determinism in the Bohm interpretation of QM

[gib65]

Is anyone familiar with the Bohm Interpretation of quantum mechanics. It's the interpretation that says particles don't exhibit wave-like properties at all, that they remain point-like all along, but that there is a "pilot wave" that accompanies and guides their position and trajectory.

 

According to the wikipedia article, the Bohm Interpretation is deterministic - presumably because the pilot wave determines exactly the position where the particle will be found. But this seems to be somewhat of a vacuous claim. It doesn't exactly elaborate on how the pilot wave determines where the particle will be found, and thus no predictions can be made. Insofar as measuring the particle's position is concerned, the Bohm Interpretation offers no more power of prediction than the Copenhagen or any other interpretation. So why, all of a sudden, are we abandoning the idea of randomness for determinism just because there is a pilot wave distinct from the actual particle?

[Reaper]

So why, all of a sudden, are we abandoning the idea of randomness for determinism just because there is a pilot wave distinct from the actual particle?

 

Well, first of all, non-deterministic does not necessarily mean random. Third, we have experiment upon experiment confirming that particles do exhibit wave-particle duality. The double-slit experiment and the photoelectric effect are some examples.

 

<edit> wasn't wearing my glasses, thought it said was Bohr, not Bohm. I read the wiki article and it does not say that particles have no wave-particle duality characteristics. Also, look at the criticisms against the Bohm interpretation as listed on wikipedia.

[gib65]

I read the wiki article and it does not say that particles have no wave-particle duality characteristics. Also, look at the criticisms against the Bohm interpretation as listed on wikipedia.

 

Thus' date=' in this theory all fundamental entities, such as electrons, are [i']point-like particles that occupy precisely defined regions of space at all times.[/i] When one performs a double-slit experiment (see wave-particle duality), one is concerned with noting the positions on a screen at which electrons arrive individually, one at a time. Over time, the positions at which the electrons are detected build up a pattern characteristic of wave interference. The usual Copenhagen interpretation is puzzling in that a single entity, the electron, is said to exhibit characteristics of both particle and wave. The Bohm interpretation accounts for the same phenomena by saying that both a particle and a wave do exist. The particle aspect is present because each electron traverses one slit or another, but never both. The wave aspect is present because the electron's pilot wave traverses both slits.

 

The italicized texts (mine) are what lead me to take the Bohm interpretation as dismissing wave/particle duality.

 

But that's beside the point. I'm just wondering where Bohm (or whoever suggested it) gets off saying they've done away with non-determinism.

[Sisyphus]

The Bohm model doesn't offer deterministic prediction, it just postulates that such a thing might be possible, and offers a plausible theoretical explanation for how QM might be completely deterministic, with no need for "wave-particle" nonsense, either. Stuff like the double-slit experiment does not disprove it in the least, but most agree that Bell's Inequality does.

[gib65]

The Bohm model doesn't offer deterministic prediction, it just postulates that such a thing might be possible, and offers a plausible theoretical explanation for how QM might be completely deterministic, with no need for "wave-particle" nonsense, either. Stuff like the double-slit experiment does not disprove it in the least, but most agree that Bell's Inequality does.

 

Does the Bohm Interpretation shed any light on how the pilot wave "guides" the particle? I'm just wondering how we're supposed to conceptualize the pilot wave. Does it have any "inner workings" that work out where the particle will hit the screen (or what any other of its properties will be)?

[bascule]

Stuff like the double-slit experiment does not disprove it in the least, but most agree that Bell's Inequality does.

 

Why? I've seen subsequent experiments which rule out certain types of non-local hidden variable theories, but I was under the impression that the Bell test experiments only ruled out local hidden variables.