- 637

- 393

The cat is finally out of the bag: I'm a Nelsonian sympathiser, but stochastic mechanics, for all it does - and admittedly it does enormously much, including the full restoration of classical logic in physics - is de facto not standard quantum mechanics, i.e. not part of the canonical mathematical structure of QM as described within the literature and all textbooks: this description is interpretation-free in the sense of how this terminology is used in the foundations literature.The construction itself is Nelsonian stochastics. All it needs is to work mathematically is that the energy depends quadratically on the momentum variables. So, the mathematics of Nelsonian stochastics can be taken over to bosonic field theories in the same way as this can be done for Bohmian bosonic field theories, with the formulas given in

Bohm.D., Hiley, B.J., Kaloyerou, P.N. (1987). An ontological basis for the quantum theory

Now the question of whether the canonical description of QM is itself correct, while obviously important, is a completely seperate issue to whether a faithfull description is being given of canonical QM: it seems obvious to me that you are arguing for the former and not the latter, while @DarMM is explicitly arguing for the latter.

In other words, it is you and not @DarMM who is involving their personal philosophy for the right reasons - i.e. a deeper constructive mathematical understanding and a restoration of logic - but at the wrong moment within this discussion. More directly, Smolin also explicitly points out in his latest book how the Nelsonian point of view while almost irresistible does not seem to be capable of being correct.