 460 (1981) A. Aspect et al., Experimental Realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell's Inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91 (1982). A. Aspect et al., Experimental Test of Bell's Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982). A. Aspect and P. Grangier, About resonant scattering and other hypothetical effects in the Orsay atomic-cascade experiment tests of Bell inequalities: a discussion and some new experimental data, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento 43, 345 (1985) B. D'Espagnat, The Quantum Theory and Reality [19], Scientific American, 241, 158 (1979) J. S. Bell, On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447 (1966) J. S. Bell, Introduction to the hidden variable question, Proceedings of the International School of Physics 'Enrico Fermi', Course IL, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (1971) 17181 J. S. Bell, Bertlmanns socks and the nature of reality, Journal de Physique, Colloque C2, suppl. au numero 3, Tome 42 (1981) pp C2 4161 J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press 1987) [A collection of Bell's papers, including all of the above.] J. F. Clauser and A. Shimony, Bell's theorem: experimental tests and implications, Reports on Progress in Physics 41, 1881 (1978) J. F. Clauser and M. A. Horne, Phys. Rev D 10, 526535 (1974) E. S. Fry, T. Walther and S. Li, Proposal for a loophole-free test of the Bell inequalities, Phys. Rev. A 52, 4381 (1995) E. S. Fry, and T. Walther, Atom based tests of the Bell Inequalities the legacy of John Bell continues, pp 103117 of Quantum [Un]speakables, R.A. Bertlmann and A. Zeilinger (eds.) (Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 2002) R. B. Griffiths, Consistent Quantum Theory', Cambridge University Press (2002). L. Hardy, Nonlocality for 2 particles without inequalities for almost all entangled states. Physical Review Letters 71 (11) 16651668 (1993) M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press (2000) P. Pearle, Hidden-Variable Example Based upon Data Rejection, Physical Review D 2, 141825 (1970) A. Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993. P. Pluch, Theory of Quantum Probability, PhD Thesis, University of Klagenfurt, 2006. B. C. van Frassen, Quantum Mechanics, Clarendon Press, 1991. M.A. Rowe, D. Kielpinski, V. Meyer, C.A. Sackett, W.M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D.J. Wineland, Experimental violation of Bell's inequalities with efficient detection,(Nature, 409, 791794, 2001). S. Sulcs, The Nature of Light and Twentieth Century Experimental Physics, Foundations of Science 8, 365391 (2003) S. Grblacher et al., An experimental test of non-local realism,(Nature, 446, 871875, 2007). D. N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, D. L. Moehring, S. Olmschenk, and C. Monroe, Bell Inequality Violation with Two Remote Atomic Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 150404 (2008). The comic Dilbert, by Scott Adams, refers to Bell's Theorem in the 1992-09-21 [20] and 1992-09-22 [21] strips.

Bell's theorem

128

Further reading
The following are intended for general audiences. Amir D. Aczel, Entanglement: The greatest mystery in physics (Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, 2001). A. Afriat and F. Selleri, The Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen Paradox (Plenum Press, New York and London, 1999) J. Baggott, The Meaning of Quantum Theory (Oxford University Press, 1992) N. David Mermin, "Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory", in Physics Today, April 1985, pp. 3847. Louisa Gilder, The Age of Entanglement: When Quantum Physics Was Reborn (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008) Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos (Vintage, 2004, ISBN 0-375-72720-5) Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics (Anchor, 1987, ISBN 0-385-23569-0) D. Wick, The infamous boundary: seven decades of controversy in quantum physics (Birkhauser, Boston 1995) R. Anton Wilson, Prometheus Rising (New Falcon Publications, 1997, ISBN 1-56184-056-4) Gary Zukav "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" (Perennial Classics, 2001, ISBN 0-06-095968-1)

External links
An explanation of Bell's Theorem [22], based on N. D. Mermin's article, "Bringing Home the Atomic World: Quantum Mysteries for Anybody [23]," Am. J. of Phys. 49 (10), 940 (October 1981) Quantum Entanglement [24] Includes a simple explanation of Bell's Inequality. Bell's theorem on arXiv.org [25] Disproofs of Bell, GHZ, and Hardy Type Theorems and the Illusion of Entanglement [26] Disproof of Bell's Theorem Interactive experiments with single photons: entanglement and Bells theorem [27]

References
[1] Article on Bell's Theorem (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ bell-theorem) by Abner Shimony in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (2004). [2] Caroline H. Thompson The Chaotic Ball: An Intuitive Analogy for EPR Experiments Found.Phys.Lett. 9 (1996) 357-382 arXiv:quant-ph/9611037 [3] J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox (http:/ / www. drchinese. com/ David/ Bell_Compact. pdf), Physics 1, 195-200 (1964) [4] Stapp, 1975 [5] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777--780 (1935). [6] J.F. Clauser and M.A. Horne, Experimental consequences of objective local theories, Phys. Rev. D 10, 526-535 (1974). [7] P.H. Eberhard, Bell's theorem without hidden variables, Nuovo Cimento 38B, 75-80 (1977). [8] J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony and R. A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories, Physical Review Letters 23, 880884 (1969) [9] J. F. Clauser and M. A. Horne, Experimental consequences of objective local theories, Physical Review D, 10, 52635 (1974) [10] M. Redhead, Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism, Clarendon Press (1987) [11] A. Einstein in Correspondance EinsteinBesso, p.265 (Herman, Paris, 1979) [12] Marshall and Santos, Semiclassical optics as an alternative to nonlocality (http:/ / www. crisisinphysics. co. uk/ optrev. pdf) Recent Research Developments in Optics 2:683-717 (2002) [13] S. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser, Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938 (1972) [14] Brida et al. Experimental tests of hidden variable theories from dBB to Stochastic Electrodynamics ournal of Physics: Conference Series 67 (2007) 012047, arXiv:quant-ph/0612075 [15] Gammaitoni et al., Stochastic resonance (http:/ / prola. aps. org/ abstract/ RMP/ v70/ i1/ p223_1) Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 223 - 287 (1998) [16] S. Grblacher et al., An experimental test of non-local realism (http:/ / www. nature. com/ nature/ journal/ v446/ n7138/ abs/ nature05677. html) Nature 446, 871875, 2007 [17] Cramer, John G. "The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", Reviews of Modern Physics 58, 647688, July 1986 [18] G 't Hooft, Entangled quantum states in a local deterministic theory (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 0908. 3408); The Free-Will Postulate in Quantum Mechanics (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0701097)

Bell's theorem
[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] http:/ / www. sciam. com/ media/ pdf/ 197911_0158. pdf http:/ / www. dilbert. com/ strips/ comic/ 1992-09-21/ http:/ / www. dilbert. com/ strips/ comic/ 1992-09-22/ http:/ / www. ncsu. edu/ felder-public/ kenny/ papers/ bell. html http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1119/ 1. 12594 http:/ / www. ipod. org. uk/ reality/ reality_entangled. asp http:/ / xstructure. inr. ac. ru/ x-bin/ theme3. py?level=2& index1=369244 http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 0904. 4259 http:/ / www. didaktik. physik. uni-erlangen. de/ quantumlab/ english/ index. html

129

Bell test experiments

The Bell test experiments serve to investigate the validity of the entanglement effect in quantum mechanics by using some kind of Bell inequality. John Bell published the first inequality of this kind in his paper "On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox". Bell's Theorem states that a Bell inequality must be obeyed under any local hidden variable theory but can in certain circumstances be violated under quantum mechanics. The term "Bell inequality" can mean any one of a number of inequalities in practice, in real experiments, the CHSH or CH74 inequality, not the original one derived by John Bell. It places restrictions on the statistical results of experiments on sets of particles that have taken part in an interaction and then separated. A Bell test experiment is one designed to test whether or not the real world obeys a Bell inequality. Such experiments fall into two classes, depending on whether the analysers used have one or two output channels.

Conduct of optical Bell test experiments

In practice most actual experiments have used light, assumed to be emitted in the form of particle-like photons (produced by atomic cascade or spontaneous parametric down conversion), rather than the atoms that Bell originally had in mind. The property of interest is, in the best known experiments, the polarisation direction, though other properties can be used.

A typical CHSH (two-channel) experiment

The diagram shows a typical optical experiment of the two-channel kind for which Alain Aspect set a precedent in 1982 (Aspect, 1982a). Coincidences (simultaneous detections) are recorded, the results being categorised as '++', '+', '+' or '' and corresponding counts accumulated. Four separate subexperiments are The source S produces pairs of "photons", sent in opposite directions. Each photon conducted, corresponding to the four terms encounters a two-channel polariser whose orientation can be set by the E(a, b) in the test statistic S ((2) below). The experimenter. Emerging signals from each channel are detected and coincidences counted by the coincidence monitor CM. settings a, a, b and b are generally in practice chosen to be 0, 45, 22.5 and 67.5 respectively the "Bell test angles" these being the ones for which the quantum mechanical formula gives the greatest violation of the inequality. For each selected value of a and b, the numbers of coincidences in each category (N++, N--, N+- and N-+) are recorded. The experimental estimate for E(a, b) is then calculated as: (1) E = (N++ + N-- N+- N-+)/(N++ + N-- + N+- + N-+).
Scheme of a "two-channel" Bell test

Bell test experiments Once all four Es have been estimated, an experimental estimate of the test statistic (2) S = E(a, b) E(a, b) + E(a, b) + E(a b) can be found. If S is numerically greater than 2 it has infringed the CHSH inequality. The experiment is declared to have supported the QM prediction and ruled out all local hidden variable theories. A strong assumption has had to be made, however, to justify use of expression (2). It has been assumed that the sample of detected pairs is representative of the pairs emitted by the source. That this assumption may not be true comprises the fair sampling loophole. The derivation of the inequality is given in the CHSH Bell test page.

130

A typical CH74 (single-channel) experiment

Prior to 1982 all actual Bell tests used "single-channel" polarisers and variations on an inequality designed for this setup. The latter is described in Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt's much-cited 1969 article (Clauser, 1969) as being the one suitable for practical use. As with the CHSH test, there Setup for a "single-channel" Bell test are four subexperiments in which each The source S produces pairs of "photons", sent in opposite directions. Each photon encounters a single channel (e.g. "pile of plates") polariser whose orientation can polariser takes one of two possible settings, be set by the experimenter. Emerging signals are detected and coincidences but in addition there are other counted by the coincidence monitor CM. subexperiments in which one or other polariser or both are absent. Counts are taken as before and used to estimate the test statistic. (3) S = (N(a, b) N(a, b) + N(a, b) + N(a, b) N(a, ) N(, b)) / N(, ), where the symbol indicates absence of a polariser. If S exceeds 0 then the experiment is declared to have infringed Bell's inequality and hence to have "refuted local realism". The only theoretical assumption (other than Bell's basic ones of the existence of local hidden variables) that has been made in deriving (3) is that when a polariser is inserted the probability of detection of any given photon is never increased: there is "no enhancement". The derivation of this inequality is given in the page on Clauser and Horne's 1974 Bell test.

Experimental assumptions
In addition to the theoretical assumptions made, there are practical ones. There may, for example, be a number of "accidental coincidences" in addition to those of interest. It is assumed that no bias is introduced by subtracting their estimated number before calculating S, but that this is true is not considered by some to be obvious. There may be synchronisation problems ambiguity in recognising pairs due to the fact that in practice they will not be detected at exactly the same time. Nevertheless, despite all these deficiencies of the actual experiments, one striking fact emerges: the results are, to a very good approximation, what quantum mechanics predicts. If imperfect experiments give us such excellent overlap with quantum predictions, most working quantum physicists would agree with John Bell in expecting that, when a perfect Bell test is done, the Bell inequalities will still be violated. This attitude has led to the emergence of a new sub-field of physics which is now known as quantum information theory. One of the main achievements of this new branch of physics is showing that violation of Bell's inequalities leads to the possibility of a secure information

Bell test experiments transfer, which utilizes the so-called quantum cryptography (involving entangled states of pairs of particles).

131

Notable experiments
Over the past thirty or so years, a great number of Bell test experiments have now been conducted. These experiments are subject to assumptions, in particular the no enhancement hypothesis of Clauser and Horne (above). The experiments are commonly interpreted to rule out local hidden variable theories, but they could also be said to demonstrate signal enhancement, which relates to the stochastic resonance phenomenon (Two_classes_of_Bell_inequalities). Advancements in technology have led to significant improvement in efficiencies, as well as a greater variety of methods to test the Bell Theorem. Some of the best known:

Freedman and Clauser, 1972

This was the first actual Bell test, using Freedman's inequality, a variant on the CH74 inequality.

Aspect, 1981-2
Aspect and his team at Orsay, Paris, conducted three Bell tests using calcium cascade sources. The first and last used the CH74 inequality. The second was the first application of the CHSH inequality, the third the famous one (originally suggested by John Bell) in which the choice between the two settings on each side was made during the flight of the photons.

Tittel and the Geneva group, 1998

The Geneva 1998 Bell test experiments showed that distance did not destroy the "entanglement". Light was sent in fibre optic cables over distances of several kilometers before it was analysed. As with almost all Bell tests since about 1985, a "parametric down-conversion" (PDC) source was used.

Weihs' experiment under "strict Einstein locality" conditions

In 1998 Gregor Weihs and a team at Innsbruck, led by Anton Zeilinger, conducted an ingenious experiment that closed the "locality" loophole, improving on Aspect's of 1982. The choice of detector was made using a quantum process to ensure that it was random. This test violated the CHSH inequality by over 30 standard deviations, the coincidence curves agreeing with those predicted by quantum theory.

Pan et al.'s experiment on the GHZ state

This is the first of new Bell-type experiments on more than two particles; this one uses the so-called GHZ state of three particles; it is reported in Nature (2000)

Grblacher et al. (2007) test of Leggett-type non-local realist theories

The authors interpret their results as disfavouring "realism" and hence allow QM to be local but "non-real". However they have actually only ruled out a specific class of non-local theories suggested by Anthony Leggett.[1] [2]

Salart et al. (2008) Separation in a Bell Test

This experiment filled a loophole by providing an 18km separation between detectors, which is sufficient to allow the completion of the quantum state measurements before any information could have traveled between the two detectors.[3] [4]

Bell test experiments

132

Loopholes
Though the series of increasingly sophisticated Bell test experiments has convinced the physics community in general that local realism is untenable, there are still critics who point out that the outcome of every single experiment done so far that violates a Bell inequality can, at least theoretically, be explained by faults in the experimental setup, experimental procedure or that the equipment used does not behave as well as it is supposed to. These possibilities are known as "loopholes". The most serious loophole is the detection loophole, which means that particles are not always detected in both wings of the experiment. It is possible to "engineer" quantum correlations (the experimental result) by letting detection be dependent on a combination of local hidden variables and detector setting. Experimenters have repeatedly stated that loophole-free tests can be expected in the near future (Garca-Patrn, 2004). On the other hand, some researchers point out that it is a logical possibility that quantum physics itself prevents a loophole-free test from ever being implemented (Gill, 2003; Santos, 2006).

References
Aspect, 1981: A. Aspect et al., Experimental Tests of Realistic Local Theories via Bell's Theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 460 (1981) Aspect, 1982a: A. Aspect et al., Experimental Realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell's Inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91 (1982), Aspect, 1982b: A. Aspect et al., Experimental Test of Bell's Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982), Barrett, 2002 Quantum Nonlocality, Bell Inequalities and the Memory Loophole: quant-ph/0205016 [5] (2002). Bell, 1987: J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, (Cambridge University Press 1987) Clauser, 1969: J. F. Clauser, M.A. Horne, A. Shimony and R. A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880-884 (1969), Clauser, 1974: J. F. Clauser and M. A. Horne, Experimental consequences of objective local theories, Phys. Rev. D 10, 526-35 (1974) Freedman, 1972: S. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser, Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938 (1972) Garca-Patrn, 2004: R. Garca-Patrn, J. Fiurcek, N. J. Cerf, J. Wenger, R. Tualle-Brouri, and Ph. Grangier, Proposal for a Loophole-Free Bell Test Using Homodyne Detection [6], Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 130409 (2004) Gill, 2003: R.D. Gill, Time, Finite Statistics, and Bell's Fifth Position: quant-ph/0301059 [7], Foundations of Probability and Physics - 2, Vaxjo Univ. Press, 2003, 179-206 (2003) Kielpinski: D. Kielpinski et al., Recent Results in Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing [8] (2001) Kwiat, 1999: P.G. Kwiat, et al., Ultrabright source of polarization-entangled photons [9], Physical Review A 60 (2), R773-R776 (1999) Rowe, 2001: M. Rowe et al., Experimental violation of a Bells inequality with efficient detection [10], Nature 409, 791 (2001) Santos, 2005: E. Santos, Bell's theorem and the experiments: Increasing empirical support to local realism: quant-ph/0410193 [11], Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 36, 544-565 (2005) Tittel, 1997: W. Tittel et al., Experimental demonstration of quantum-correlations over more than 10 kilometers [12] , Phys. Rev. A, 57, 3229 (1997) Tittel, 1998: W. Tittel et al., Experimental demonstration of quantum-correlations over more than 10 kilometers [12] , Physical Review A 57, 3229 (1998); Violation of Bell inequalities by photons more than 10 km apart [13], Physical Review Letters 81, 3563 (1998) Weihs, 1998: G. Weihs, et al., Violation of Bells inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions [14], Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5039 (1998)

Bell test experiments

133

References
[1] Quantum physics says goodbye to reality (http:/ / physicsworld. com/ cws/ article/ news/ 27640) [2] An experimental test of non-local realism (http:/ / www. nature. com/ nature/ journal/ v446/ n7138/ abs/ nature05677. html) [3] Salart, D.; Baas, A.; van Houwelingen, J. A. W.; Gisin, N.; and Zbinden, H. Spacelike Separation in a Bell Test Assuming Gravitationally Induced Collapses. Physical Review Letters 100, 220404 (2008). (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 0803. 2425) [4] http:/ / www. physorg. com/ news132830327. html [5] http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0205016 [6] http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0403191 [7] http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0301059 [8] http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0102086 [9] http:/ / arXiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 9810003 [10] http:/ / www. nature. com/ nature/ journal/ v409/ n6822/ abs/ 409791a0. html [11] http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0410193 [12] http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 9707042 [13] http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 9806043 [14] http:/ / arXiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 9810080

Hidden variables
Hidden variables may refer to: In physics, Hidden variable theories are a class of theories trying to explain away the statistical nature of quantum mechanics. In statistics, Latent variables are variables that are inferred from other observed variables. In Computer Science, Hidden transformation is a way to transform a generic constraint satisfaction problem into a binary one by introducing new hidden variables.

Article Sources and Contributors

134

Article Sources and Contributors

David Bohm Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=358755906 Contributors: A Kit, Abeltje, Acroterion, Ael 2, Ahalani, Alan XAX Freeman, Amanda.nelson12, And4e, AndriuZ, Art Carlson, Aurola, Belinrahs, BhangraGirl, BillBell, Billinghurst, Birchmore, Blainster, Bobblehead, Carlo.Ierna, Cgingold, Charles Matthews, Csberger, D6, Demiurge, Duendeverde, ELApro, EPadmirateur, Ealconchel, Fastfission, Floorsheim, Franis, Franis Engel, GangofOne, Gary D, Georgewilliamherbert, Gilisa, Goatasaur, Goethean, Good Olfactory, Grazia11, Gregbard, Headbomb, Heah, Hmains, Ig0774, InquireConsciously, Io, J Di, JEN9841, Jansci Tilleman, Jb849, Jiang, Joelwest, John Z, Jpbowen, KYPark, Kalki, Karol Langner, Kbdank71, Krash, L7HOMAS, Lambiam, Leptons, Liontooth, Liquidhuman, Looxix, Lotte Monz, MER-C, MarcAurel, Marokwitz, Masterpiece2000, Maurice Carbonaro, Mbahrami, Medlat, MessinaRagazza, Midgley, Mmarci, Modify, Muchness, Mwanner, NickBush24, Nietzsche 2, Northwesterner1, Npepperell, Olessi, Ombudsman, Outriggr, Paul A, Pedant17, Persephone19, Piano non troppo, Postdlf, PremRasal, QuantumOne, RKiddzz, Renata3, Rich Farmbrough, Richard Taytor, Rjwilmsi, Robofish, Rsabbatini, SGGH, Sadi Carnot, Sc147, Smithfarm, Splash, Studentofisless, Tarotcards, The wub, TheMadBaron, Thinkg, Threepounds, Timrollpickering, Togo, TonyClarke, Torrazzo, Treybien, Twas Now, Udzu, Versageek, Victor Gijsbers, Victor Lopes, W guice, Waelder, Wasell, Wayward, Wereon, Wik, Woohookitty, Wuhwuzdat, Zereshk, , 165 anonymous edits Aharonov- Bohm effect Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=341663792 Contributors: Andejons, Andyspring, Arnero, BenRG, Bender235, Bobblehead, Brews ohare, CYD, Casey boy, Charles Matthews, Dratman, Dysprosia, E.pajer, Fapae, Gaius Cornelius, GregAsche, Gulmammad, Headbomb, Helixblue, Henry Delforn, Karol Langner, Ladypine, Linas, Liontooth, Longone, MFNickster, Martin TB, Michael C Price, Omegatron, Pixelface, Reddi, Richsid, SPat, Sbyrnes321, Siddhant, Stevenj, The wub, Tim Starling, Timb66, Tlabshier, Vssun, Wolfkeeper, 50 anonymous edits Bohm diffusion Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=357971977 Contributors: ABCD, Agricola44, Art Carlson, Cypa, DabMachine, Deglr6328, GangofOne, Karol Langner, Koffieyahoo, Matticus78, PKnight, RoundemUpJeff, Simeon H, Venny85, 11 anonymous edits Bohm interpretation Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=326542520 Contributors: 1ForTheMoney, A.C. Norman, Agger, Alessandro70, Alphatronic, Anders, Andrewpmk, AoS1014, Arjen Dijksman, AshtonBenson, Barbara Shack, Benja, Borat fan, CSTAR, Charles Matthews, Cmdulya, Cojoco, DV8 2XL, Dan Gluck, Dataweaver, Deadly Nut, Dhemm, Dmr2, DomenicDenicola, Dragon's Blood, Duduong, Duendeverde, Dvtausk, ESkog, Ebitnet, Editorius, Edward, Emurphy42, Evand, Extremophile, Eyv, Falcorian, Floorsheim, Freakofnurture, GangofOne, Giftlite, Goethean, Gregbard, GregorB, Holon, Hypnosifl, IRevLinas, Ilja Schmelzer, Iridescent, Itangalo, Jambaugh, Jason Davies, Jefffire, Jfire, Jmundo, John Reaves, Jostylr, KSchutte, Kalonymos, Kevin aylward, Kkchang, Kripkenstein, Kuratowski's Ghost, L0rents, L33tminion, LC, Leafyplant, Lexivore, Likebox, Linas, Loren Rosen, Lumidek, M0rph, MarSch, Michael C Price, Michael Devore, Michael Hardy, Michael Rogers, Mike Peel, Mir Harven, MistySpock, Murf42, Noah Salzman, Nsomnia03, Olleicua, Pfalstad, Phys-demystifier, Plumbago, Pretzelpaws, Quantumobserver, RDBury, RJN, RandomHumanoid, Razimantv, Rednblu, Rich Farmbrough, Rjwilmsi, Roadrunner, RogueNinja, SQL, Scentoni, Scottie 000, Sfwild, SiegeLord, Skewyou, Smithfarm, Stephen B Streater, SuezanneC Baskerville, Sverdrup, Swiftly, The Anome, The Anonymous One, Tim Starling, Timwi, Tjic, Tnorsen, Togo, Tomixdf, Tonymec, Tumulka, Ummonk, Vegaswikian, Venny85, Vgy7ujm, Voorlandt, Vuen, W1k13rh3nry, Waleswatcher, Weierstrass, Were-Bunny, Wireader, WolfmanSF, Yafujifide, ZRPerry, Zicovich, Zoicon5, 189 anonymous edits Correspondence principle Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=320470658 Contributors: Ahoerstemeier, AllenUNC86, Bdesham, Bobathon71, CYD, Charles Matthews, Claudiodib, Colonies Chris, Dan Gluck, Fastfission, Giftlite, Headbomb, Jakob.scholbach, Jctaylr, Johnstone, Jrdioko, Keenan Pepper, Knucmo2, Likebox, Lixy, Michael C Price, Michael Hardy, Mpatel, Naturalnumber, Oleg Alexandrov, Radagast83, Rayhaith, Rbj, RepublicanJacobite, Rinconsoleao, Rorro, Semako, Shalom Yechiel, Smmurphy, Snoyes, Venny85, WMdeMuynck, Yevgeny Kats, Youandme, 49 anonymous edits De BroglieBohm theory Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=361431514 Contributors: 1ForTheMoney, A.C. Norman, Agger, Alessandro70, Alphatronic, Anders, Andrewpmk, AoS1014, Arjen Dijksman, AshtonBenson, Barbara Shack, Benja, Borat fan, CSTAR, Charles Matthews, Cmdulya, Cojoco, DV8 2XL, Dan Gluck, Dataweaver, Deadly Nut, Dhemm, Dmr2, DomenicDenicola, Dragon's Blood, Duduong, Duendeverde, Dvtausk, ESkog, Ebitnet, Editorius, Edward, Emurphy42, Evand, Extremophile, Eyv, Falcorian, Floorsheim, Freakofnurture, GangofOne, Giftlite, Goethean, Gregbard, GregorB, Holon, Hypnosifl, IRevLinas, Ilja Schmelzer, Iridescent, Itangalo, Jambaugh, Jason Davies, Jefffire, Jfire, Jmundo, John Reaves, Jostylr, KSchutte, Kalonymos, Kevin aylward, Kkchang, Kripkenstein, Kuratowski's Ghost, L0rents, L33tminion, LC, Leafyplant, Lexivore, Likebox, Linas, Loren Rosen, Lumidek, M0rph, MarSch, Michael C Price, Michael Devore, Michael Hardy, Michael Rogers, Mike Peel, Mir Harven, MistySpock, Murf42, Noah Salzman, Nsomnia03, Olleicua, Pfalstad, Phys-demystifier, Plumbago, Pretzelpaws, Quantumobserver, RDBury, RJN, RandomHumanoid, Razimantv, Rednblu, Rich Farmbrough, Rjwilmsi, Roadrunner, RogueNinja, SQL, Scentoni, Scottie 000, Sfwild, SiegeLord, Skewyou, Smithfarm, Stephen B Streater, SuezanneC Baskerville, Sverdrup, Swiftly, The Anome, The Anonymous One, Tim Starling, Timwi, Tjic, Tnorsen, Togo, Tomixdf, Tonymec, Tumulka, Ummonk, Vegaswikian, Venny85, Vgy7ujm, Voorlandt, Vuen, W1k13rh3nry, Waleswatcher, Weierstrass, Were-Bunny, Wireader, WolfmanSF, Yafujifide, ZRPerry, Zicovich, Zoicon5, 189 anonymous edits EPR paradox Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=358449842 Contributors: -- April, .:Ajvol:., 207.171.93.xxx, ASCWiki, Agge1000, Agger, Alan McBeth, Alkivar, Amakuha, AmarChandra, Andejons, Apoc2400, Ark, Arpingstone, AxelBoldt, B4hand, Ballhausflip, Bevo, Bigbluefish, Blauhart, Brews ohare, Brianga, Brrk.3001, Bryan Derksen, CSTAR, CYD, Canadian-Bacon, Carbuncle, Cardmagic, Caroldermoid, Caroline Thompson, Chas zzz brown, Chris 73, Clarityfiend, CobbSalad, Complexica, Cortonin, Craig Pemberton, Crowsnest, DBooth, Darktaco, David R. Ingham, Declare, Dogcow, Dpbsmith, Dr Smith, DrBob, DrChinese, DragonflySixtyseven, Dryke, Dzhim, Dugosz, EdH, Edward, Eequor, Egmontaz, Eiffel, Ejrh, Falcorian, Finlay McWalter, Fredkinfollower, Frish, Fulldecent, Fwappler, GeorgeMoney, Goldfritter, Graham87, GregorB, Gretyl, Hackwrench, Hephaestos, Hirak 99, Houftermann, Hugo Dufort, Hydnjo, IAdem, J-Star, JaGa, JamesMLane, Jan-ke Larsson, Jcajacob, Jinxman1, Jnc, JocK, JohnBlackburne, Jpittelo, Jwrosenzweig, KHamsun, Kapalama, Karada, Karol Langner, KasugaHuang, Keenan Pepper, Kuratowski's Ghost, Larsobrien, Lethe, Lf89, LiDaobing, Linas, Linus M., Looxix, Lumidek, Maher27777, Marek.zukowski, Marie Poise, Mark J, Masudr, Maurice Carbonaro, Mav, Metron4, Michael C Price, Michael Hardy, Moink, MrJones, Msridhar, Naddy, Natevw, NathanHurst, Nickyus, Noca2plus, ObsidianOrder, Owen, Pace212, Paranoid, Pateblen, Peashy, Pekka.virta, Peter Erwin, PeterBFZ, PierreAbbat, Prezbo, Publicly Visible, Pwjb, Prez, RTreacy, Radiofriendlyunitshifta, Rama, Razimantv, Rich Farmbrough, Roadrunner, Robert K S, Robertd, Robertefields, Ronjoseph, Rracecarr, Ryft, SGBailey, Sanders muc, Schneelocke, ScienceApologist, Seb, Shadanan, Shakyshake, Shalom Yechiel, Sidasta, Skierpage, Snoyes, Srleffler, Stain, Steve Quinn, Suisui, Sundar, Syko, Tarotcards, Tempshill, Tercer, Texture, ThomasK, Thrain2, Timwi, Tlabshier, Tsop, Ty8inf, Vasi, Victor Gijsbers, Vodex, Voyajer, WMdeMuynck, Weekwhom, Wik, Wile E. Heresiarch, William M. Connolley, XJamRastafire, Xgrrr, YUL89YYZ, Yill577, Zeycus, Zootm, -, 264 anonymous edits Holographic paradigm Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=344204183 Contributors: Artaxiad, Cgingold, D-rew, Horkana, Innv, JohnCD, Kurtan, Len Raymond, Maxrempel, Pigsonthewing, Rich Farmbrough, Tarotcards, Tassedethe, Wndl42, 42 anonymous edits Holographic principle Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=357123504 Contributors: 2over0, Addps4cat, Al Lemos, Alexnye, Andrw, Armeria, AugPi, Bcrowell, Bender235, Bmdavll, Borat fan, Brianhe, Bryan Derksen, Charvest, Christopher Thomas, Ckatz, Cmcelwain, Conversion script, Crus4d3, Derek Ross, Dougweller, Dr. Salvia, Fcady2007, Flash.starwalker, Foresee, Gpvos, Graeme Bartlett, Gzabers, Headbomb, HorsePunchKid, Hypnosifl, Jfraatz, JocK, Johnfn, Joke137, Jynus, Kermit2, Knotwork, Kungfoofairy, Lambiam, LeYaYa, Leibniz, Len Raymond, Likebox, Ln2069, LoveEncounterFlow, M4gnum0n, Mark Germine, M.D., Maurice Carbonaro, McSly, Mcarling, Mhs5392, Michael C Price, Mindmatrix, Mmortal03, Mpatel, Nat Krause, NerdyNSK, PEiP, Peterdjones, Phil Boswell, PhysPhD, Pink18, Pjacobi, Pohta ce-am pohtit, Potatoswatter, Prari, Reddi, Richard1968, Rjwilmsi, Robma, Scentoni, ScienceApologist, Sheliak, Simonm223, Sligocki, Stevertigo, StradivariusTV, Sverdrup, Systemizer, Tassedethe, Tdent, The Anome, TimBentley, Timo Honkasalo, Togo, Tromer, UncleDouggie, Utopos, Verbal, Vicki Rosenzweig, Vyznev Xnebara, Wndl42, Xaven, 105 anonymous edits Holomovement Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=357670681 Contributors: Ahalani, Colonies Chris, Kitten b, Leshughb, MBisanz, Misarxist, RHaworth, Sfwild, Skysmith, Tassedethe, Timrollpickering, Wingedsubmariner, Wod observer, 10 anonymous edits Holonomic brain theory Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=358711142 Contributors: 1ForTheMoney, A Ramachandran, Aaron Brenneman, Algebraist, Antaeus Feldspar, Arkansas001, Ask123, Badguy21, Blainster, Bookandcoffee, Catalyst2007, Cgingold, Crzrussian, DannyDaWriter, FT2, GangofOne, Gary D, Goethean, GraemeL, Grafen, Helvetius, Holon, Jammus, Johnbod, KYPark, Karada, Looie496, Lordvolton, Loxley, Mattisse, Mccready, Midgley, Mramz88, Natalya, Ombudsman, Phoenix-forgotten, Pnrj, RichardF, Scott5834, Srleffler, The Anome, Three887, TimBentley, Travis.Thurston, USAjp22, Valarians, Whatever404, Woohookitty, Zazaban, , 25 anonymous edits Implicate and Explicate Order Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=326124478 Contributors: Alloranleon, ArnoldReinhold, Banno, Belovedfreak, Blainster, Bwhack, Cgingold, Charles Matthews, Ciprianman, Commander Keane, DO'Neil, DerEikopf, Dispenser, Draicone, Dreadstar, Eaefremov, Eep, Esowteric, Falcorian, Floorsheim, Goethean, Holon, Howcheng, Igiffin, J. Finkelstein, J04n, JLaTondre, Jeff3000, Josh Parris, KYPark, Kh7, Lisatwo, Macmelvino, MarekTT, Matthew Yeager, Mayagaia, Mbell, Michael Hardy, Midgley, Mitar, Mysdaao, Nealparr, Nonphixion, Philippe, Popsracer, R Lee E, RichardF, Robofish, Rosenkreuz, Sfwild, Stevertigo, Sundar, Tassedethe, The Anome, The wub, ThePeg, Togo, Unfree, 29 anonymous edits Implicate order Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=326124435 Contributors: Alloranleon, ArnoldReinhold, Banno, Belovedfreak, Blainster, Bwhack, Cgingold, Charles Matthews, Ciprianman, Commander Keane, DO'Neil, DerEikopf, Dispenser, Draicone, Dreadstar, Eaefremov, Eep, Esowteric, Falcorian, Floorsheim, Goethean, Holon, Howcheng, Igiffin, J. Finkelstein, J04n, JLaTondre, Jeff3000, Josh Parris, KYPark, Kh7, Lisatwo, Macmelvino, MarekTT, Matthew Yeager, Mayagaia, Mbell, Michael Hardy, Midgley, Mitar, Mysdaao, Nealparr, Nonphixion, Philippe, Popsracer, R Lee E, RichardF, Robofish, Rosenkreuz, Sfwild, Stevertigo, Sundar, Tassedethe, The Anome, The wub, ThePeg, Togo, Unfree, 29 anonymous edits

Article Sources and Contributors

Membrane paradigm Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=321366194 Contributors: Alai, Bm gub, Damacdonald, Drbreznjev, ErkDemon, Gaius Cornelius, Kasparov, Ken Arromdee, Len Raymond, Loren Rosen, Michael C Price, Paul August, Phys, Roadrunner, SDC, SimonP, Thehotelambush, 6 anonymous edits Orch- OR Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=360158729 Contributors: AugustinMa, Bardon Dornal, Bboyneko, BenRG, Bigmantonyd, Brookie, C S, Ciphergoth, Clicketyclack, Cmallett, DV8 2XL, Danko Georgiev MD, Deathphoenix, Deglr6328, Delta G, El C, Euphrosyne, Full Shunyata, Gary D, Gene Nygaard, Gil987, Giraffedata, HEL, Hameroff, Hhmaung, Iridescent, Jacobolus, Jefffire, Jkasd, JonathanD, Kablamo2007, Karch, MCB, Maury Markowitz, Mbell, Mgiganteus1, Michael Hardy, Nagualdesign, Night Gyr, OlgaMats, Patrickwilken, Pennarin, Persephone19, Peterdjones, Pollinosisss, QueenAdelaide, ReluctantPhilosopher, Rich Farmbrough, Rickybuchanan, Robma, Sperxios, Tarcieri, The Anome, Three887, Tijmz, Tim Shuba, Ufoolme, Vald, Weirdy, WereSpielChequers, Wingedsubmariner, 57 anonymous edits Debye sheath Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=331805750 Contributors: Alai, Art Carlson, Frank101, Iantresman, Jaganath, Linas, Stannered, 16 anonymous edits John Stewart Bell Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=357224211 Contributors: A-Ge0, A5b, AGK, Alansohn, Angela, Ardfern, Bkalafut, Blainster, Blutfink, Brownshoes, CRKingston, Caroline Thompson, ChKa, Charles Matthews, Cmdrjameson, D6, Dammit, Deathphoenix, Dhemm, Diberri, Drewarrowood, Dvtausk, EugeneZelenko, Evidentialist, Fasach Nua, Georgia guy, Gershwinrb, Harald88, Interintel, Ipatrol, Jaraalbe, John, Jpgordon, Kalki, Keithbowden, Kevin Forsyth, KingTT, Lethe, Looxix, Lumidek, Marasmusine, Marek.zukowski, MartinRobinson, Masterpiece2000, Mayumashu, Mbahrami, Miaers, MisterSheik, Mukkakukaku, Nfr-Maat, Notjim, Paul Silverman, Rl, SJLPP, Sanders muc, Sannse, Stepa, The Fashion Icon, TheParanoidOne, Thejerm, Timrollpickering, Tuesdaily, Waltpohl, Wikiliki, XJamRastafire, 59 anonymous edits Karl H. Pribram Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=361425443 Contributors: 6birc, A314268, Allen3, Antaeus Feldspar, Bomac, Cgingold, Cuchullain, D6, DMG413, Denny, FT2, Gamahucheur, Gareth Jones, Gary D, Goethean, Hu, Iaai 99, J'raxis, Johnpacklambert, Jonegan, KrakatoaKatie, LMBM2012, Lotte Monz, M.Ajnhorn, MarcAurel, Midgley, Mike Dillon, Mpulier, Nanouk, Nv8200p, Olessi, Ombudsman, Pedrovitorh2, Persephone19, PeterStJohn, RogDel, Rsabbatini, SCEhardt, Sadi Carnot, Siddhi.powers, Suidafrikaan, Tassedethe, Verbum Veritas, Viriditas, WhatamIdoing, Xmarquez, Zahd, 29 anonymous edits Implicate and explicate order according to David Bohm Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=349663213 Contributors: Alloranleon, ArnoldReinhold, Banno, Belovedfreak, Blainster, Bwhack, Cgingold, Charles Matthews, Ciprianman, Commander Keane, DO'Neil, DerEikopf, Dispenser, Draicone, Dreadstar, Eaefremov, Eep, Esowteric, Falcorian, Floorsheim, Goethean, Holon, Howcheng, Igiffin, J. Finkelstein, J04n, JLaTondre, Jeff3000, Josh Parris, KYPark, Kh7, Lisatwo, Macmelvino, MarekTT, Matthew Yeager, Mayagaia, Mbell, Michael Hardy, Midgley, Mitar, Mysdaao, Nealparr, Nonphixion, Philippe, Popsracer, R Lee E, RichardF, Robofish, Rosenkreuz, Sfwild, Stevertigo, Sundar, Tassedethe, The Anome, The wub, ThePeg, Togo, Unfree, 29 anonymous edits Hidden variable theory Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=358050867 Contributors: Agge1000, Antonielly, Arensb, BeatePaland, Benhocking, Blainster, Bubbleboys, CannibalSmith, Cardmagic, Caroline Thompson, Charles Matthews, Chetvorno, Chippy87, Christopher Cooper, Ciphers, ConradPino, Count Iblis, DJIndica, Deadly Nut, Deathphoenix, Diego Moya, Dragon's Blood, Dvtausk, Elsweyn, Falcorian, Fastily, Felixaldonso, Foober, Freakofnurture, Fulldecent, GaeusOctavius, Goethean, Guettarda, Hornplease, Hwasungmars, Inquam, Iridescent, Jim E. Black, Keithbowden, Lethe, Linas, Lumidek, Mckaysalisbury, Michael C Price, Michael Hardy, Orangedolphin, PChalmer, Peterdjones, Plumbago, Roadrunner, Ryan Cable, Sheliak, Shoecream, Smithfarm, StuRat, Tarotcards, The wub, Thecurran91, Trevor mendham, Vnvnfls, Vyznev Xnebara, Whitepaw, Wildspell, Zeeber78, Zoz, , 51 anonymous edits Local hidden variable theory Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=361286376 Contributors: Agge1000, Antonielly, Asterion, Brighterorange, Caroline Thompson, Charles Matthews, DrChinese, Filemon, Fuhghettaboutit, Gazpacho, GregorB, Headbomb, Keithbowden, Linas, Mlessard, Orangedolphin, Pavel Vozenilek, Pfalstad, Pilgrims tale, Plumbago, Reinderien, Richard75, Roadrunner, Shminux, Sophroniscus, Tothebarricades.tk, WMdeMuynck, Whitepaw, Zahd, 35 anonymous edits Bell's theorem Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=360942204 Contributors: A. di M., AC+79 3888, AdamSiska, Agge1000, Aldux, AmarChandra, Anakin101, Andrewthomas10, Android Mouse, Antonielly, Aranel, ArnoldReinhold, Ashmoo, Avb, B9 hummingbird hovering, Ballhausflip, Barticus88, Baxxterr, BeatePaland, Bender235, BeteNoir, Bo Jacoby, BobKawanaka, Bobo192, Bongwarrior, Bryan Derksen, Byrgenwulf, CSTAR, CYD, Cacycle, Calvero JP, Caroline Thompson, Catchanil, Cgingold, Chalst, Charles Matthews, Christopher Cooper, Complexica, Count Iblis, Cremepuff222, Crocodealer, Curious1i, Dauto, Dave Runger, Deathphoenix, Deniz195, Dfrg.msc, Dirac66, Dmr2, DomenicDenicola, DrChinese, Drilnoth, Drmies, EcoMan, EdC, Eequor, Egg, Endlessmike 888, Fastily, Franl, Frish, Fulldecent, Fwappler, GangofOne, Gene Nygaard, Geremia, Giftlite, Gmusser, Gregbard, GregorB, Grok42, Gsjaeger, Guy Harris, Gzornenplatz, HaeB, Hairy Dude, Harald88, Headbomb, Hmonroe, IWillNeverLearn, Informatorium, Interintel, Isaacdealey, Jcobb, Jim E. Black, Jim.belk, Jpittelo, Jwpitts, KHamsun, Keenan Pepper, Keithbowden, Kingmundi, Kmmertes, KnowledgeOfSelf, Konstable, Kyrisch, LC, Laudaka, Leobold1, Lethe, Likebox, Linas, Lumidek, Lycurgus, Malcohol, Maniatis, Marek.zukowski, MathKnight, Maxw41, Michael C Price, Michael Hardy, Mike2vil, Mister fu-ck you, MisterSheik, Mmyotis, Monslucis, Nihil, Oakwood, Oleg Alexandrov, Olek Bijok, Orangedolphin, Ott2, Paddu, Patrick0Moran, Paul August, Paulginz, Petri Krohn, Physicskev, Physis, Pjacobi, Plrk, Pokipsy76, RJFJR, RK, Rich Farmbrough, Richard75, Richwil, Rickard Vogelberg, Rl, Roadrunner, Robert1947, Rodasmith, Roke, Rror, Ryanmcdaniel, SJLPP, Salsb, Seth Bresnett, Simetrical, StevenJohnston, Stevertigo, Stirling Newberry, Suffusion of Yellow, Susvolans, Tethys sea, Tothebarricades.tk, Tox, TriTertButoxy, Ueit, Ulrich Utiger, Vessels42, WMdeMuynck, Waleswatcher, Wfku, Wwoods, Ybband, Yecril, Zeycus, Zvis, 214 anonymous edits Bell test experiments Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=360743504 Contributors: 1pezguy, A.Ou, Agge1000, CSTAR, Cactus.man, Caroline Thompson, Christopherjfoster, Cmdrjameson, DFrankstein, DJIndica, DaveMudstain, Deathphoenix, Deviant Paleoart, Download, DrBob, DrChinese, Dreish, Giftlite, Gill110951, Glenn, Harald88, Headbomb, Hmonroe, J S Lundeen, Jan-ke Larsson, Jaraalbe, Joel7687, Julesd, KDesk, Linas, Matthew Mattic, Maxw41, Mhims, Nwbeeson, PaddyLeahy, Pjacobi, RayTomes, Rich Farmbrough, Richardbrucebaxter, Sheliak, Snowdog, Venny85, Wikiliki, Ybband, 37 anonymous edits Hidden variables Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=251546317 Contributors: Antonielly, Diego Moya, Discospinster, Skomorokh, 1 anonymous edits

135

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

136

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

Image:David Bohm.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:David_Bohm.jpg License: Attribution Contributors: Original uploader was Karol Langner at en.wikipedia Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: User:Zscout370 Image:aharonov-bohm.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Aharonov-bohm.png License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Original uploader was Stevenj at en.wikipedia Image:doppelspalt.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Doppelspalt.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: AnonMoos, Glenn, Opasson Image:EPR-paradox-illus.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:EPR-paradox-illus.png License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Original uploader was CSTAR at en.wikipedia Image:Hydrogen.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Hydrogen.svg License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Mets501, Mion, Soeb, Treisijs, Xxxx00, 5 anonymous edits Image:Holography-reconstruct.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Holography-reconstruct.png License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Original uploader was DrBob at en.wikipedia Image:Human brain NIH.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Human_brain_NIH.jpg License: unknown Contributors: OldakQuill, StuRat, Talgraf777, Ysangkok, 1 anonymous edits Image:Epithelial-cells.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Epithelial-cells.jpg License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Dbc334, Duesentrieb, GeorgHH, Helix84, JWSchmidt, Martin H., ViperSnake151, 2 anonymous edits Image:Common clownfish.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Common_clownfish.jpg License: unknown Contributors: User:Janderk Image:plasma-sheath.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Plasma-sheath.svg License: Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Contributors: User:Stannered Image:John Stewart Bell's Blue plaque.JPG Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:John_Stewart_Bell's_Blue_plaque.JPG License: Public Domain Contributors: Original uploader was Fasach Nua at en.wikipedia Image:Pribram Tucson2.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pribram_Tucson2.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: User:Zereshk Image:StraightLines.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:StraightLines.png License: Public Domain Contributors: Brighterorange, Caroline Thompson, Mike Rosoft, Nv8200p, RedWolf, Stannered Image:MalusQC.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:MalusQC.png License: unknown Contributors: Original uploader was Caroline Thompson at en.wikipedia Image:Bells-thm.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bells-thm.png License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Bdesham, It Is Me Here, Joshbaumgartner, Karelj, Maksim, Mdd, Pieter Kuiper, Tano4595 Image:Bell-test-photon-analyer.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bell-test-photon-analyer.png License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Chetvorno, Glenn, Joshbaumgartner, Karelj, Maksim, Mdd File:Two channel.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Two_channel.png License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Maksim File:Single-channel Bell test.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Single-channel_Bell_test.png License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Caroline Thompson, RedWolf

License

137

License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported http:/ / creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by-sa/ 3. 0/