Replies

But that's not local. It has the same "black magic" lurking behind it as any other interpretation. Things like particle decays are still ultimately random (although the correlations between them are non-locally causal in that model).

My problem with it is that it posits a new process--the pilot wave--that isn't mathematically necessary to explain the observed data.

"But that's not local. It has the same "black magic" lurking behind it as any other interpretation. Things like particle decays are still ultimately random (although the correlations between them are non-locally causal in that model)."

So what? It's a hidden variable theory.

"My problem with it is that it posits a new process--the pilot wave--that isn't mathematically necessary to explain the observed data."

(I had to go double check my recollections on this!) It's not at all a new process. DeBroglie proposed it as early as 1925, but abandoned it, ironically enough, precisely because Bohr pointed out to him that it's non-local.

Correct me if I'm missing something, but the fundamental difference between Bohm's (pilot wave) and Bohr's (standard) interpretation is Bohm's claims that a particle exists between the time it's created and the time it's observed and Bohr's claims that it doesn't. Which one strikes you as requiring more black magic?