Okay, ionized water ....

 

So this is mostly about questions, not so much about answers.  For many,

it could be a " real " turn off, because it's mostly about contrasting

Bohmian and Bohrian, perspectives on ionized water.  

It is important to note, that ,neither Bohmian or Bohrian are

likely "proper" words.  

For some reason , I am pretty sure that we know about water in other

regions of our solar systems, and perhaps even beyond that.

Regardless, when we picture ionized water, that picture is

mostly about , a WHOLE, hydrogen atom separated from

another hydrogen atom is some spatial way.  Now, of course a lot

of this get's a bit  " smeared about " by the so called 

reality of all this occurring in a Hilbert space. 

Moving on, from  there, in a more Bohmian point of view.

This visualization is more of  " real wave forms ", which are

determining the locations of stuff we call atoms and of

course there   constitutes, mostly like pinballs.  But to the

best of my understanding this is still taking place in 

the same " kind " of Hilbert space. 

Of course, this is just a supposition, with the pretty

clear understanding that Bohr's visualization of

atomic and molecular processes, has had amazing

success for many decades, I am pretty sure it only

vaguely represents the processes going on at the

levels of that a probably difficult or impossible to

really visualize effectively.  

So as far as questions go, one big question is

what are the advantages of one or the other of

these modes and methods of modeling of what

we imagine to be going on?    

I guess, at the end of the day, the big question

is, how do we model processes, in a world in

which we are " creating ", ===  > exotic <====

forms of matter, which you could also call,

what-sha-my-call-its.   

Then there is the issue of where are these wave forms

 starting out from, which I guess is generally thought

of as a singularity.  

So, then,  I guess the point it, no point.