Wow, talk about misinformation! First, Bohr had his difficulty with math -- his many, many pages of research notes contain virtually no math. He was almost always trying to figure out what it all meant, mostly with words..
As Schrodinger put it, " There will hardly again be a man who will achieve such enormous external and internal success, who in his sphere of work is honored almost like a demigod by the whole world, and who yet remains -- I would not say modest and free of conceit -- but rather shy and diffident like a theology student." (Neils Bohr's Times, by Abraham Pais, p299. This book is essential to any physicist who wishes to understand Bohr.)
I was fortunate to study under several professors who knew and worked or studied with Bohr. They adored the man; Bohr was quite beloved in the physics community -- a kind and thoughtful man.
As I understand it, Bohr just did not pay much attention to Everett's ideas. That gracious disdain could ruin someone, suggests, quite possibly, troubled mental states are at issue. For example, Bohr, Einstein and Feynman were not greeted with open arms, but persevered on to greatness. In the 50's and 60's, my time as a professional physicist, there were few supporters of either Bohm or Everett -- for most of us their ideas 1. did not make much sense, overly complex they were, and 2. no new physics emerged from these alternate interpretations. So, the pragmatic attitude was: why bother. That's a long time ago, and still these alternate interpretations have produced nothing except work for some physicists --but no new physics. The romanticism of 19th century realism does not fit well with 20th century physics.
In no small measure, Bohm was destroyed by the House UnAmerican Committee, because of his left-wing politics -- during thje McCarthy era. Bohm spent much of his career in Brazil. To most of us, in those days, Bohm's alternate QM was clumsy, and sunk in 19th century romanticism. I see no reason to change that view.
Regards, Reilly Atkinson
