- #1
George Isaac
- 11
- 0
Recently, I read Bohm's articles explaining his interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I did not find anything "bad" with it, so why didn't anybody pursue it further? Any experimental evidence against its predictions?
George Isaac said:Recently, I read Bohm's articles explaining his interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. [...] Any experimental evidence against its predictions?
zhangpujumbo said:What's your opinions about Landau's work on QM?
AFAIK, the work of Landau in his famous lectures is a (very good) restatement of Bohr's work and the Copenhagen interpretation.sifeddin said:And he said ... what? would you explain or give link(s) to what the legendary Landau said?
Here are Bohm's own words on the subject, written around the time of his retirement in 1987:George Isaac said:Recently, I read Bohm's articles explaining his interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I did not find anything "bad" with it, so why didn't anybody pursue it further? Any experimental evidence against its predictions?
These proposals did not actually 'catch on' among physicists. The reasons are quite complex and difficult to assess. Perhaps the main objection was that the theory gave exactly the same predictions for all experimental results as does the usual theory. I myself did not give much weight to these objections. Indeed, it occurred to me that if de Broglie's ideas had won the day at the Solvay Congress of 1927, they might have become the accepted interpretation; then, if someone had come along to propose the current interpretation, one could equally well have said that since, after all, it gave no new experimental results, there would be no point in considering it seriously. In other words, I felt that the adoption of the current interpretation was a somewhat fortuitous affair, since it was affected not only by the outcome of the Solvay Conference but also by the generally positivist empiricist attitude that pervaded physics at the time. This attitude is in many ways even stronger today, and shows up in the fact that a model that gives insight without an 'empirical pay-off' cannot be taken seriously.
I did try to answer these criticisms to some extent by pointing out that the enriched conceptual structure of the causal interpretation was capable of modifications and new lines of development that are not possible in the usual interpretation. These could, in principle, lead to new empirical predictions, but unfortunately there was no clear indication of how to choose such modifications from among the vast range that was possible. And so these arguments had little effect as an answer to those who require a fairly clear prospect of an empirical test before they will consider an idea seriously.
In addition, it was important that the whole idea did not appeal to Einstein, probably mainly because it involved the new feature of non-locality, which went against his strongly-held conviction that all connections had to be local. I felt this response of Einstein was particularly unfortunate, both during the Solvay Congress and afterwards, as it almost certainly 'put off' some of those who might otherwise have been interested in this approach.
Bohmian Mechanics, also known as the De Broglie–Bohm theory, is a quantum theory that provides an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics. It was developed by David Bohm and Louis de Broglie in the 1950s and is based on the idea that particles have definite positions and trajectories, unlike in traditional quantum theory where particles exist in multiple states simultaneously.
In traditional quantum mechanics, the behavior of particles is described by a wave function that can only predict the probability of a particle's position. In Bohmian Mechanics, particles have well-defined positions and trajectories, and the wave function is seen as a guiding pilot wave that influences the behavior of the particles.
Recent readings on Bohmian Mechanics include "Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal" by James Cushing, "Bohmian Mechanics as the Foundation of Quantum Mechanics" by Detlef Dürr and Sheldon Goldstein, and "The Pilot-Wave Perspective on Quantum Scattering and Tunneling" by Travis Norsen.
There have been several experiments that support the predictions of Bohmian Mechanics, such as the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment and the double-slit experiment with particles guided by a pilot wave. However, there is still ongoing debate and further research is needed to fully validate the theory.
Bohmian Mechanics challenges the traditional interpretation of quantum mechanics and offers a different perspective on how particles behave at the quantum level. It also raises questions about the nature of reality and determinism, as well as the role of consciousness in the behavior of particles. Its continued exploration and research could potentially lead to a deeper understanding of quantum phenomena and how the universe operates at a fundamental level.