[FOM] Quantum mechanics solved(?)
Ryan Paul Nurmela
ryannurmela at gmail.com
Thu Jun 1 02:36:20 EDT 2006
There are all sorts of problems associated with the Bohmian version of
QM. It is really a step back from the developments of QFT. It is
non-relativistic, introduces spin in an ad-hoc manner, asks us to
believe in yet another strange wave thing, and fails to predict or
describe the symmetries of particles found in nature. Additionally it
offers no further insights onto the quantum world. It is merely another
way of looking at the world, which has failed to produce any
considerable advances in QM since its inception. Furthermore, it is a
philosophically silly idea that some particles like to "cooperate" with
some guiding wave.
It is rather unsettling to me that the very "hidden" variables used by
Bohm are those of position. Yes the choice of position allows one to
claim that QM is a lot like classical mechanics. But due to the fact
that the Bohmian world is only non-relativistic, the choice of the
particles' positions as the hidden variables is a poor one. Those
variables are by fiat non-relativistic and even IF one devised a
relativistic version of them, they would still be by definition 100%
local variables in the context of general relativity, forcing any
relationship over them to be time-like not space-like as required. Now,
it was Bell himself who explicitly showed that the proper choice of
hidden variables must be non-local/space-like, which makes sense if one
wants to allow the sort of predictions that QM is famous for. As far as
I know there hasn't been an offering of a more appropriate version of
hidden variables that would keep the Bohm world alive.
With all of the philosophical and mathematical problems associated with
QFT considered, they still don't make a case for belief in Bohm's
version of QM or in hidden variables.
Ryan Nurmela
More information about the FOM
mailing list