Infinite Potential

[Write4U]

Banned from what? Banned by whom?

Banned from the prevailing scientific plutocracy.


Born 20 December 1917
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, US
Died 27 October 1992 (aged 74)
London, England, UK
NationalityAmerican-Brazilian-British
Citizenship

• American
• Brazilian
• British

Alma mater

• Pennsylvania State College
• California Institute of Technology
• University of California, Berkeley

Known for

• Aharonov–Bohm effect
• De Broglie–Bohm theory
• Bohm criterion
• Bohm-diffusion
• Bohm dialogue
• Bohm's EPR experiment
• Bohm interpretation
• Bohm quantum potential
• Hidden variable theory
• Pilot wave theory
• Holographic paradigm
• Holomovement
• Holonomic brain theory
• Nonradiation condition
• Pilot wave
• Plasmon
• Implicate and explicate order
• Random phase approximation
• Quantum decoherence
• Quantum mind

Awards

• 1991 Elliott Cresson Medal
• 1990 Royal Society fellowship

Scientific career
Fields: Theoretical physics

Institutions

• Princeton University
• University of São Paulo
• Technion
• University of Bristol
• Birkbeck College, London

Doctoral advisor Robert Oppenheimer
Doctoral students

• Y. Aharonov
• D. Pines
• J. Bub
• H. Bortoft
• Eugene P. Gross

Influences Albert Einstein, Jiddu Krishnamurti
Influenced John Stewart Bell, Peter Senge

Yes, Bohm was just another amateur! Didn't accomplish much.

 

[Write4U]

Lay definition: potential means having qualities or abilities that may lead to future success or usefulness.

Physics definition: "potential" typically refers to potential energy per unit charge or potential energy per unit mass, or similar. Potential energy is configuration energy, which means that the energy is determined in some way by the relative positions of elements in a physical system.

Are you telling me that these 2 definitions do not have a fundamental common denominator?

 

[James R]

Clearly, you missed the depth of Bohm's intellect. Einstein and Oppenheimer seemed to appreciate it!

In the 1940s, physics was a fairly niche profession. Bohm was a bright student and did a PhD, like many other bright students. PhD supervisors typically don't want to mentor students who show little promise or skill.

I'm betting the Dalai Lama doesn't admire Bohm for his physics; chances are good that the Dalai Lama isn't particularly well educated in physics. I think that the Dalai Lama sees in Bohm a kindred spirit who believed in the fundamental interconnectedness of all things, and other mystical stuff like that. In other words, Bohm's philosophy seems like a good fit to the Dalai Lama's Buddhism.

Don't get me wrong. I have not once claimed that Bohn was an idiot, or stupid, or uneducated, or anything like that. I can't speak for the depth of his intellect. I don't think you can, either.

 

[James R]

Banned from the prevailing scientific plutocracy.

You didn't look up the word "plutocracy", did you? Are you going to?

In what way was he "banned"? Who banned him? How?Be specific.

Known for

• Aharonov–Bohm effect
• De Broglie–Bohm theory
• Bohm criterion
• Bohm-diffusion
• Bohm dialogue
• Bohm's EPR experiment
• Bohm interpretation
• Bohm quantum potential
• Hidden variable theory
• Pilot wave theory
• Holographic paradigm
• Holomovement
• Holonomic brain theory
• Nonradiation condition
• Pilot wave
• Plasmon
• Implicate and explicate order
• Random phase approximation
• Quantum decoherence
• Quantum mind

The items in bold are all valid science that I am aware of. However, while Bohm worked on things like the EPR experiment and plasmons, I don't think they were his ideas initially. After all, it's not called the EPRB experiment.

The stuff in italics refers to things I can't easily identify. For example, "quantum decoherence" is a fairly generic term; I don't know what specific work Bohm did on that. "Bohm dialogue" could be just about anything.

The stuff in roman text refers to Bohm's "pilot wave" theory of quantum mechanics, which has failed to gain wide acceptance among physicists, for many reasons. Hidden variable theories are mostly dead in the water, these days, due to experiments involving Bell inequalities and the like.

Yes, Bohm was just another amateur! Didn't accomplish much.

Who said he was an amateur? Not me.

You shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that, because a person is accomplished/published in one area of expertise, everything he says is bound to be correct or valuable.

Einstein was a genius, but he made mistakes and spent years working on fruitless theories. There's no reason to suppose that Bohm's fringe ideas are any more valuable.

 

[James R]

Are you telling me that these 2 definitions do not have a fundamental common denominator?

No. I'm not telling you that.

Don't you understand why it is important to use scientific definitions in discussions about science?

 

[Write4U]

Don't get me wrong. I have not once claimed that Bohm was an idiot, or stupid, or uneducated, or anything like that. I can't speak for the depth of his intellect. I don't think you can, either.

That is why make it a point to read as much about him as I can.

I am not the only one;

David Bohm, Quantum Mechanics and Enlightenment
The visionary physicist, whose ideas remain influential, sought spiritual as well as scientific illumination

Some scientists seek to clarify reality, others to mystify it. David Bohm seemed driven by both impulses. He is renowned for promoting a sensible (according to Einstein and other experts) interpretation of quantum mechanics. But Bohm also asserted that science can never fully explain the world, and his 1980 book Wholeness and the Implicate Order delved into spirituality.

Bohm’s interpretation of quantum mechanics has attracted increasing attention lately. He is a hero of Adam Becker’s new book What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Mechanics (reviewed by James Gleick, David Albert and Peter Woit). In The End of Science I tried to make sense of this paradoxical truth-seeker, who died in 1992 at the age of 74. Below is an edited version of that profile. See also my recent post on another quantum visionary, John Wheeler. –John Horgan

more..... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/david-bohm-quantum-mechanics-and-enlightenment/

 

[James R]

Are you going to try to explain your word salad paragraph and answer the questions I put about that, in post #71? Or are you going to ignore that post of mine and those questions and hope we all just forget about that latest bit of word salad from you?

 

[Write4U]

You didn't look up the word "plutocracy", did you? Are you going to?

I did look it up and I am sticking with it. Instead of "rich" , try "economic elite".

In philosophy, political science and sociology, elite theory is a theory of the State that seeks to describe and explain power relationships in contemporary society. The theory posits that a small minority, consisting of members of the economic elite and policy-planning networks, holds the most power—and that this power is independent of democratic elections.[1]

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

Don't you understand why it is important to use scientific definitions in discussions about science?

Not if we are speaking of fundamental qualities regardless of specificity. Your selected perspective is limited and separated from the much larger scope of the subject under study.

When we speak of "infinite potential" we are NOT selecting a narrow interpretation used in applied science.
The scope of the subject demands the general all-encompassing application of the term.

“Consciousness is never static or complete but is an unending process of movement and unfoldment.” – David Bohm

 

[Write4U]

Are you going to try to explain your word salad paragraph and answer the questions I put about that, in post #71? Or are you going to ignore that post of mine and those questions and hope we all just forget about that latest bit of word salad from you?

"This means that while not all potential (probabilistic implicate) becomes expressed in reality, all expressed reality past, present, and future was, is, and will be preceded by potential. This is what Bohm identified as the relational quantum mechanical interactions of the most subtle enfolded potentials becoming unfolded in gross physical reality, alternately unfolding and enfolding at the surface of a deeper plenum of infinite pure potential from which discrete patterns emerge (quantum foam?)"

I thought this was a condensed version of what could be a page-sized explanation.
What part do you have a problem with?

 

[exchemist]

Banned from the prevailing scientific plutocracy.


Born 20 December 1917
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, US
Died 27 October 1992 (aged 74)
London, England, UK
NationalityAmerican-Brazilian-British
Citizenship

• American
• Brazilian
• British

Alma mater

• Pennsylvania State College
• California Institute of Technology
• University of California, Berkeley

Known for

• Aharonov–Bohm effect
• De Broglie–Bohm theory
• Bohm criterion
• Bohm-diffusion
• Bohm dialogue
• Bohm's EPR experiment
• Bohm interpretation
• Bohm quantum potential
• Hidden variable theory
• Pilot wave theory
• Holographic paradigm
• Holomovement
• Holonomic brain theory
• Nonradiation condition
• Pilot wave
• Plasmon
• Implicate and explicate order
• Random phase approximation
• Quantum decoherence
• Quantum mind

Awards

• 1991 Elliott Cresson Medal
• 1990 Royal Society fellowship

Scientific career
Fields: Theoretical physics

Institutions

• Princeton University
• University of São Paulo
• Technion
• University of Bristol
• Birkbeck College, London

Doctoral advisor Robert Oppenheimer
Doctoral students

• Y. Aharonov
• D. Pines
• J. Bub
• H. Bortoft
• Eugene P. Gross

Influences Albert Einstein, Jiddu Krishnamurti
Influenced John Stewart Bell, Peter Senge

Yes, Bohm was just another amateur! Didn't accomplish much.

What “scientific plutocracy” are you talking about? Money does not buy scientific success , and most scientists are hardly rich.

 

[Write4U]

What “scientific plutocracy” are you talking about? Money does not buy scientific success , and most scientists are hardly rich.

True, but they are "exclusive".

This is what happened to Bohm. His ideas although perfectly defensible were outright rejected by the
scientific powers that be.

https://nbi.ku.dk/english/www/niels/bohr/koebenhavnerfortolkningen/

Acceptance among physicists[edit]

During the 1930s and 1940s, views about quantum mechanics attributed to Bohr and emphasizing complementarity became commonplace among physicists. Textbooks of the time generally maintained the principle that the numerical value of a physical quantity is not meaningful or does not exist until it is measured.[58]: 248  Prominent physicists associated with Copenhagen-type interpretations have included Lev Landau,[58][59] Wolfgang Pauli,[59] Rudolf Peierls,[60] Asher Peres,[61] Léon Rosenfeld,[4] and Ray Streater.[62]

Throughout much of the 20th century, the Copenhagen tradition had overwhelming acceptance among physicists.[58][63] According to a very informal poll (some people voted for multiple interpretations) conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 1997,[64] the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely accepted label that physicists applied to their own views. A similar result was found in a poll conducted in 2011.[65]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#Acceptance_among_physicists

But then.

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 de Broglie–Bohm theory was widely deemed unacceptable by mainstream theorists, mostly because of its explicit non-locality.

On the theory, John Stewart Bell, author of the 1964 Bell's theorem wrote in 1982:
"But why then had Born not told me of this “pilot wave”? If only to point out what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it? More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing “impossibility” proofs, after 1952, and as recently as 1978?... Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice?[3]

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

There it is..

 

[exchemist]

True, but they are "exclusive".

This is what happened to Bohm. His ideas although perfectly defensible were outright rejected by the
scientific powers that be.

Then that has nothing to do with plutocracy. Plutocracy mean rule by the rich.

From the Greek πλοῦτος, meaning wealth, riches.

 

[Write4U]

Then that has nothing to do with plutocracy. Plutocracy mean rule by the rich.

From the Greek πλοῦτος, meaning wealth, riches.

yea, yea. I know, but in the world of science, scientists are rich in knowledge, which creates its own elitism and hypocrisy.
Oligarchy would also have been incorrect, so I decided on "intellectually wealthy" as the determining factor.

Why is this important in view of the demonstrated scientific prejudice that is clearly evident by J S Bell's own words?

""But why then had Born not told me of this “pilot wave”? If only to point out what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it? More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing “impossibility” proofs, after 1952, and as recently as 1978?... Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice?[3]"

I find that pretty a damning accusation of a "mainstream" scientific perspective and convention.

 

[exchemist]

yea, yea. I know, but in the world of science, scientists are rich in knowledge, which creates its own elitism and hypocrisy.
Oligarchy would also have been incorrect, so I decided on "intellectually wealthy" as the determining factor.

Why is this important in view of the demonstrated scientific prejudice that is clearly evident by J S Bell's own words?
I find that pretty damning of a "mainstream" scientific perspective and convention.

Good, so plutocracy was the wrong word for what you meant. Probably you meant something like "hierarchy", from the Greek for priest, ἱερός and meaning a ruling body, e.g. of clergy with layers of different ranks: in your case, the scientific establishment of the day.

Bohm's speculations on "implicate order" and stuff are just metaphysics, not science at all, so it is not surprising the science establishment didn't think much of them. The pilot wave theory was science but, like other hidden variable theories, has gone nowhere. Bohm made a contribution to physics but, like quite a few of the early QM people, seems to have wandered off into metaphysics later on.

 

[Write4U]

Good, so plutocracy was the wrong word for what you meant. Probably you meant something like "hierarchy", from the Greek for priest, ἱερός and meaning a ruling body, e.g. of clergy with layers of different ranks: in your case, the scientific establishment of the day.

Well "something like" is still not definitive enough. I'll change it to "Intellectual Plutocracy", better?...

Bohm's speculations on "implicate order" and stuff are just metaphysics, not science at all, so it is not surprising the science establishment didn't think much of them.

I beg to differ. In a mathematical universe there must exist an underlying logical "implicate order", that produces the mathematical "guiding equations" by which relational values (potentials) become expressed as orderly patterns. Is this not described in Chaos Theory?

The pilot wave theory was science but, like other hidden variable theories, has gone nowhere. Bohm made a contribution to physics but, like quite a few of the early QM people, seems to have wandered off into metaphysics later on.

I think that's a lot better than committing suicide or drinking yourself to death.

And as far as I can tell Bohmian Mechanics are very much alive and gaining in popularity,
Here are some posts in support of Bohmian Mechanics, presumably from knowledgeable scientists

• Bohm's Eastern metaphysics, even though it helped shape his interpretation of quantum mechanics, should not be held against the potential fruitfulness of his pilot wave theory. In a similar fashion Isaac Newton's Biblical fundamentalism and his alchemical research cast no shadows over his contributions to physics. Nor did Kepler's belief in astrology throw doubts on his great discoveries.
  • Martin Gardner, "David Bohm and Jiddo Krishnamurti", Skeptical Inquirer, July, 2000

• Let me illustrate some of the ideas I believe Bohmian mechanics should have triggered. This list is obviously subjective—it is only important that it is not empty. Bohmian mechanics, like quantum theory, is in deep tension with relativity theory. I know of Bohmians who claim that it is obvious that any non-local theory, Bohmian or not, requires a privileged universal reference frame. I also know of Bohmians who claim that it is obvious that Bohmian mechanics can be generalized to a relativistic theory (though, admittedly, I never understood their model). However, I know of no Bohmians who are inspired by their theory and its tension with relativity to try to go beyond Bohmian mechanics, as illustrated in the next two paragraphs.
  • Nicolas Gisin, "Why Bohmian Mechanics? One- and Two-Time Position Measurements, Bell Inequalities, Philosophy, and Physics", Entropy (2018)

• Generally, position measurements sometimes reveal information about Bohmian positions, but never full information and sometimes none at all. Simple and handy criteria for determining when the Bohmian position measurements of a particle under test highly correlate with the position of the center of mass of some large pointer are still missing. Bohmian mechanics is attractive to philosophers because it provides a clear ontology. However, it is not as attractive to researchers in physics. This is unfortunate because it could inspire brave new ideas that challenge quantum physics.
  • Nicolas Gisin, "Why Bohmian Mechanics? One- and Two-Time Position Measurements, Bell Inequalities, Philosophy, and Physics", Entropy (2018)

• The first conference, Bohmian Mechanics 2000, was the total fiasco: two leading representatives of Bohmian school, Shelly Goldstein and Basil Hiley, presented two totally different interpretations of Bohmian mechanics. Finally, they accused each other in misunderstanding of Bohm’s views (both had very close connections to David Bohm). My students whom I invited to learn Bohmian mechanics from its creators were really confused. The only useful information which I extracted from Bohmian Mechanics 2000 was that Bohmian mechanics does not give new experimental predictions comparing to conventional QM.
  • Andrei Khrennikov, Beyond Quantum (2014), p. 2

• In the non-Relativistic version you just postulate some point particles, and a single universal quantum state (represented by a mathematical wavefunction) and two simple dynamical equations: the Schrödinger equation for the wavefunction and the so-called guidance equation for the particle motions. You could have guessed both equations easily, and you get out all of the iconic quantum behavior: two-slit interference effects, violations of Bell’s inequality, decoherence due to observation or more generally due to coupling to the environment in the right way, etc., etc. What’s not to like?
  The only sticking point is the Relativistic version, but there I hold a minority view and would happily violate fundamental Lorentz invariance, explaining observational Lorentz invariance by appeal to what is called quantum equilibrium. There is a lot you just can’t do in complete thermal equilibrium, such as extract useful work from heat and send signals. Something you can’t do in quantum equilibrium is experimentally access a preferred “frame of reference”. C’est la vie.
  • Tim Maudlin, quoted in John Horgan, "Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress" (2018); on question "So you like David Bohm’s interpretation of quantum mechanics. What’s the appeal?"

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory

Current state of Bohmian Mechanics.

Can We Gauge Quantum Time of Flight?
Measuring the time it takes particles to travel between two points may be the best test yet for Bohmian mechanics.
By Anil Ananthaswamy on October 21, 2021

A deceptively simple experiment that involves making precise measurements of the time it takes for a particle to go from point A to point B could cause a breakthrough in quantum physics. The findings could focus attention on an alternative to standard quantum theory, called Bohmian mechanics, which posits an underworld of unseen waves that guide particles from place to place.

A new study, by a team at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (L.M.U.) in Germany, makes precise predictions for such an experiment using Bohmian mechanics, a theory formulated by theoretical physicist David Bohm in the 1950s and augmented by modern-day theorists.

Standard quantum theory fails in this regard, and physicists have to resort to assumptions and approximations to calculate particle transit times. “If people knew that a theory that they love so much—standard quantum mechanics—cannot make [precise] predictions in such a simple case, that should at least make them wonder,” says theorist and L.M.U. team member Serj Aristarhov.

more.... https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ment-could-challenge-standard-quantum-theory/

 

[James R]

Write4U:

I did look it up and I am sticking with it. Instead of "rich" , try "economic elite".

This is a bad pattern you've developed.

Instead of accepting correction of your errors and learning from them, you insist on keeping right on, making the same error over and over again.

What you have, there, is a closed mind.

When we speak of "infinite potential" we are NOT selecting a narrow interpretation used in applied science.
The scope of the subject demands the general all-encompassing application of the term.

In other words "infinite potential" is a catch-all kind of thing that can mean whatever you need it to mean at any given time.

That means it is actually an empty concept - not useful for anything.

This is what happened to Bohm.

What happened to him?

His ideas although perfectly defensible were outright rejected by the scientific powers that be.

No. Like your wikipedia article says, they just did not receive mainstream acceptance, after careful review and consideration.

Conspiratorial thinking, about a rich elite that controls scientific knowledge, just puts you firmly on the Fringe, with the believers in Bigfoot and Atlantis.

I know, but in the world of science, scientists are rich in knowledge, which creates its own elitism and hypocrisy.

You're trying to twist the word "plutocrat" to suit your mistaken meaning, rather than just accept that you used the wrong word the first time. Why do that?

If you want to talk about the guardians of knowledge or an elite cabal of scientists, fine. But don't call them plutocrats. Use the accepted meanings of words. Why can't you do that?

Why is this important in view of the demonstrated scientific prejudice that is clearly evident by J S Bell's own words?

Bell's opinion is Bell's opinion, not evidence of a conspiracy.

Ironically, Bell's own work led to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics becoming more entrenched and better verified, even though he initially expected the opposite to happen. The experiments have been quite decisive. Bohm's hidden variable theory is inferior to the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I find that pretty a damning accusation of a "mainstream" scientific perspective and convention.

That's the problem when you cherry pick from sources who has their own axes to grind. You ought to read more widely.

 

[James R]

In a mathematical universe there must exist an underlying logical "implicate order", that produces the mathematical "guiding equations" by which relational values (potentials) become expressed as orderly patterns.

Why must an underlying logical implicate order exist? What is an implicate order? What is logical about it? How do you know the universe is mathematical? What does that even mean?

Is this not described in Chaos Theory?

Not as far as I am aware.

And as far as I can tell Bohmian Mechanics are very much alive and gaining in popularity,

Fortunately, science isn't a popularity contest. I think Bohm fandom is still a niche interest, however.

Here are some posts in support of Bohmian Mechanics, presumably from knowledgeable scientists

• Bohm's Eastern metaphysics, even though it helped shape his interpretation of quantum mechanics, should not be held against the potential fruitfulness of his pilot wave theory. In a similar fashion Isaac Newton's Biblical fundamentalism and his alchemical research cast no shadows over his contributions to physics. Nor did Kepler's belief in astrology throw doubts on his great discoveries.
  • Martin Gardner, "David Bohm and Jiddo Krishnamurti", Skeptical Inquirer, July, 2000

Here, Gardner is saying that Bohm's metaphysics is pseudoscience, essentially, but that there are elements of physics in Bohm's pilot wave theory.

The thing you need to do is to work out which parts of Bohm's ideas are science and which aren't. It appears to me that you can't tell the difference, at present.

However, I know of no Bohmians who are inspired by their theory and its tension with relativity to try to go beyond Bohmian mechanics, as illustrated in the next two paragraphs.

• • Nicolas Gisin, "Why Bohmian Mechanics? One- and Two-Time Position Measurements, Bell Inequalities, Philosophy, and Physics", Entropy (2018)

This reads like a criticism of "Bohmians", not a support for Bohm.

• Generally, position measurements sometimes reveal information about Bohmian positions, but never full information and sometimes none at all. Simple and handy criteria for determining when the Bohmian position measurements of a particle under test highly correlate with the position of the center of mass of some large pointer are still missing. Bohmian mechanics is attractive to philosophers because it provides a clear ontology. However, it is not as attractive to researchers in physics. This is unfortunate because it could inspire brave new ideas that challenge quantum physics.
  • Nicolas Gisin, "Why Bohmian Mechanics? One- and Two-Time Position Measurements, Bell Inequalities, Philosophy, and Physics", Entropy (2018)

This is saying that while Bohm's ideas themselves might be dead ends, they might inspire new, better ideas.

• The first conference, Bohmian Mechanics 2000, was the total fiasco: two leading representatives of Bohmian school, Shelly Goldstein and Basil Hiley, presented two totally different interpretations of Bohmian mechanics. Finally, they accused each other in misunderstanding of Bohm’s views (both had very close connections to David Bohm). My students whom I invited to learn Bohmian mechanics from its creators were really confused. The only useful information which I extracted from Bohmian Mechanics 2000 was that Bohmian mechanics does not give new experimental predictions comparing to conventional QM.
  • Andrei Khrennikov, Beyond Quantum (2014), p. 2

This is straight-up criticism of Bohmian mechanics. How can you possibly mistake this as support for Bohm's ideas?

• In the non-Relativistic version you just postulate some point particles, and a single universal quantum state (represented by a mathematical wavefunction) and two simple dynamical equations: the Schrödinger equation for the wavefunction and the so-called guidance equation for the particle motions. You could have guessed both equations easily, and you get out all of the iconic quantum behavior: two-slit interference effects, violations of Bell’s inequality, decoherence due to observation or more generally due to coupling to the environment in the right way, etc., etc. What’s not to like?
  The only sticking point is the Relativistic version, but there I hold a minority view and would happily violate fundamental Lorentz invariance, explaining observational Lorentz invariance by appeal to what is called quantum equilibrium. There is a lot you just can’t do in complete thermal equilibrium, such as extract useful work from heat and send signals. Something you can’t do in quantum equilibrium is experimentally access a preferred “frame of reference”. C’est la vie.
  • Tim Maudlin, quoted in John Horgan, "Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress" (2018); on question "So you like David Bohm’s interpretation of quantum mechanics. What’s the appeal?"

Look at the title of the article this is extracted from. Is Maudlin a physicist or a philosopher?

Suffice it to say: most physicists aren't willing to give up on Lorentz invariance quite so easily.

 

[Write4U]

If you want to talk about the guardians of knowledge or an elite cabal of scientists, fine. But don't call them plutocrats. Use the accepted meanings of words. Why can't you do that?

OK, if you would rather see the term "elite cabal" excellent. I admit I had not thought of that specific term.

In other words "infinite potential" is a catch-all kind of thing that can mean whatever you need it to mean at any given time.

No, it means that before anything can exist, the potential for that existence must be present

That means it is actually an empty concept - not useful for anything.

On the contrary, it means that it is applicable to everything. The potential for the Big Bang existed before the Big Bang. The potential for the universe existed before the universe existed. The potential for the formation of a galaxy must exist before that galaxy can exist.
For anything to become reality, the potential for that expression must exist before that event can occur.

This is where I came up with the proposition that "whereas not all potential becomes reality, all reality past, present, and future was, is, and will be preceded by potential".
(I do not claim authorship, just an independent logical conclusion.)

I believe that mathematical logic demands that before something can become expressed in reality, the potential for that expression must exist a priori in the system itself.
It is the "actionable value" of the causality.

Can we say; potential is the actionable work dynamic in all differential equations?

JR said,
This is straight-up criticism of Bohmian mechanics. How can you possibly mistake this as support for Bohm's ideas?

Because they both thought they were, but apparently from conflicting perspectives. I don't think you can lay that at Bohm's doorstep.

Is mainstream (conventional) quantum mechanics devoid of conflict? Is it a strictly unified cabal?

 

[exchemist]

Well "something like" is still not definitive enough. I'll change it to "Intellectual Plutocracy", better?...
I beg to differ. In a mathematical universe there must exist an underlying logical "implicate order", that produces the mathematical "guiding equations" by which relational values (potentials) become expressed as orderly patterns. Is this not described in Chaos Theory?
I think that's a lot better than committing suicide or drinking yourself to death.

And as far as I can tell Bohmian Mechanics are very much alive and gaining in popularity,
Here are some posts in support of Bohmian Mechanics, presumably from knowledgeable scientists

• Bohm's Eastern metaphysics, even though it helped shape his interpretation of quantum mechanics, should not be held against the potential fruitfulness of his pilot wave theory. In a similar fashion Isaac Newton's Biblical fundamentalism and his alchemical research cast no shadows over his contributions to physics. Nor did Kepler's belief in astrology throw doubts on his great discoveries.
  • Martin Gardner, "David Bohm and Jiddo Krishnamurti", Skeptical Inquirer, July, 2000

• Let me illustrate some of the ideas I believe Bohmian mechanics should have triggered. This list is obviously subjective—it is only important that it is not empty. Bohmian mechanics, like quantum theory, is in deep tension with relativity theory. I know of Bohmians who claim that it is obvious that any non-local theory, Bohmian or not, requires a privileged universal reference frame. I also know of Bohmians who claim that it is obvious that Bohmian mechanics can be generalized to a relativistic theory (though, admittedly, I never understood their model). However, I know of no Bohmians who are inspired by their theory and its tension with relativity to try to go beyond Bohmian mechanics, as illustrated in the next two paragraphs.
  • Nicolas Gisin, "Why Bohmian Mechanics? One- and Two-Time Position Measurements, Bell Inequalities, Philosophy, and Physics", Entropy (2018)

• Generally, position measurements sometimes reveal information about Bohmian positions, but never full information and sometimes none at all. Simple and handy criteria for determining when the Bohmian position measurements of a particle under test highly correlate with the position of the center of mass of some large pointer are still missing. Bohmian mechanics is attractive to philosophers because it provides a clear ontology. However, it is not as attractive to researchers in physics. This is unfortunate because it could inspire brave new ideas that challenge quantum physics.
  • Nicolas Gisin, "Why Bohmian Mechanics? One- and Two-Time Position Measurements, Bell Inequalities, Philosophy, and Physics", Entropy (2018)

• The first conference, Bohmian Mechanics 2000, was the total fiasco: two leading representatives of Bohmian school, Shelly Goldstein and Basil Hiley, presented two totally different interpretations of Bohmian mechanics. Finally, they accused each other in misunderstanding of Bohm’s views (both had very close connections to David Bohm). My students whom I invited to learn Bohmian mechanics from its creators were really confused. The only useful information which I extracted from Bohmian Mechanics 2000 was that Bohmian mechanics does not give new experimental predictions comparing to conventional QM.
  • Andrei Khrennikov, Beyond Quantum (2014), p. 2

• In the non-Relativistic version you just postulate some point particles, and a single universal quantum state (represented by a mathematical wavefunction) and two simple dynamical equations: the Schrödinger equation for the wavefunction and the so-called guidance equation for the particle motions. You could have guessed both equations easily, and you get out all of the iconic quantum behavior: two-slit interference effects, violations of Bell’s inequality, decoherence due to observation or more generally due to coupling to the environment in the right way, etc., etc. What’s not to like?
  The only sticking point is the Relativistic version, but there I hold a minority view and would happily violate fundamental Lorentz invariance, explaining observational Lorentz invariance by appeal to what is called quantum equilibrium. There is a lot you just can’t do in complete thermal equilibrium, such as extract useful work from heat and send signals. Something you can’t do in quantum equilibrium is experimentally access a preferred “frame of reference”. C’est la vie.
  • Tim Maudlin, quoted in John Horgan, "Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress" (2018); on question "So you like David Bohm’s interpretation of quantum mechanics. What’s the appeal?"

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory

Current state of Bohmian Mechanics.

Can We Gauge Quantum Time of Flight?
Measuring the time it takes particles to travel between two points may be the best test yet for Bohmian mechanics.
By Anil Ananthaswamy on October 21, 2021

more.... https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ment-could-challenge-standard-quantum-theory/

No, intellectual plutocracy makes no sense.

Bohmian mechanics is his pilot wave, hidden variable, theory which, far from gaining ground, is a dead end.

The “implicate order, enfolding and unfolding” metaphysical stuff is quite separate and is not science.

 

[exchemist]

OK, if you would rather see the term "elite cabal" excellent. I admit I had not thought of that specific term.
No, it means that before anything can exist, the potential for that existence must be present
On the contrary, it means that it is applicable to everything. The potential for the Big Bang existed before the Big Bang. The potential for the universe existed before the universe existed. The potential for the formation of a galaxy must exist before that galaxy can exist.
For anything to become reality, the potential for that expression must exist before that event can occur.

This is where I came up with the proposition that "whereas not all potential becomes reality, all reality past, present, and future was, is, and will be preceded by potential".
(I do not claim authorship, just an independent logical conclusion.)

I believe that mathematical logic demands that before something can become expressed in reality, the potential for that expression must exist a priori in the system itself.
It is the "actionable value" of the causality.

Can we say; potential is the actionable work dynamic in all differential equations?

Because they both thought they were, but apparently from conflicting perspectives. I don't think you can lay that at Bohm's doorstep.

Is mainstream (conventional) quantum mechanics devoid of conflict? Is it a strictly unified cabal?

There is no “actionable work dynamic in all differential equations”. That is word salad, the sort of thing someone in a straitjacket might say to his doctor.