Even as a physicist who studied Bohm's work long ago the paper is very unclear. It's quite possible they've done something remarkable, but the argument is sket

Even as a physicist who studied Bohm's work long ago the paper is very unclear. It's quite possible they've done something remarkable, but the argument is sketched out in extremely high level terms (which is entirely appropriate for Physics Letters B). One big question that pops to mind is: since Bohmian trajectories live in R^3N where N is the number of particles, how does one go about "replacing geodesics" with them? They would seem to be animals of a completely different kind, and the transformed theory would therefore involve much more than simple "replacement".