Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

David Bohm and the Implicate Order

  1. Jan 4, 2004 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    Is this the popular interpretation? This particular paragraph seemed somewhat inaccurate. I thought this notion of "interconnectedness", as described here, predated Bohm by 20 years. My impression is that Bohm offers and explanation for the EPR paradox [conclusion] that may or may not be correct.

    How do you feel about Bohm's work - the notion of an Implicate Order? I have seen him represented as potentially one of the greatest minds of the century because of this work.

    EDIT: I was going to read some more of Bohm's work [I had some limited exposure in college]. How seriously should his ideas be taken?
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 5, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't think that "instantaneous action at a distance" is generally considered to be the conclusion reached as a result of the Aspect experiments. The consensus is that the Einstein (or EPR) hypothesis regarding the completeness of QM is not valid. The Copenhagen interpretation is fully supported. A lot depends on your frame of reference as to what the Aspect experiments represent.

    The fundamental assumption of Bell's Theorem is that the chance of a particular outcome (or combination of outcomes) must be greater than or equal to zero. I think of this as the "reality" requirement. So I think of Aspect as testing this component, not the action-at-a-distance component of theory.

    But you also asked about Bohm's work. Personally, I think his entire thinking is off on the "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" as it is too metaphysical for me. On the other hand, I am a raving fan of an earlier work of his which has been largely overlooked: "Causality and Chance in Modern Physics". This book is difficult to find, but I think it is a lot more relevant. Causality and chance are sort of complementary concepts in physics, and this really becomes apparent when you discuss the Aspect experiments.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook