3
$\begingroup$

I'm curious to hear some opinions from serious physicists on this site as to why no top physicists have ever worked on Bohmian Mechanics. Except Bohm and Bell, the theory has received virtually no attention from the world's most elite physicists. It does receive a lot of attention from lesser known physicists, and they are not well respected.

Bohmian Mechanics just seems like a much more sensible theory. All paradoxes completely vanish, no Schrodinger's Cat, no particles in two places at once, no nonsense about the moon only being there when you look at it.

Why won't any heavyweights take this reasonable approach seriously?

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by Kyle Kanos, John Rennie, Brandon Enright, JamalS, Qmechanic Nov 13 '14 at 8:20

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ possible duplicate of Why do people still talk about bohmian mechanics/hidden variables $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Nov 13 '14 at 3:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Interpretations of quantum mechanics are not theories. They don't make testable predictions. Therefore they're more philosophy than physics. See physics.stackexchange.com/q/145772 . $\endgroup$ – Ben Crowell Nov 13 '14 at 3:59
  • $\begingroup$ Interpretations are explanations (in contrast to the mere descriptions provided by QM) for phenomena which we are not able yet to explain in an unambiguous way. Philosophy may make use of them, but they are no philosophy. Interpretations are susceptible to refutation by tests, and thus they may make testable predictions. $\endgroup$ – Moonraker Nov 13 '14 at 7:10
0
$\begingroup$

In my opinion the main reason is that it is a mathematical reformulation of quantum mechanics that offers no extra predictions over the standard theory that can be tested experimentally. This means that it is a matter of taste whether to use the simple/elegant mathematics of the standard QM model or the complicated of the BM.

There are always more difficult ways to get to the same result, but physicists appreciate simplicity when there is a choice.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.