Is Bohmian mechanics true?

In summary: Consequently, the theory is not free from the difficulties that have dogged quantum mechanics from the beginning. However, there is a growing realization that these difficulties may not be insurmountable and that Bohm's theory may in fact be true.
  • #1
eljose79
1,518
1
in fact i think bell,s theorem says no, but i do not know if there are another thing that would allow it to be true..is bohmian mechanics true?...if not why people continues working on it...?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Bell's conjecture, and the experiments beginning with Aspect's that confirmed it, ruled out a broad class of hidden variable theories, but not Bohm's. I believe I am correct to say that all the attempts to refute Bohm have been successfully countered by Bohm partisans. I personally do not think Bohm's theory is true but there are a few, a very few, genuine physicists who do.
 
  • #3
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Bell's conjecture, and the experiments beginning with Aspect's that confirmed it, ruled out a broad class of hidden variable theories, but not Bohm's.

Bohmian QM isn't actually a hidden variables theory. In particular, particles have well-defined position and momentum, but are profoundly effected by a "pilot wave" that always accompanies them.

In fact the predictions of BQM agree with those of ordinary QM in it's domain of applicability. In this sense, BQM is just a reformulation of QM and it's an accident of history that QM wasn't first advanced in this "debrogliesque" form. From this point of view, it shouldn't surprise that whatever claims made by supporters of BQM to ontological superiority over the conventional formulation, BQM offers nothing more than a quid pro quo. For example, the pilot wave is governed by a sourceless differential equation. So - ontologically speaking - where does the pilot wave come from, god?

Historically, the main reason for the lack of interest in BQM is that although it can be lorentz-invariantly extended to the relativistic domain, there's are no spacetime covariant way to do so because it relies on a canonical formulation which requires the selection of a distinguished time variable.
 

1. What is Bohmian mechanics?

Bohmian mechanics, also known as de Broglie–Bohm theory, is a theory of quantum phenomena that offers an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics. It was proposed by physicist David Bohm in 1952 and is based on the idea that particles have definite positions and trajectories, even at the quantum level.

2. How does Bohmian mechanics differ from other interpretations of quantum mechanics?

Bohmian mechanics is different from other interpretations, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, because it does not involve wavefunction collapse or the idea of measurement. Instead, it posits that particles have definite positions and trajectories at all times, and that the wavefunction simply guides the motion of these particles.

3. Is Bohmian mechanics a widely accepted theory?

No, Bohmian mechanics is not a widely accepted theory in the scientific community. While it has gained some popularity in recent years, it is still considered a minority interpretation of quantum mechanics and is not widely taught or used in research.

4. What evidence supports or contradicts the validity of Bohmian mechanics?

There is currently no consensus on the validity of Bohmian mechanics. Some proponents of the theory point to its ability to reproduce the same results as traditional quantum mechanics in many cases, while others argue that it is not supported by experimental evidence and is too complex to be a viable alternative to other interpretations.

5. Can Bohmian mechanics be tested or proven to be true?

No, like all interpretations of quantum mechanics, Bohmian mechanics cannot be proven to be true. It is a mathematical framework for understanding quantum phenomena and, as such, cannot be directly tested. However, experiments can be designed to test the predictions of Bohmian mechanics and compare them to other interpretations.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
11
Replies
370
Views
9K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
29
Views
966
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
4
Views
952
  • General Discussion
6
Replies
190
Views
9K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
109
Views
8K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
11
Views
193
Back
Top