Bohmian Mechanics Is Probably False

Ave Contention One: Bohm's mechanics is empirically equivalent with standard quantum mechanics Bohmian mechanics is empirically equivalent with standard quantum mechanics. The article “Bohmian Mechanics”, published in the journal of Compendium of Quantum Physics, states that “in a world governed by Bohmian mechanics, observers see the same statistics for experimental results as predicted by quantum mechanics.” [1] The physicist Brian Greene, who is not a Bohmian, writes that "This {Bohm's mechanics} approach agrees fully with the successful predictions of standard quantum mechanics...."[2] The book Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity also notes that "Bohmian quantum mechanics is mathematically consistent and consonant with all experimental results..". [3] Note that this is not the same thing as saying “no experiment has falsified Bohm’s mechanics yet”. Rather, it’s inherent to the mathematics in his mechanics that it makes the same predictions as quantum mechanics. This makes it fundamentally impossible to falsify Bohm’s mechanics without getting rid of QM itself. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that “Secondly, and this is crucial to the fact that Bohmian mechanics is empirically equivalent to orthodox quantum theory, the right hand side of the guiding equation is J/ρ, the ratio of the quantum probability current to the quantum probability density. “[4] It’s not a matter of the current state of scientific research that Bohm’s mechanics is equivalent with standard quantum mechanics, but an inherent fact about his mathematics. None of what RT said in his second section even touches this first contention. For the first contention, I don’t need to prove that every interpretation of quantum mechanics is empirically equivalent, but only Bohm’s. However, it’s worth noting that he’s made some errors in reading his sources. He mentions quantum suicide as a way of empirically falsifying an interpretation of quantum mechanics. His own sources disagrees with this interpretation. Source 4 states that quantum suicide is a “thought experiment” and that “In­stead of using the scientific method -- investigating empirical evidence -- to study the quantum level, physicists must use thought experiments”. Offering quantum suicide as a way of empirically demonstrating an interpretation to be false is therefore a misunderstanding, because it’s a philosophical argument. His source from R. Plaga doesn’t entail that all interpretations aren’t empirically equivalent. It just just mean that, upon falsifying many worlds, you would have taken the rest of QM down with it. Contention Two: None of RT's arguments to serve to establish the implausibility of Bohmian mechanics. Legget’s inequalities have nothing to do with Bohmian mechanics; This would be apparent if RT had read the entirety of Zeilinger’s paper, which he cites. “"It is clear that other classes of non-local theories, possibly even fully compliant with all quantum mechanical predictions, might exist that do not have this property when reproducing entangled states. Such theories may, for example, include additional communication [23] or dimensions [24]. A specific case deserving comment is Bohm's theory [25]. There the non-local correlations are a consequence of the non-local quantum potential, which exerts suitable torque on the particles leading to experimental results compliant with quantum mechanics. In that theory, neither of the two particles in a maximally entangled state carries any angular momentum at all when emerging from the source [26]. Incontrast, in the Leggett model, it is the total ensemble emitted by the source that carries no angular momentum, which is a consequence of averaging over the individual particles' well defined angular momenta.”[5] [Bold text mine] RT claims that Bohmian realism has been falsified, and cites a paper by Suarez. However, that very paper says that Bohm’s definition of realism has not been falsified: “Models assuming that the “realistic" mechanism happens in a single preferred frame even in relativistic experiments with devices in motion, are not refuted by the before-before experiment” [6] Bohm’s mechanics involves a single preferred frame: “If then, we allow for causal connections between the events situated at A and B, the EPR experiment implies the existence of absolute simultaneity and an ether frame. And, in fact, such a theory exists in the form of the de Brogile-Bohm pilot wave model”. [7] Ergo, its realism is not refuted by the before-before experiment. Furthermore, Suarez’s paper is about Legget’s inequalities, which have nothing to do with Bohm. He cites a quantum eraser experiment which was supposed to show that a quantum system can’t appear definitely as a wave of a particle. Zeilinger’s argument is that a quantum system can’t appear definitely as a wave of a particle because that would require faster than light communication, which violates Einstein’s general theory of relativity. This means that his argument only works if you accept Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which is based on the Minkowski interpretation of special relativity. However, this interpretation of special relativity has been falsified by Alain Aspect’s experiments with Bell’s inequalities. Writing about these experiments, the physicist S. J. Prokhovnik says that “‘’The notion of non-local causality, discussed by Bell, requires a criterion of absolute simultaneity which has some absolute significance: it is seem that a cosmological basis for a universal measure of cosmic time resolves this problem...’’.[8] Zeilinger’s argument only works if you accept the Minkowski interpretation of special relativity, which has been experimentally falsified. RT's argument from Richard Feynman seems to misunderstand Bohm's mechanics, because it doesn't deny the uncertainty principle. Bohm agreed that observers could only have limited knowledge about position and velocity [9]. Bohm's only difference was stating that the uncertainty principle was epistemological (it's a limit on what us humans can know), rather than ontological (it relates to a fact about reality that things don't have an absolute position or velocity until they're measured). Arguing for the uncertainty principle, therefore, does nothing to undermine Bohm's mechanics. RT has also failed to explain why Feynman's argument relates to Bohm's mechanics at all, so I'll end this point on the grounds that the argument is too poorly explained to answer. Occam's razor is an epistemological device which states that the simplest theory should take precedence. I'm thankful RT brought this up, because it serves as an argument for Bohmian mechanics. By contention one, Bohm's interpretation is equal with orthodox QM. By Occam's razor, we should favor the simplest interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation, which RT supports, denies that things have position or velocity absent of measurement, and thus goes against our intuition. As Einstein commented, "Do you really think the moon isn't there if we're not looking at it?". On the other hand, Bohm treated this as a limit on what we can know rather than what is, so the moon really is there even if we're not looking at it. Copenhagen goes against our intuitions about reality, while Bohm's does not, so it is a simpler theory. An ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis which is changed to fit the data, saving it from being disproven. What part of Bohm's mechanics was changed in order to save it from being disproven? RT never tells us, so this argument doesn't work either. Contention Three: Philosophical arguments for Bohm's mechanics The verification principle is the principle which states that nontautologous statements are meaningful only if it is in principle possible to establish empirically whether they are true or false. This is the entire basis for the Copenhagen interpretations view on the uncertainty principle. Heisenberg originally viewed his uncertainty principle as a limit on knowledge, just like Bohm. [10] However, he was convinced by Bohr to view it as ontological, and not just a limit on human knowledge. This was the birth of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, the verification principle is now widely accepted to be false. Tyler Burge, professor of philosophy at UCLA, once said that the central event in philosophy during the 21st century was ‘the downfall of positivism and the re-opening of discussion of virtually all the traditional problems of philosophy’’.[11] One problem, for example, is that there is no empirical way of justifying the verification principle, so it refutes itself. Copenhagen was based on a flawed philosophy, making it philosophically inferior. Bohm recognized that the uncertainty principle was epistemological, not ontological, thereby taking verificationism out of physics. This makes Bohm's mechanics philosophically superior to Copenhagen. Conclusion Thank to RT for this engaging debate, and I wish him luck in his next round. Vale References [1] http://arxiv.org... [2] The Fabric of the Cosmos, pg 206 [3] Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, pg 32 [4] http://plato.stanford.edu... [5] http://arxiv.org... [6] http://www.quantumphil.org... [7] Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, pg 31 [8] Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, pg 33 [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://web.archive.org... [11] http://www.arn.org...