Bohm

[Anonymous No.15831162]

Was he right? Redpill me on him

[Anonymous No.15831169]

Bohm is basically Alan Watts with +50IQ and moonlighting as a Nobel laureate physicist.

[Anonymous No.15831179]

just another jew who never did anything of any meaningful use who got a fancy reputation produced for him by his jewish media buddies.
they are all the same, all flamboyant thin veneers of success with no substance to back it up

[Anonymous No.15831185]

this board is shit

[Anonymous No.15831193]

>>15831162
Bohmian mechanics is "technically right" in the worst way: it's vacuous. Quantum mechanics works without having to know exactly what the particle is doing behind the wave function, and adding a "pilot wave" doesn't add anything of value.

[Anonymous No.15831230]

>>15831185
"Yes"

[Anonymous No.15831232]

>>15831169
>>15831179
>>15831193
So now on to my real question, is this a good reading list or not? (very Bohm-heavy)

https://www.amazon.com/shop/miakorzybski/list/2FE3U6385VEEL?tag=onamzallieell-20&ref_=aip_sf_list_spv_ofs_mixed_d

[Anonymous No.15831310]

>>15831232
Seems ok, I've read lots of Bohm's books and they're always interesting if nothing else. His quantum theory textbook is unironically very good (strange to see it mixed with all the popsci though).
>>15831193 is right though, Bohmian mechanics at the moment is an interpretation but so far we don't have any way of really distinguishing between the consequences of different interpretations of quantum mechanics. This is true for all interpretations of course, so some people prefer to say the interpretations aren't actually offering anything of value, which is fair, but it's also a reasonable point to make that to do physics without any interpretation of what we're physically talking about underneath the mathematics is a return to the extremely primitive way of looking at mathematics and physics, which is that the model just works and descriptions of the underlying world aren't important - of course this all falls apart at some point, because the goal is to do physics and that tends to require more than mathematical manipulation to progress in a serious way after ideas start getting exhausted. Both sides have a point, but the only thing that's clear is that at some stage we'd ideally like to get a resolution to the problem of interpretation.

[Anonymous No.15831313]

>>15831162
Just another Marxist who was so wedded to the Marxist idea of deterministic history that he concocted an entire imaginary ontological circlejerk of undetectable fields just to make QM fully deterministic.
This proved inadequate so at the end of his life he published his "Ontological Interpretation" which arbitrary allowed a small amount of randomness.
He has the same phenotype as Kim Philby and such men cannot be trusted.

[Anonymous No.15831318]

>>15831232
His main QM book simply titled Quantum Theory takes a strictly Copenhagenist approach since he wrote it before he turned to the Pilot Wave idea. It's a very good book though, highly recommended.
His last book, The Undivided Universe, is the one where he fully developed his Bohmian Mechanics.

[Anonymous No.15831343]

What was his view on consciousness and free will?

[Anonymous No.15831344]

>>15831179
This why I like Everett, the Huwhite Man quantum mechanic. they hated him.

[Anonymous No.15831354]

>>15831179
>just another jew who never did anything of any meaningful use who got a fancy reputation produced for him by his jewish media buddies.
/thread

[bodhi No.15831356]

>>15831162
Very intelligent and pleasant gentleman, he will make sci psueds seethe uncontrollably

[Anonymous No.15831458]

>>15831344
Everett’s contributions to quantum mechanics are objectively worse than Bohm’s in every way.

[Anonymous No.15831523]

>>15831162
Pribram-Bohm theory is correct yes

[Anonymous No.15831547]

>>15831343
In his book The Undivided Universe, he basically says "I know it sounds like Pilot Wave means that free will doesn't exist, but you never know, maybe it does"

[Anonymous No.15831550]

>>15831458
Everett produced the objectively correct interpretation of QM for his PhD thesis, then went on to a long and productive career of building atomic bombs, drinking heavily, and beating his wife.

[Anonymous No.15831552]

>>15831344
Hugh Everett more like Huh? Everett
>Preferred Basis Problem
Say those words and Many-Worlders cry.

[Anonymous No.15831593]

>>15831550
Everett's interpretation is indisputably worse than pilot wave theory in every way. Not only does many worlds offer nothing quantitative to quantum mechanics, it doesn't even offer a meaningful physical perspective which at least pilot waves do.

[Anonymous No.15831600]

>>15831593
Pilot wave is literally the same as Many Worlds, except certain worlds are magically spiced by particles to make them "real" whereas all the other worlds that exist as valid patterns of the wavefunction just exist as ghosts.

[Anonymous No.15831602]

>>15831600
He just arbitrarily declared
>there's a wave
>AND
>a particle
>and the particle is stuck to the wave somehow but can't affect the wave
It's all just baseless wish fulfillment to get the outcome he wanted. Lumeniferous Aether was more rigourous.

[Anonymous No.15831603]

>>15831600
>Pilot wave is literally the same as Many Worlds
Except for the important point that we can test pilot wave theory whereas many worlds is conveniently tucked away in totally different universes. Being falsifiable and unfortunately wrong is far better than just making up entire different universes and then having the cheek to suggest that you've come up with a valid interpretation of anything.

[Anonymous No.15831604]

>>15831603
>we can test pilot wave theory
Lmao is that so

[Anonymous No.15831609]

>>15831602
Not that it's a relevant point but the pilot wave is at least theoretically plausible since you're coming at it from a Hamilton-Jacobi perspective whereas there's not even the shakiest grounds for going and declaring you're going to come up with entire universes for no reason.
>>15831604
Yes. Even theoretically, it isn't compatible with relativistic results we know to be true from QFT, for example. So in its current form it can be ruled out.
Many worlds is just outright stupidity.

[Anonymous No.15831662]

>>15831609
>you're going to come up with entire universes for no reason.
It's simply taking the wave function at face value. The universes are there for the taking, even in the Hamilton-Jacobi perspective. Pilot Wave just crosses out all but one of them just because.
>Many worlds is just outright stupidity.
Skill issue.

[Anonymous No.15831682]

>>15831662
are these extra universes in the room with us right now?

[Anonymous No.15833150]

>>15831682
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15833222]

>>15831193
>the wave function, and adding a "pilot wave" doesn't add anything of value.
it kills the copenhagen interpretation

[Anonymous No.15833448]

>>15831550
Based AF

[Anonymous No.15833450]

>>15831593
You just told us you don't know shit about QM.

[Anonymous No.15833510]

>>15833450
the opinions of people who unironically take many worlds seriously are worthless, even Bohmians are more respectable

[Anonymous No.15833517]

>>15833222
The copenhagen interpretation kills itself

[Anonymous No.15833722]

>>15831162
Bohmists are still unable to derive Rayleigh scattering. I can't take anyone who doesn't know why the sky is blue seriously.

[Anonymous No.15833891]

>>15831179
just like the guy in the sticky that was produced by his (((media))) slave

[Anonymous No.15834837]

>>15833722
Neither can any other quantum interpretation. It's only explainable at the classical level.

[Anonymous No.15835020]

>>15834837
It's undergrad level QED.

[Anonymous No.15835112]

>>15833722
This is a good thing imo, the fact that pilot waves at least have the sense to propose something that differs enough to be provably incorrect is leagues better than interpretations that just don't make any substantial difference to anything at all and you can debate them forever and never get anywhere.

[Anonymous No.15835127]

>>15835112
>being wrong is actually an advantage to Bohmian Mechanics.
Yep, he was a marxist alright.

[Anonymous No.15835133]

>>15835127
>Science is COMMUNISM
Jesus Christ fuck off with your /pol/ dogshit opinions
t. Voted

[Anonymous No.15835135]

>>15835127
No, what I said was being provably wrong is better than being impossible to test at all. Many worlds, many minds, etc. are impossible to test and therefore objectively worthless. Pilot waves have slightly more value in that they have a concrete flaw which you can see and which could conceivably be addressed, or otherwise used to dismiss the theory rather than waste more time think about untestable ideas.

[Anonymous No.15835189]

>>15835135
>concrete flaw which you can see
May I see it

[Anonymous No.15835203]

To explain entanglement, pilot wave theory needs an infinitude of global hidden variables. That's quite a high epistemological cost.

[Anonymous No.15835261]

>>15835203
Yes but that's a good thing. That means Pilot Wave is provably false, which is better than Many Worlds, which might still be true. Therefore Pilot Wave wins.

[Anonymous No.15835263]

>>15831162
I do not like this physicist. His smug sweater mocks me.

[Anonymous No.15835275]

>>15835189
It doesn’t work with QFT so its current form doesn’t replicate experimental data.

[Anonymous No.15835294]

>>15835203
That’s basically the big ugly thing about it, when you throw nonlocality into a theory you get a very nice idea of pilot waves explaining wave particle duality but then nonlocality is such a big ask that it’s not clear how to even make sense of the theory

[Anonymous No.15835296]

>>15835294
It's actually locality that is the big ask. It's impossible to make the universe worse strictly at the speed of light.