The Bohm Interpretation Of Quantum Mechanics Is Probably False

IntroductionMy opponent has violated conduct beyond belief. Not only that, his spelling is atrocious. To top it off, his rebuttals fall flat on their face as well. Support For Bohm Mechanics In The Scientific CommunityMy opponent just seems to be rambling here, and makes many unsubstantiated claims. There is not much to see here.Can Hidden Variables Be Ruled Out?The experiments I sourced in the first round actually do show that hidden variables can be ruled out. Just because they are called "hidden" doesn't mean science cannot rule them out; that is a non-sequitur. Take for instance violations in Bell's inequalities. They conclusively ruled out local hidden variables a long time ago. Here is a basic outline of Bell's theorem:"Specifically, the theorem says that no theory of local hidden variables can account for all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. Bell proves this theorem through the creation of Bell inequalities, which are shown by experiment to be violated in quantum physics systems, thus proving that some idea at the heart of local hidden variables theories has to be false."[1]We know that violations of Bell's Inequalities proved that there could be no local hidden variables. Just because they were "hidden", that didn't mean they couldn't be ruled out. Therefore, experiments can indeed rule out hidden variables regardless of the description of "hidden". This means that the claim of a contradiction in my argument is hogwash. Non-Local Hidden Variables Ruled OutSo, we know that violations of Bell's Inequalities rule out local hidden variables, but I provided an experiment in the first round from 2007 which showed violations in Leggett's equalities; this rules out non-local hidden variables. With violations of Bell's inequalities ruling out local hidden variables, and violations of Leggett's inequalities; what left then for Bohm mechanics if my opponent accepts Bohm relies on non-local hidden variables? Not much. However, as I said, there are still some loopholes. However, they were closed last year.Bohm Mechanics Assumes RealismNone of the quotes my opponent proposed show that Bohm mechanics doesn't assume realism. Either way, it is common knowledge that it does:"Bohmian mechanics insists on realism..."[2]"Bohmian mechanics is realist."[3]So, we know that Bohm mechanics is a realist interpretation. What is realism (or "naive" realism)? It is the view that reality exists when you are not observing it:"The quality of the universe existing independently of ourselves (or our observations)."[4]"The philosophical doctrine that physical objects continue to exist when not perceived."[5]Thus, it follows that Bohm mechanics entails that reality is there when not perceived. However, as I already showed, violations in Leggett's give a smack to that assumption:"They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it."[5]This would still seem to leave the door open for some non-local models. However, that is false due to certain quantum experiments:"Nonlocal \realistic Leggett models can be considered refuted by the before-before experiment." - Antoine Suarez[7]Bohm mechanics, as I have shown, is realistic and non-local. Thus, violation in leggett's inequalities/ the before-before experiment clearly refute it. Not only that, but as I outlined in my last round, a recent result (as new as last year) refuted any chance of a realistic picture:"No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results... It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether." - Xiao-song Ma, Johannes Kofler, Angie Qarry, Nuray Tetik, Thomas Scheidl, Rupert Ursin, Sven Ramelow, Thomas Herbst, Lothar Ratschbacher, Alessandro Fedrizzi, Thomas Jennewein, Anton Zeilinger[8]So, Bohm assumes non-local hidden variables and non-local realism. All of these have been ruled out by experiments.Does Quantum Entanglement Entail Non-Local Hidden Variables?A hidden variable has to have deterministic causal effects. This is something that a quantum superposition does not have, so there is no way it can be a "hidden variable" in context. Also, non-local causal interactions between two photons (making anyone appear as a particle) have been proven false in non-causal quantum eraser experiments:"This rules out the possibility of any physical signal between the two photons." - Xiao-Song Ma[8]"Our work disproves the view that a quantum system might, at a certain point in time, appear definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle. This would require communication faster than light – which is dramatically at odds with Einstein's theory of relativity. And so, I think that this view needs to be abandoned completely. In a certain sense, quantum events are independent from space and time." - Anton Zeilinger[8]So, of course quantum entanglement happens but a non-local causal interaction (involving hidden variables) would violate Einstein's theory of Relativity (as Anton Zeilinger explains above). Thus, the most reasonable option is to assume there is no causal connection like my opponent claims. As a said in the earlier section, Bohm mechanics assumes non-local realism which is clearly not true:"An experimental test of non-local realism: In the experiment, we measure previously untested correlations between two entangled photons, and show that these correlations violate an inequality proposed by Leggett for non-local realistic theories." - Simon Groeblacher, Tomasz Paterek, Rainer Kaltenbaek, Caslav Brukner, Marek Zukowski, Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger[9]All the evidence we have suggests that Bohm mechanics is false. Is No Other Interpretation True or Correct?My opponent contradicts himself. Earlier in his round he says that hidden variables cannot be ruled out because they are "hidden", but clearly goes against that by saying "local hidden variables got f*cked by John Bell". Either way, he gave no argument in favor of Bohm's mechanics here. ConclusionThe burden of proof is shared in this debate. My opponent seems more focused on attacking my case rather than presenting a positive one on his own. Regardless, all of this rebuttals were based on misunderstandings and old/ outdated information. I provided experiments from 2007 - 2012 which support my position (Pro relies on ideas that are multiple decades old). I proved that Bohm mechanics assumes non-local realism, and that non-local realism is considered almost impossible by recent results in the field. Thus, Bohm mechanics is probably false:The resolution has been affirmed.Sources[1] http://physics.about.com...[2] http://atdotde.blogspot.ca...[3] Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal, Volume 132 (P.246)[4] http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca...[5] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...[6] http://physicsworld.com...[7] http://www.quantumphil.org...[8] http://phys.org...[9] http://arxiv.org...