credibility of Bohm Interpretation

[gib65]

I've just read the Bohm Interpretation of QM on wikipedia. How commonly is this interpretation accepted by the scientific community? What exactly is wrong with it?

[gib65]

Well, since I haven't gotten any responses yet, I try elaborating on it a bit.

 

Basically, what the Bohm Interpretation says (or, at least, what I got out of the wikipedia article) is that particles exist and behave in the classical sense. That is, they are tiny points that move around, bounce off things, have definite positions, velocities, momentum, etc. and they come with a wave which is distinct from the particle itself. Bohm explains the results of the double slit experiment as the effects of the wave alone, not the particle.

 

The advantage of this view, IMO, is that is preserves a deterministic view of the universe, which I find intellectually comforting. I'd prefer a deterministic view over a non-deterministic one any day (so long as the deterministic view is fully consistent).

 

What I'm wondering is, do I have the right to believe in this view - or do grave mistakes underlie it. For example, does the phenomenon of quantum entanglement challenge this view?

[Royston]

I'd like to know the answer to this as well, I've read a bit of Bohm...but more the philosophical side but it did touch on the Bohm interpretation of the atom...AFAIK there's a problem with hidden variables.

 

BTW gib65, did anyone tell you, you bare an uncanny resemblance to Jeff Goldblum

[gib65]

BTW gib65, did anyone tell you, you bare an uncanny resemblance to Jeff Goldblum

 

Yes - in fact, Bascule did, right here.