Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Don" <g@crcomp.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: energy and mass
Followup-To: sci.physics.relativity,sci.electronics.design
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2026 14:16:09 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <20260220a@crcomp.net>
References: <8e7kokl9hospneh83uskr9otk6kquvvfn8@4ax.com> <ge71pklst2hephhvn9bpouvie5gdfe8uh2@4ax.com> <mvio4eFnibhU2@mid.individual.net> <1rqo9bg.1jthd381logljiN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <cBCdneuQ5tvDOAn0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> <10n29k4$u45b$2@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> <IficnScbNpDIKAn0nZ2dnZfqnPoAAAAA@giganews.com> <10n3fi3$2au15$4@dont-email.me> <UcWdnaXLjrlZkAv0nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <PK6cnc_RmuHDkgv0nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> <45v1UsiQ036Ym7KDnlByfnlxpEI@jntp> <B7WdnYXwlqlRuAv0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> <ogudnVUPw_ONugv0nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> <P8adnbfdbt4ougv0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> <10n6nb4$3cmt7$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2026 14:16:11 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8264c0585ebd3284b7acd103fae84c0e"; logging-data="486845"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19gbTdJaLpN0w//VTiS++8p"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:r97Uci+boqtz0BFF1KrH1xcckH4=
Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:668936 sci.electronics.design:740709

Bill Sloman wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>> <snipped most of the pretentious rubbish>
>>
>>> If quantum mechanics is never wrong:
>>> if it's not a continuum mechanics
>>> you're doing it wrong.
>>
>> The whole point about quantised effects is that they aren't continuous.
> 
> Have you have of "deBroglie-Bohm"? Basically their ideas
> (or, mostly Bohm) about "real wave collapse" about the usual
> quantum formalism the Heisenberg-Scroedinger piucture: make
> for a different than the usual Copenhagen interpretation of
> quantum mechanics ("It's..., random") that it's not random
> and it's not discontinuous, instead since continuum mechanics.
> 
> Often enough that was called "hidden variables", then the word
> "hidden variables" was publicly shamed, so these times sometimes
> it's called "supplementary variables", though, people who stuck
> by their own idea of why nature's perfection would demand a
> continuum mechanics still have it often enough "hidden variables"
> to reflect on Bohm's origins of the ideas and not give it to
> the old-wrapped-as-new sort who didn't have to stand up for anything.

Bohr's self-serving Solvay shaming was situationally swept into the ash
heap of history:

    Truth by fiat
    the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
   
    Authors

    Álvaro Balsas Universidade Católica Portuguesa (UCP)
    A. LUCIANO L. VIDEIRA Universidade de Évora
    
    ... [A simplistic version] according to which all the 
    foundational points of QM had been adequately and
    definitely addressed by Bohr at the V Congress of 
    Solvay - does not fit together with what effectively
    happened there. As a matter of fact, three of its 
    most prominent participants - Einstein, Schrödinger
    and de Broglie - remained forever utterly convinced 
    that the outlook proposed by Bohr was wide off the 
    mark of presenting an adequate (and much less 
    definitive) representation of quantum
    phenomena: Einstein never accepted the completeness 
    of the formulation coming out from the Copenhagen-
    Göttingen axis, and, eight years later, would fire
    off an attack, known as the EPR argument, which, 
    notwithstanding Bohr's prompt attempts to 
    neutralize it, continues to be argued and commented
    about ever since: Schrödinger maintained his 
    unwavering belief in a realistic interpretation of 
    his wave-mechanics; de Broglie, after the 1927
    Congress of Solvay has abandoned his pilote-wave
    theory (a simplified version of his early theory of 
    the double solution) converted himself to Bohr's
    views; however, he went back to his theory of the 
    double solution once David Bohm gave it quite a
    positive boost with his two introductory articles 
    on hidden variables.
    
    (excerpt)

    <https://rbhciencia.emnuvens.com.br/revista/article/view/253>

-- 
73, Don, KB7RPU                                           veritas    _|_
                                                          liberabit   |
https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu                                vos         |