Infinite Potential

[Write4U]

A very special group of scientists, philosophers, colleagues, and friends were interviewed, sharing their memories, collaboration and their personal shared life experiences with David Bohm TRULY TRANSFORMATIONAL Infinite Potential is available NOW. Click the link below and be one of the first to see it. Watch Film Now Watch Film

Now Read more

THE LIFE & IDEAS OF DAVID BOHM

Join us on an incredible journey into the nature of life and Reality with David Bohm, the man Einstein called his “spiritual son” and the Dalai Lama his “science guru”. A brilliant physicist, Bohm got the attention of the greatest minds in science, including Robert Oppenheimer, who became his thesis advisor.

Bohm’s incredible insights into the underlying nature of reality and the profound interconnectedness of the Universe and our place within it are ground-breaking and transformational.

But his revolutionary ideas were way ahead of their time and posed a threat to the scientific orthodoxy, which dismissed him and forced him into exile

Read More..... https://www.infinitepotential.com/

[/quote]

 

[Write4U]

Particle in a box

In quantum mechanics, the particle in a box model (also known as the infinite potential well or the infinite square well) describes a particle free to move in a small space surrounded by impenetrable barriers. The model is mainly used as a hypothetical example to illustrate the differences between classical and quantum systems. In classical systems, for example, a particle trapped inside a large box can move at any speed within the box and it is no more likely to be found at one position than another.

However, when the well becomes very narrow (on the scale of a few nanometers), quantum effects become important. The particle may only occupy certain positive energy levels. Likewise, it can never have zero energy, meaning that the particle can never "sit still". Additionally, it is more likely to be found at certain positions than at others, depending on its energy level. The particle may never be detected at certain positions, known as spatial nodes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box

Question: If a particle in a box never comes to rest, does that imply a potential of infite energy?

And potential time?

And an extended trailer:

 

[exchemist]

Particle in a box

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box

Question: If a particle in a box never comes to rest, does that imply a potential of infite energy?

And potential time?

And an extended trailer:

No, the infinite square well potential is just a conveniently simple potential that makes the maths easy when people are learning QM for the first time, as I did at university. The key points this artificial scenario teaches you are:

- the particle can only occupy certain energy levels, so it cannot have any energy it likes. In other words, the system is quantised.

- the lowest allowed level, the ground state of the system, is not at zero energy. That means there is a zero point energy of the system, energy that is stuck there and cannot be abstracted from it.

These are features of any bound state, i.e. any state in which a system is confined by a potential of any shape. In chemical bonds, for instance, the shape of the potential confining the atoms so that they can't break apart is asymmetric, with a right hand side that does not go to infinity, because the bond can be broken by adding sufficient energy. It looks more like this:

But when you solve the equations, you still get a series of allowed levels and a ground state that is not at the bottom of the well, i.e. with a zero point energy. So the features of the simpler particle in a box scenario are retained, at least qualitatively.

P.S. A good model for the potential illustrated above is the Morse potential. Here is a link to the Wiki article on it. In the diagram you can see the energy levels calculated for this potential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_potential

 

[Write4U]

No, the infinite square well potential is just a conveniently simple potential that makes the maths easy when people are learning QM for the first time, as I did at university. The key points this artificial scenario teaches you are:

Thanks for that excellent synopsis and link in regard to potential energy.

In the "particle in the box," I mainly focused on Bohm's use of the term potential as an "enfolded" order or value, that may become explicated in the future. Hence the question if the particle in the box has the inherent potential to remain active forever or will there come a time that the quantum runs out of energy?
If so, what happens then? Does the box become empty of energy?

What intrigues me is the expression "infinite" when explaining a simple concept. To me, that sounds extremely complicated.

 

[James R]

But his revolutionary ideas were way ahead of their time and posed a threat to the scientific orthodoxy, which dismissed him and forced him into exile

This kind of promotional blurb sends pseudoscience warning bells off in my head.

There are numerous reasons why "revolutionary ideas" might not make it into the scientific mainstream. Threats to scientific orthodoxy aren't the really most common ones. It turns out that many ideas that are purported to be "revolutionary" are just wrong, when examined carefully. Be careful about falling for the hype.

It can be very hard to tell the difference between an idea that is "way ahead of its time" and an idea that is just wrong, at least initially. Ideas that actually turn out to be way ahead of their time tend to become adopted into the scientific canon, once there is sufficient evidence that they are correct. Then, retrospectively, we might be able to judge that the ideas was "ahead of its time". On the other hand, lots of ideas that are claimed to be way ahead of their time by enthusiasts at the time of first publication often sink without trace into history.

 

[James R]

In the "particle in the box," I mainly focused on Bohm's use of the term potential as an "enfolded" order or value, that may become explicated in the future.

You did? Where can I read your explanation of Bohms "enfolded order", as it applies to the particle in a box?

Hence the question if the particle in the box has the inherent potential to remain active forever or will there come a time that the quantum runs out of energy?

Tell me what you mean by "potential" in this context, first, then what it means for "potential" to be "inherent" in something? Is there any potential that isn't inherent?

On the question of energy, it sounds like you have the idea that energy can be "used up" in some way. That's not unreasonable. It comes from our everyday experience of extracting useful work from devices and mechanisms. Your car stops running when its fuel runs out. Something in the fuel is being consumed when the car is running. However, from a global perspective on energy, no energy is ever "lost" - it just becomes unavailable for extraction (or to do useful work, like turning the wheels). Specifically, for the car, some "chemical energy" is converted into heat and work (turning the wheels). Eventually, all the heat is outside of the car and no extractable energy is left in the waste-products from the fuel. But all the initial energy is still there in the universe, somewhere. It's just in less concentrated and harder-to-extract forms.

A particle in a box is an idealised system. It is used to show, for example, that the kinetic energy of the particle can only take certain values, not just any old value. Left to itself, a particle in such a box has constant kinetic energy. There is no mechanism for changing the energy. We can complicate things a little, by imagining, for instance, the particle in the box is allowed to absorb or emit photons. If that's the case, then energy can be transferred into out out of the box system, but only in certain quantised amounts.

To summarise: the notion that some system will eventually "run out of energy" requires some mechanism for dissipating the energy. If there is no such mechanism, then the energy will remain constant; it can't do anything else. In technical language, a system that cannot transfer energy in or out is said to be isolated from its environment. Your car is clearly not an isolated system, because it continuously takes energy in from the outside in the form of fuel and releases energy in the form of heat and exhaust gases.

If so, what happens then? Does the box become empty of energy?

As exchemist explained, the simple model of a particle in a box has a lowest possible energy (often called the "ground state energy"). It cannot have zero energy; that's not a quantum-mechanically allowed value for the energy. So, in that sense, it is impossible for the particle to be "empty of energy", in this scenario.

What intrigues me is the expression "infinite" when explaining a simple concept. To me, that sounds extremely complicated.

You're thinking of the "infinite potential well", I assume.

Remember, this model of a particle in a box is, in a certain sense, the simplest possible first model of such a system. The "infinite potential well" refers to the potential energy, which tells us about the forces in the particle. In this model, the particle has no force on it, when it is in the box. However, this box must have walls to "keep the particle in". So, we model those walls as exerting an effectively infinite force whenever the particle approaches them. This ensures that the particle can't bust out of the box or "jump over the wall", or similar. The infinite force at the walls translates to infinite gradient of the potential energy curve at the walls. That means the potential energy is zero everywhere in the box, except at the walls, where it goes "instantly" to infinity.

The important point is that all of this is a mathematical model. It is not intended to be an accurate model of what actually happens at the walls of a physical box. If we try to model that, the infinities disappear, but in some other respects the model has to become much more complicated.

The model's usefulness is that it exhibits broad features and behaviours that are the same as those exhibited by real physical systems. It provides insight into how and why quantum mechanics "works", in a simple way.

 

[Write4U]

I realize that Bohmian Mechanics has not been proven, however it also has not been proven false.

BOHMIAN MECHANICS
On Bohmian Mechanics, quantum ontology, and other quantum theories without observers.

CURRENT STATUS OF BOHMIAN MECHANICS
Bohmian mechanics has been thoroughly developed in the non-relativistic regime. There are existence/uniqueness results for the theory, proofs of the equivalence to the standard quantum formalism, extensions to spin and other value spaces, explanations for the Bose-Fermi alternative, and a host of other results.

As for relativistic concerns, there are proposals for dealing with nonlocality by use of additional structures. There is nothing mathematically that prevents this from being possible, but there has yet to be found a solution that feels natural.

But then again,

As for quantum field theory, there seem to be a variety of ways of dealing with it from a hidden variables take on the fields to creation/annihilation of particles to even the Dirac sea. What is strongly lacking is a mathematically sound version of quantum field theory.

Bohmian mechanics needs wave function evolution and needs it to be sensible. As of yet, most of quantum field theory seem to be approximations that work around the lack of a sensible wave function evolution.

Why then should the current mathematical model deserve exclusive claim?

Much needs to be done, but much has already been accomplished. The field is vibrant and alive though the attitudes towards it still make us recommend that those who wish to pursue it need to think carefully about how much they value their career. It is better to keep an eye on it, work on it in the dark, and be ready for the day it may become accepted.

There is no known argument that discounts Bohmian mechanics from being the foundations for quantum physics. And those who have studied will attest that it makes quantum mechanics as simple to understand as Newtonian mechanics. Even simpler, in some ways.

https://www.bohmianmechanics.org/background/current-status-of-bohmian-mechanics.html#

 

[Write4U]

Seems you already partly answered my question

The "infinite potential well" refers to the potential energy, which tells us about the forces in the particle

Yes, I understand the explanation of zero energy in the box, but what of the energy inherent in the particle?
What is it that pushes the particle around, its own energy?

. However, from a global perspective on energy, no energy is ever "lost" - it just becomes unavailable for extraction (or to do useful work, like turning the wheels)

So what infinite energy keeps the particle in the box from ever coming to rest? That is the thrust of my inquiry.

I am trying to connect "Infinite potential" with "Infinite energy". Does the particle has infinite energy?
Bohm actually proposed that a cubic cm of space contains as much energy as a trillion atom bombs.

The Energy of a Trillion Atomic Bombs in Every Cubic Centimeter of Space!
Michael Talbot and David Bohm (in quotes) in Talbot's The Holographic Universe, Chapter 2: The Cosmos as Hologram, p.51

According to our current understanding of physics, every region of space is awash with different kinds of fields composed of waves of varying lengths. Each wave always has at least some energy. When physicists calculate the minimum amount of energy a wave can possess, they find that every cubic centimeter of empty space contains more energy than the total energy of all the matter in the known universe!

Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.

The universe is not separate from this cosmic sea of energy, it is a ripple on its surface, a comparatively small "pattern of excitation" in the midst of an unimaginably vast ocean. "This excitation pattern is relatively autonomous and gives rise to approximately recurrent, stable and separable projections into a three-dimensional explicate order of manifestation," states Bohm.[12]

In other words, despite its apparent materiality and enormous size, the universe does not exist in and of itself, but is the stepchild of something far vaster and more ineffable. More than that, it is not even a major production of this vaster something, but is only a passing shadow, a mere hiccup in the greater scheme of things.

https://jacobsm.com/deoxy/deoxy.org/h_bohm.htm

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Yes, I understand the explanation of zero energy in the box, but what of the energy inherent in the particle?

You need to let go of this idea that energy is like a substance that can be contained in things, or that things can be made of energy. Energy is just a number, an accounting system. There is no energy inherent in anything. Energy is just a number (or a set of numbers with different labels) that we can calculate for a system.

What is it that pushes the particle around, its own energy?

Nothing is needed.

Newton's first law of motion: a particle that is not acted on by any force will travel at constant speed in a straight line.

Nothing is needed to keep something moving in a straight line at constant speed. Things just do that, all by themselves, without needing anything to push them around.

So what infinite energy keeps the particle in the box from ever coming to rest?

No energy is needed, let alone an infinite energy. A constant input of energy is not needed to keep an object moving at constant speed.

I am trying to connect "Infinite potential" with "Infinite energy". Does the particle has infinite energy?

No. For it to have infinite energy it would need to be inside the walls of the box. The infinitely strong force prevents that from ever happening, in the simple model of the particle in the box. Between the walls, the potential energy is zero, so particle has a finite amount of energy, equal to its kinetic energy, which doesn't change.

Bohm actually proposed that a cubic cm of space contains as much energy as a trillion atom bombs.

The Energy of a Trillion Atomic Bombs in Every Cubic Centimeter of Space!
Michael Talbot and David Bohm (in quotes) in Talbot's The Holographic Universe, Chapter 2: The Cosmos as Hologram, p.51

Well, maybe, but it's impossible to get any useful work out of an "empty" cubic centimeter of space.* So, even if that's true, in practical terms it doesn't seem to matter very much.

---
(* The Casimir effect might complicate this statement a bit.)

 

[Write4U]

Newton's first law of motion: a particle that is not acted on by any force will travel at constant speed in a straight line.

Yes I know that, but why should it travel at all?
There is also a law that an object at rest tends to stay at rest. So why does a particle that is not acted on not stay at rest? Moreover, it does not accelerate, it is instantly at SOL, Does this not appear peculiar to you?

Unlike a particle which has wave centers that create standing, longitudinal waves measured as mass, the photon is a packet of traveling waves. Therefore, it has energy but not mass.
https://energywavetheory.com/photons/#

We know "how", do we know "why? Why does it do anything at all?

Is there an enfolded order that becomes unfolded as reality?

 

[exchemist]

Thanks for that excellent synopsis and link in regard to potential energy.

In the "particle in the box," I mainly focused on Bohm's use of the term potential as an "enfolded" order or value, that may become explicated in the future. Hence the question if the particle in the box has the inherent potential to remain active forever or will there come a time that the quantum runs out of energy?
If so, what happens then? Does the box become empty of energy?

What intrigues me is the expression "infinite" when explaining a simple concept. To me, that sounds extremely complicated.

I confess that, when I replied, I decided to indulge myself by explaining it properly, as if to somebody that has a basic understanding of physics. I did so in the possibly forlorn hope that some such person, one day, might read it and be enlightened.

It is nonetheless depressing that, after after more than ten years reading and posting scientific articles, you can still ask: "will there come a time that the quantum runs out of energy?" Energy doesn't "run out". James has already referred you to Newton's First Law.

I repeat, the ground state is the lowest possible energy level for the system to occupy. There is no way to abstract any of the energy that remains.

 

[Write4U]

I repeat, the ground state is the lowest possible energy level for the system to occupy. There is no way to abstract any of the energy that remains.

Energy that remains? And exactly what does that even mean?
And where has all that energy disappeared to, even in the abstract? You haven't a clue, right?
Apparently, you blindly accept all the unanswered questions that accompany both relativity and quantum.

What you just advised me to do is "shut up and calculate". So don't call me stupid when you display gullibility yourself to Classical physics. Nothing has been settled definitively.

My original question stands.

Classical physics is a group of physics theories that predate modern, more complete, or more widely applicable theories. If a currently accepted theory is considered to be modern, and its introduction represented a major paradigm shift, then the previous theories, or new theories based on the older paradigm, will often be referred to as belonging to the area of "classical physics".

As such, the definition of a classical theory depends on context. Classical physical concepts are often used when modern theories are unnecessarily complex for a particular situation. Most often classical physics refers to pre-1900 physics, while modern physics refers to post-1900 physics which incorporates elements of quantum mechanics and relativity.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_physics

And therein lies the rub.

Problem of time

In theoretical physics, the problem of time is a conceptual conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics in that quantum mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute, whereas general relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative.[1][2]

According to you a minor problem?

This problem raises the question of what time really is in a physical sense and whether it is truly a real, distinct phenomenon. It also involves the related question of why time seems to flow in a single direction, despite the fact that no known physical laws at the microscopic level seem to require a single direction.[3]

For macroscopic systems the directionality of time is directly linked to first principles such as the second law of thermodynamics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time#

Are you claiming to have solved this conflict a have developed a TOE?
If so, enlighten us or admit that you share your ignorance with all other "great minds".

 

[exchemist]

Energy that remains? And exactly what does that even mean?
And where has all that energy disappeared to, even in the abstract? You haven't a clue, right?
Apparently, you blindly accept all the unanswered questions that accompany both relativity and quantum.

What you just advised me to do is "shut up and calculate". So don't call me stupid when you display gullibility yourself to Classical physics. Nothing has been settled definitively.

My original question stands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_physics

And therein lies the rub.

Problem of time
According to you a minor problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time#

Are you claiming to have solved this conflict a have developed a TOE?
If so, enlighten us or admit that you share your ignorance with all other "great minds".

You are raving.

 

[Write4U]

You are raving.

Yep.
A few hints.
How do I go raving?

Raving 101: Longtime Ravers Give First-Timer Tips

1. BUY A FANNYPACK to store everything you need. ...
2. Make sure that no matter what you do, you always DRESS PROPERLY. ...
3. Bring a hydration pack, and grab as many water bottles as you can carry. ...
4. USE THE RESTROOM. ...
5. DESIGNATE A MEETUP SPOT before entering the festival. ...
6. Timing is key.

https://www.insomniac.com/magazine/raving-101-longtime-ravers-give-first-timer-tips/

A raving we will go, a raving we will go, hi ho, hi ho, a raving we will go!

 

[James R]

Yes I know that, but why should it travel at all?

Well, photons are massless, for starters. Massless things travel at the speed of light.

Remember, physics creates models that explain observations. There is no "should". Our models are descriptive, not prescriptive.

There is also a law that an object at rest tends to stay at rest. So why does a particle that is not acted on not stay at rest?

Actually, the law you referred to (Newton's first law) only says that objects that are initially at rest will stay at rest unless acted on by a (net) force. Photons are never at rest.

Moreover, it does not accelerate, it is instantly at SOL, Does this not appear peculiar to you?

It does seem counterintuitive to me, yes. But there are lots of results from physics that I find counterintuitive. I can live with that.

Unlike a particle which has wave centers that create standing, longitudinal waves measured as mass, the photon is a packet of traveling waves. Therefore, it has energy but not mass.

That bit about standing, longitudinal waves measures as mass strikes me as wrong. What is this "energywavetheory.com" source you quoted? Is this some kind of "alternative theory"? Who says mass is standing, longitudinal waves? Anybody reputable?

We know "how", do we know "why? Why does it do anything at all?

Science builds models, remember. The models describe the "how". You can certainly ask "why" questions about why the model predicts what it predicts. But the deep philosophical questions of why the universe is the way it is are not ones that are always accessible to scientific investigation.

Is there an enfolded order that becomes unfolded as reality?

All that stuff about "enfolded order" always strikes me as mumbo jumbo. I don't know what it means.

 

[Write4U]

All that stuff about "enfolded order" always strikes me as mumbo jumbo. I don't know what it means.

Let me demonstrate the "enfolded order" in the number 4/3.

It is 30 seconds long.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QpmsYWWAKoo

All emergent phenomena start as enfolded orders (potentials)

Large quantities of H2O molecules have 3 enfolded orders, dependent on temperature and pattern density: water (liquid), ice (solid), vapor (gas).
Under the right conditions, these enfolded orders emerge as unfolded physical orders, or patterns in reality.

 

[Write4U]

Well, photons are massless, for starters. Massless things travel at the speed of light.

Remember, physics creates models that explain observations. There is no "should". Our models are descriptive, not prescriptive.

For us there is no should, but in deterministic physics there is always a should.
We just don't know!

 

[Write4U]

This kind of promotional blurb sends pseudoscience warning bells off in my head.

Apparently, no one knows anything about David Bohm, a brilliant mind by all accounts who, based on Louis de Broglie original work, presented a viable alternative universal model of quantum theory.

Louis Victor Pierre Raymond, 7th Duc de Broglie; 15 August 1892 – 19 March 1987)[6]

was a French physicist and aristocrat who made groundbreaking contributions to quantum theory. In his 1924 PhD thesis, he postulated the wave nature of electrons and suggested that all matter has wave properties. This concept is known as the de Broglie hypothesis, an example of wave–particle duality, and forms a central part of the theory of quantum mechanics.

De Broglie won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1929, after the wave-like behavior of matter was first experimentally demonstrated in 1927.

The 1925 pilot-wave model,[7] and the wave-like behavior of particles discovered by de Broglie was used by Erwin Schrödinger in his formulation of wave mechanics.[8] The pilot-wave model and interpretation was then abandoned, in favor of the quantum formalism, until 1952 when it was rediscovered and enhanced by David Bohm.[9]

more..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie

The de Broglie–Bohm theory, also known as the pilot wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, Bohm's interpretation, and the causal interpretation,

is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. In addition to the wavefunction, it also postulates an actual configuration of particles exists even when unobserved. The evolution over time of the configuration of all particles is defined by a guiding equation. The evolution of the wave function over time is given by the Schrödinger equation. The theory is named after Louis de Broglie (1892–1987) and David Bohm (1917–1992).

The theory is deterministic[1] and explicitly nonlocal: the velocity of any one particle depends on the value of the guiding equation, which depends on the configuration of all the particles under consideration.

more..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory

Pilot wave theory

Couder experiments,[1][2] "materializing" the pilot wave model.

In theoretical physics, the pilot wave theory, also known as Bohmian mechanics, was the first known example of a hidden-variable theory, presented by Louis de Broglie in 1927. Its more modern version, the de Broglie–Bohm theory, interprets quantum mechanics as a deterministic theory, avoiding troublesome notions such as wave–particle duality, instantaneous wave function collapse, and the paradox of Schrödinger's cat. To solve these problems, the theory is inherently nonlocal.

The de Broglie–Bohm pilot wave theory is one of several interpretations of (non-relativistic) quantum mechanics. An extension to the relativistic case has been developed since the 1990s.[3][4][5][6][7]

more..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory

 

[Write4U]

continued....

Bohmian Mechanics
First published Fri Oct 26, 2001; substantive revision Mon Jun 14, 2021

Bohmian mechanics, which is also called the de Broglie-Bohm theory, the pilot-wave model, and the causal interpretation of quantum mechanics, is a version of quantum theory discovered by Louis de Broglie in 1927 and rediscovered by David Bohm in 1952. It is the simplest example of what is often called a hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics.

In Bohmian mechanics a system of particles is described in part by its wave function, evolving, as usual, according to Schrödinger’s equation. However, the wave function provides only a partial description of the system. This description is completed by the specification of the actual positions of the particles. The latter evolves according to the “guiding equation”, which expresses the velocities of the particles in terms of the wave function.

Thus, in Bohmian mechanics the configuration of a system of particles evolves via a deterministic motion choreographed by the wave function. In particular, when a particle is sent into a two-slit apparatus, the slit through which it passes and its location upon arrival on the photographic plate are completely determined by its initial position and wave function.

Bohmian mechanics inherits and makes explicit the nonlocality implicit in the notion, common to just about all formulations and interpretations of quantum theory, of a wave function on the configuration space of a many-particle system.

It accounts for all of the phenomena governed by nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, from spectral lines and scattering theory to superconductivity, the quantum Hall effect and quantum computing. In particular, the usual measurement postulates of quantum theory, including collapse of the wave function and probabilities given by the absolute square of probability amplitudes, emerge from an analysis of the two equations of motion: Schrödinger’s equation and the guiding equation. No invocation of a special, and somewhat obscure, status for observation is required.

• 1. The Completeness of the Quantum Mechanical Description
• 2. The Impossibility of Hidden Variables … or the Inevitability of Nonlocality?
• 3. History
• 4. The Defining Equations of Bohmian Mechanics
• 5. The Quantum Potential
• 6. The Two-Slit Experiment
• 7. The Measurement Problem
• 8. The Collapse of the Wave Function
• 9. Quantum Randomness
• 10. Quantum Observables
• 11. Spin
• 12. Contextuality
• 13. Nonlocality
• 14. Lorentz Invariance
• 15. Identical Particles
• 16. Quantum Motion on Shape Space
• 17. Objections and Responses
• Bibliography
• Academic Tools
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries

more..... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

 

[Write4U]

And for the current state of Bohmian Mechanics.

CURRENT STATUS OF BOHMIAN MECHANICS

There is no known argument that discounts Bohmian mechanics from being the foundations for quantum physics. And those who have studied will attest that it makes quantum mechanics as simple to understand as Newtonian mechanics. Even simpler, in some ways.

http://www.bohmianmechanics.org/background/current-status-of-bohmian-mechanics.html