Is David Bohm's version of quantum theory not reasonable?

Dear Fred, you wrote:

"Our book presents a version of the 2-slit experiment emphasizing that the experimental observations themselves (without reference to quantum theory) conflict with any reasonable view of physical reality. Any reasonable view? Well, decide for yourself."
http://quantumenigma.com/71/

At least for particles with rest mass, Bohm's quantum potential provides a complete understanding of all double slit experiments one electron or neutron etc. at a time. There are classical continuous trajectories with nonlocal influences from the quantum potential Q. As long as the initial conditions obey the Born probability rule, that rule is conserved and all ensemble measurements agree with the standard statistical predictions of orthodox quantum theory - independent of the informal language interpretation.

Photons needing the super-quantum potential perhaps more troublesome?

I don't see any discussion of consciousness here.


On Sep 18, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Fred Kuttner wrote:

Go to our website www.quantumenigma.com, click on "In a Nutshell," then click on the link "here" after the third paragraph.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: JACK SARFATTI Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:24:34 To: Frederick H Kuttner

Subject: Re: [1009.2404] Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)

Can you summarize your point here now?

On Sep 18, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Frederick H Kuttner wrote:

Nick et al,

Interesting discussion.  However, there is an experiment that connects consciousness and quantum mechanics, but not in the manner that you and the others are discussing - that is the two-slit experiment.  The manner of the connection is discussed in detail in our book (Quantum Enigma), but most physicists seem to miss our point and think we are talking about the connection you all are discussing.  We will try to make this point clearer in the second edition, out next year.

Cheers,

Fred

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:49:59 -0700
nick herbert wrote:
Hi Danko--
The conventional wisdom asserts that
all the various quantum realities
are non-testable--each gives
the same experimental result.
This may or may not be true
as imaginative experiments
of the type you are looking
for might show.
For a time I thought that the
Bedford & Wang thought experiment
(a crude variation on your own proposal)
might do the trick (see Consciousness Post)
but after much thought and discussion
with other reality fans I concluded that
Ordinary quantum calculations showed
that no test for conscious collapse was possible
with the B&W setup and its variants.
Successful variants of your experiment might exist,
Someone on this list might be inspired to think of one.
Your physical setup is a very clever variation on the double-slit
experiment with "which-path" observations cleverly and naturally  built-in.
And more important, it is a real experiment that can easily be done.
One sad fact about the quantum/consciousness connection is that
(like the quantum/gravity connection) despite tons of groundless
speculation and opinion (see the work of Fred Allen Wolf)
there exists not a single experiment that successfully connects  consciousness
with quantum mechanics. (pace Rosenblum & Kuttner and Dean Radin).  Perhaps
this situation will change for the better due to discussions  triggered by your recent paper.
Good luck in your work
Nick Herbert
On Sep 18, 2010, at 4:59 AM, Danko Nikolic wrote:


My criticism is that you choose a system such that quantum  mechanics predicts no interference no matter
what you do to the entangled photons, even including leaving them  forever unobserved, so that your
consciousness postulate is sure to be falsified.



Yes, but is there another system for which this does not hold? Can  one make it different such that the hypothesis is not sure to be  falsified? We could not think of another experimental setup that  would not produce the same outcome.

I had discussions with several experimental quantum physicists from  Vienna--hoping to design and conduct an experiment. We could not  think of a setup. If we could, we would have probably already ran it.

So, perhaps our point is that an experiment of your likings (and  ours), to the best of our knowledge, CANNOT BE DESIGNED.

If someone can be more creative and prove us wrong, great! Let us  go then and run the experiment. I would gladly be a part of it.

With best regards,

Danko Nikolic