Reply To: The Merits of the de Broglie-Bohm Theory

#2947
Avatarbricmont
Member

I am sorry; I was away for a few days and could not respond. I think at some point in the discussion, one has to agree to disagree and let others judge the merits of our arguments. That is why I have written a book (to be published by Springer) “Making sense of QM”, where I explain in detail de Broglie-Bohm’s theory and reply to the usual objections. I also discussed “alternatives” such as the consistent histories approach (I do not think Shelley’s criticisms in Physics today is full of mistakes, and I have read all the letters).

For Reinhard, we have to agree to disagree on what the goal of a physical theory is and on the meaning of determinism.

For Robert, we have to agree to disagree on the meaning of Bell’s result and the no hidden variable theorems more generally. For me, Bell does prove the existence of non local actions, not just correlations, in the world. And that is a real problem for any “relativistic” quantum theory, not just Bohm. Usual field theories do not deal with the collapse, which can be a non local operation for instance.

For Aurelien, we agree on your comment of course.

Best wishes

Jean

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.