View Single Post
Demystifier
#100
Apr28-11, 09:14 AM
Sci Advisor
Demystifier's Avatar
P: 4,572
Quote Quote by A. Neumaier View Post
The strength of standard QM is that
-- it can safely ignore all irrelevant variables,
-- it can transform to arbitrary symplectic coordinate systems in phase space,
-- it can work on arbitrary Lie groups adapted to the problem,
without leaving the framework of the theory.

BM has no such option, hence is strictly inferior to the standard view.

Thus it is fully justified that the main stream ignores BM.

The presentation ''Not even wrong. Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory?'' at http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/...ures/bohm7.pdf diagnoses the disease but only has a historical view rather than an answer to that question. The real answer is that the need for BM is marginal compared to the need for QM. BM subtracts from QM too much without giving anything relevant in return.

Though through lip service it encompasses all of QM, in practice it excludes many systems of practical interest because they are not formulated with enough pointer degrees of freedom (and often cannot be
formulated with few enough pointer degrees of freedom to be tractable by BM means). Simulating quantum computing via BM would be a nightmare.
All this points to the conclusion that standard QM is more convenient for PRACTICAL applications, with which I agree. But BM is not developed for practical applications (even though sometimes it has practical applications as well). It is developed with an intention to resolve some FOUNDATIONAL issues. As most physicists are more interested in practical issues than in foundational ones, which is fine and even desirable, it is no surprise that most physicists do not care much about BM and other interpretations of QM. But it does not mean that BM (or some other interpretation) is not right, and that it will not became more useful one day when it becomes better developed.