06-09-2016, 05:40 PM

I didn't realize the situation with fermions was so uncertain.

Right-handed neutrinos: as theory, I don't think this is a big stumbling block. Everybody wants the existence of right-handed neutrinos, since neutrinos have been shown to have mass. In the standard model, for Higgs to give mass to neutrinos requires right-handed neutrinos of one sort or another. It may be a problem for your theory but it's also a problem for everyone else. You can calmly wait until they solve it somehow.

Practically however it helps illustrate that relativistic fermions are a problem for dBB. After all fermions are the most common, best understood of particles. If you require speculative right-handed neutrinos, just to explain a simple electron moving fast, it's not encouraging.

Then there's this "emergency exit". In that "solution" we simply give up on fermions as beables. In QED the only way we know about them is their interaction with bosons, photons. So we ignore fermions as such but explain how photon field is affected by them; and, photon field is all we can observe anyway; so, good enough.

Maybe it works but it's not very satisfactory.

It's surprising LM (or other dBB opponents) don't bang on this question more. Perhaps it's because they don't understand it. In that case your publicizing it argues well for the honesty of yourself and dBB'ers in general. You're not interested in "winning" but getting at the truth. If there's a problem you want it well-known, so everyone can help solve it. If someone can prove it kills dBB - fine, if that's the truth let's hear it! This is the scientific attitude in a nut-shell and I wish everyone would follow your example.

As far as I know your fermion theory works well enough to cover this base, given the current incomplete state of the Standard Model (due to massive neutrinos). They won't object to your right-handed neutrinos since they need them also.

However - intuition tells me this relativistic-fermion problem may point to a really fundamental issue. Perhaps the problem is NOT with dBB, but with relativity! dBB already says that Lorentz invariance can't be maintained forever. Sure it's true at the levels we've tested so far but (according to Bohm) at the very fundamental level beyond our current ability to test, it breaks down.

Maybe dBB isn't too comfortable with relativistic fermions because they don't actually exist! They're only an approximation of the truth, because relativity is not correct, fundamentally. Maybe dBB is revealing this to us. Assuming it's the correct theory (the point of view you take for this work), when you try to force it to accept completely relativistic fermions it tells you: no, those are logically inconsistent.

In that case the correct approach would be to develop a fermion theory which only approximates relativistic requirements at the level we can experiment on at this time.

Does that seem like a possibility?

Right-handed neutrinos: as theory, I don't think this is a big stumbling block. Everybody wants the existence of right-handed neutrinos, since neutrinos have been shown to have mass. In the standard model, for Higgs to give mass to neutrinos requires right-handed neutrinos of one sort or another. It may be a problem for your theory but it's also a problem for everyone else. You can calmly wait until they solve it somehow.

Practically however it helps illustrate that relativistic fermions are a problem for dBB. After all fermions are the most common, best understood of particles. If you require speculative right-handed neutrinos, just to explain a simple electron moving fast, it's not encouraging.

Then there's this "emergency exit". In that "solution" we simply give up on fermions as beables. In QED the only way we know about them is their interaction with bosons, photons. So we ignore fermions as such but explain how photon field is affected by them; and, photon field is all we can observe anyway; so, good enough.

Maybe it works but it's not very satisfactory.

It's surprising LM (or other dBB opponents) don't bang on this question more. Perhaps it's because they don't understand it. In that case your publicizing it argues well for the honesty of yourself and dBB'ers in general. You're not interested in "winning" but getting at the truth. If there's a problem you want it well-known, so everyone can help solve it. If someone can prove it kills dBB - fine, if that's the truth let's hear it! This is the scientific attitude in a nut-shell and I wish everyone would follow your example.

As far as I know your fermion theory works well enough to cover this base, given the current incomplete state of the Standard Model (due to massive neutrinos). They won't object to your right-handed neutrinos since they need them also.

However - intuition tells me this relativistic-fermion problem may point to a really fundamental issue. Perhaps the problem is NOT with dBB, but with relativity! dBB already says that Lorentz invariance can't be maintained forever. Sure it's true at the levels we've tested so far but (according to Bohm) at the very fundamental level beyond our current ability to test, it breaks down.

Maybe dBB isn't too comfortable with relativistic fermions because they don't actually exist! They're only an approximation of the truth, because relativity is not correct, fundamentally. Maybe dBB is revealing this to us. Assuming it's the correct theory (the point of view you take for this work), when you try to force it to accept completely relativistic fermions it tells you: no, those are logically inconsistent.

In that case the correct approach would be to develop a fermion theory which only approximates relativistic requirements at the level we can experiment on at this time.

Does that seem like a possibility?