= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
aaronsw comments on Open Thread, December 1-15, 2012 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (177)
I agree with EY that collapse interpretations of QM are ridiculous but are there any arguments against the Bohm interpretation better than the ones canvassed in the SEP article?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#o
Conflict with special relativity is the most common decisive reason for rejecting Bohmian mechanics - which is oddly not covered in the SEP article. Bohmian mechanics is nonlocal, which in the context of relativity means time travel paradoxes. When you try to make a relativistic version of it, instead of elegant quantum field theory, you get janky bad stuff.
Not that I know of, but, in my interpretation preference Bohm is only beat by "shut up and calculate," so I may not be the most informed source.