Is Bohm's Pilot Wave Theory a Viable Alternative to Standard Quantum Mechanics?

[kurious]

The problem David Bohm's pilot wave theory has is that standard QM has been so successful and verified by experiment so many times that few physicists
will not feel motivated to challenge it, and also
Bohm's theory does not make predictions that are at odds with
QM and therefore would allow a clear distinction
between the standard QM and Bohm's pilot wave theory.
In Bohm's theory there is even an element of instantaneous action
in the way the pilot wave can change instantaneously throughout
its length.Bohm's theory stays close to standard QM in so many
ways, that it would be surprising if it cannot be applied to
relativistic QED and QCD.In forty years since it was thought
up, nobody has been able to produce a convincing argument
which shows the pilot wave theory is wrong.
Can anyone think of an argument to show Bohm was right?

 

[metacristi]

The problem David Bohm's pilot wave theory has is that standard QM has been so successful and verified by experiment so many times that few physicists
will not feel motivated to challenge it, and also
Bohm's theory does not make predictions that are at odds with
QM and therefore would allow a clear distinction
between the standard QM and Bohm's pilot wave theory.
In Bohm's theory there is even an element of instantaneous action
in the way the pilot wave can change instantaneously throughout
its length.Bohm's theory stays close to standard QM in so many
ways, that it would be surprising if it cannot be applied to
relativistic QED and QCD.In forty years since it was thought
up, nobody has been able to produce a convincing argument
which shows the pilot wave theory is wrong.
Can anyone think of an argument to show Bohm was right?

All interpretations of QM have at their core the standard formalism of QM,the only one which really makes novel predictions,so that there is no surprise that they make exactly the same testable predictions.This is why some neo positivists say that ALL interpretations are nothing more than mere philosophy,only the standard formalism deserves to be part of science itself,in the body of accepted (provisional) scientific,'objective',knowledge (not without some merits however-though I,personally,disagree with this point of view).Given the special situation at quantum level,from what we know now at least,it would be very very difficult to make an direct experimental difference between the different ontologies proposed (put in evidence the empirical equivalent of 'quantum potential',for example,or other theoretical constructs).Even decoherence is problematic,being basically non [testable],it is postulated to take place so rapidly that there is no way to put it in evidence,not even potentially!

Thus the only way in which we can make the difference between the different interpretations were to prove that some of them are incompatible with some predictions of standard formalism of QM,the only one which makes testable predictions.It is exactly this which have tried those who claimed that Bohm's interpretation is not valid few years ago or the actual claims regarding the Copenhagen interpretation.Not successful as far as I know.But neither is there a proof that this is impossible.So let's wait and see,future might be full of surprises.

 

[R0man]

The debate between pilot wave theory and standard quantum mechanics has been ongoing for decades, and it is understandable that many physicists may be hesitant to challenge the well-established and successful standard QM. However, it is important to keep an open mind and continue exploring alternative theories, as science is constantly evolving and new discoveries are being made.

As you mentioned, one of the main criticisms of pilot wave theory is that it does not make any predictions that are at odds with standard QM. This may seem like a weakness, but it also shows that Bohm's theory is not contradictory to the existing evidence and can potentially provide a deeper understanding of quantum phenomena. Additionally, the concept of instantaneous action in pilot wave theory may seem counterintuitive, but it is not necessarily a limitation as it could potentially be explained by a more fundamental theory.

Furthermore, just because a theory has not been proven wrong does not necessarily mean it is right. The lack of a convincing argument against pilot wave theory does not automatically make it the correct explanation for quantum mechanics. It is important to continue exploring and testing the theory through experiments and observations.

In terms of applying pilot wave theory to relativistic QED and QCD, it is true that it has not been widely adopted in these fields. However, there are ongoing efforts to incorporate pilot wave theory into these areas of study, and it is still a relatively new theory compared to standard QM. It takes time and further research to fully develop and validate a new theory.

In conclusion, while there may not be a definitive argument to show that Bohm's pilot wave theory is right, it is a valid and intriguing alternative to standard QM that should continue to be explored and tested. As scientists, it is important to keep an open mind and consider all possibilities in order to further our understanding of the complex and mysterious world of quantum mechanics.