3 ms·
I am not a physicist. With that disclaimer. Back in the 1990s I was excited after stumbling on some article on Bohm. Sure, the math was beyond me but determi
by nobodyandproud 6y ago
I am not a physicist.
With that disclaimer.
Back in the 1990s I was excited after stumbling on some article on Bohm. Sure, the math was beyond me but determinism wasn’t actually ruled out!
Sharing this on various forums was met with outright hostility. The usual schlock like Bell’s Inequality “proving” that hidden variable theories are impossible, etc.
Bohm was definitely not well known outside of experts back then.
Things hav improved in the last decade, but I wonder how far we’ve setback physics by being so dismissive?
i.e., the failure of the scientific method is us.
- ajkjk 6y agoThe problem with Bohmian mechanics (which is widely known and taught for like one lecture in undergraduate degrees) is not that it is violates the Bell Inequalities -- it doesn't, as they only forbid local hidden variables and this is a global one, iirc -- it's that it adds an additional layer of complexity for no benefit except to ease the conscience of people who can't accept entanglement, without making any calculations any easier. Occam's razor says to not give it the time of day. Wikipedia also tells me it's hard to make relativistic; I don't know anything about that but it sounds plausible.
- nobodyandproud 6y agoI’m glad it’s taught now. But 25 to 30 years ago it was not common knowledge to the average undergrad. The first entry on Bohmian Mechanics in Plato is from 2001, for example. Aside from that I think the primary value of BM is as a proof of concept: Non-local, hidden-variable interpretations can work. As for the hurdles I feel we’ve only scratched the surface; so few physicists ever considered this avenue until relatively recently.