Would Bohr be born if Bohm were born before Born?

[Demystifier]

In
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702069
I discuss a hypothetical historical context in which a Bohm-like deterministic interpretation of the Schrodinger equation could have been proposed before the Born probabilistic interpretation and argue that in such a context the Copenhagen (Bohr) interpretation would probably have never achieved great popularity among physicists.

Comments are wellcome.

 

[Gib Z]

Ahh if so, let's Call BOHR, pi, BOHM, e, and born, i, just to make things easier to distinguish lol! Even wen i read the title, i thought it was would bohr we born if bohm was born before bohr? and i was lost

 

[vanesch]

In
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702069
I discuss a hypothetical historical context in which a Bohm-like deterministic interpretation of the Schrodinger equation could have been proposed before the Born probabilistic interpretation and argue that in such a context the Copenhagen (Bohr) interpretation would probably have never achieved great popularity among physicists.

Didn't read the paper, but I can surely make one comment. Schroedinger himself was from the start not very favorable to a probabilistic interpretation. So the idea wasn't new.

 

[PhilosophyofPhysics]

lol it almost seems as if the modern interpretations look ridiculous...

 

[Demystifier]

lol it almost seems as if the modern interpretations look ridiculous...

Well, that indeed was one of the intentions of the writer.

 

[Doc Al]

I enjoyed the paper, despite the tongue-twisting title. Boh(e)mian Rhapsody--hilarious! I fully agree that the "Copenhagen Interpretation" would never have been taken seriously but for historical happenstance.

Jim Cushing argues similarly in his "Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony" (James T. Cushing; 1994)

 

[Demystifier]

Thanks Doc Al!
Yes, I have already been informed about the book of Cushing. I will cite it in a revised version.

BTW, you could also contribute by giving your vote here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=146601

 

[wm]

Wave-function

Thanks Doc Al!
Yes, I have already been informed about the book of Cushing. I will cite it in a revised version.

Nice title! And interesting!

AND: I'd suggest that you look at http://www.fritz-froehner.de/link01.htm [Broken] and use it to helpfully modify a little more history while you're at it.

For there we see a common-sense theorem (available in 1915), which shows that any probability distribution may be represented by the absolute square of a complex Fourier polynomial.

(1) p(x) = |Y(x)|^2 = |Y(x)*|^2 = Y(x)*Y(x).

So if Bohm had been born before Born, Born's ''guessing'' might not have been needed!

(Nor Bohm's non-locality? Which would be much more to my liking.)

Regards, wm

 

[Demystifier]

Thanks for the interesting paper, wm!

Concerning nonlocality, there is no way to avoid it in Bohm-like approaches.
In fact, the general Bell nonlocality theorem was inspired by the explicit nonlocality inherent to the Bohm interpretation.

 

[wm]

Opting for locality.

Thanks for the interesting paper, wm!

Concerning nonlocality, there is no way to avoid it in Bohm-like approaches.
In fact, the general Bell nonlocality theorem was inspired by the explicit nonlocality inherent to the Bohm interpretation.

1. I agree.

2. To the extent there's any merit in my own struggles: They are ''inspired'' by my inability to see any valid non-locality arising from Bell's theorem.

3. In short: I believe the ''difficulties'' arise from Bell's limited (constrained) realism.

4. That way (for me) locality remains unchallenged; in full accord with relativity.

Time will tell. Regards, wm

 

[Demystifier]

In
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702069
I discuss a hypothetical historical context in which a Bohm-like deterministic interpretation of the Schrodinger equation could have been proposed before the Born probabilistic interpretation and argue that in such a context the Copenhagen (Bohr) interpretation would probably have never achieved great popularity among physicists.

If someone is interested, now a revised version (on the link above) accepted for publication in American Journal of Physics is available.