In 1951, David Bohm created a realistic interpretation of quantum theory.His theory stood in contradiction to the hegemonic standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which the quantum mechanical wave function describes a purely mathematical probability amplitude.Bohm's worldview, based on dialectical materialism, contributed substantially to the construction of new physical entities in his theory and led him to work intensively on the philosophy of science.His example shows that the ideology and political attitude of a physicist can play a major role in the construction of scientific theories and entities, with the important reservation that a change in social context was the necessary impulse for Bohm's work.
In 1951, David Bohm created a realistic interpretation of quantum theory.His theory stood in contradiction to the hegemonic standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which the quantum mechanical wave function describes a purely mathematical probability amplitude.Bohm's worldview, based on dialectical materialism, contributed substantially to the construction of new physical entities in his theory and led him to work intensively on the philosophy of science.His example shows that the ideology and political attitude of a physicist can play a major role in the construction of scientific theories and entities, with the important reservation that a change in social context was the necessary impulse for Bohm's work.
This is the story of David Bohm's hitherto unpublished notes, uncovered from a series of lectures given in Israel in 1957 to a group of Marxist physicists from the Hashomer Hatsair (young guard) movement. The notes explore quantum theory and dialectical materialism, as well as shedding light on the intellectual and emotional resources of his persistent rebellion against orthodoxies in science. The discussion places his lectures notes in a wider historical, scientific, and philosophical context and traces Bohm's intellectual development from an early attempt to better understand the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics to his elaboration of an alternative causal interpretation based on the notion of "hidden variables." As the lecture notes strikingly illustrate, dialectical materialism played a fundamental role for the further development of his understanding of quantum mechanics. Bohm placed the notions of infinity of nature and the unity of opposites in the center of his natural philosophy, drawing from the works of Hegel, Marx, Engels, and Lenin. The authors also examine Bohm's legacy in the history of quantum mechanics and his contribution to preparing the "second quantum revolution." Bohm's engagement with dialectical materialism and his role as a dissident to the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics were pivotal in bringing about the novel insights and technologies associated with this second quantum revolution. During the 1960s, Bohm developed a growing interest in the nature of consciousness and engaged with the philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti. In spite of a seemingly fundamental break with earlier philosophical positions, this new phase in Bohm's intellectual odyssey was not completely unrelated to his fascination with and deep understanding of Hegel's philosophy, which the lecture notes amply document for the first time.
Abstract This book tells the story of Bohm’s hitherto unpublished lecture notes on quantum theory and dialectical materialism. It places his lecture notes in a wider historical, scientific, and philosophical context and traces Bohm’s intellectual development from an early attempt to better understand the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics to his elaboration of an alternative causal interpretation based on the notion of “hidden variables.” As the lecture notes strikingly illustrate, dialectical materialism played a fundamental role in the further development of his understanding of quantum mechanics. Bohm placed the notions of the infinity of nature and the unity of opposites at the center of his natural philosophy, drawing from the works of Hegel, Marx, Engels, and Lenin. The book also examines Bohm’s legacy in the history of quantum mechanics and his contribution to preparing the “second quantum revolution.” Bohm’s engagement with dialectical materialism and his role as a dissident from the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics were pivotal in bringing about the novel insights and technologies associated with this second quantum revolution. During the 1960s, Bohm developed a growing interest in the nature of consciousness and engaged with the philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti. But this new phase in Bohm’s intellectual odyssey was, in spite of a seemingly fundamental break with earlier philosophical positions, not completely unrelated to his fascination with, and deep understanding of, Hegel’s philosophy, which the lecture notes amply document for the first time.
Abstract This is devoted to detailed commentaries on Bohm’s lectures. The primary aim of these commentaries is to demonstrate how dialectical materialism acted as a new perspective on Bohm’s understanding of the meaning of quantum mechanics and as the foundation for a comprehensive interpretation of science and human understanding of nature in general. The commentaries address all the main topics discussed in Bohm’s lectures, emphasizing their roots in the contemporary discussion about the foundations of quantum theory, in Hegel’s dialectical philosophy, and in dialectical materialism, as well as in current scientific debates—for example, about the foundations of mathematics. The comments summarize Bohm’s long and sometimes convoluted discussions to highlight the key points, occasionally connecting them to the broader scientific and philosophical discourse. The comments also provide missing references and identify novel topics and arguments presented in these lectures, in comparison with those found in Causality and Chance in Modern Physics.
Abstract The paper investigates David Bohm’s philosophy of science as a form of fallibilist realism that underpins his causal interpretation of quantum mechanics Bohm (Bohm 1952a, 1952b, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990; Bohm and Hiley 1975, 1984, 1993). Bohm’s central aim is to establish the superiority of his interpretation over the standard Copenhagen framework, particularly in contrast to that of Niels Bohr. Whereas Bohr asserts that knowledge of quantum phenomena is restricted to the statistical outcomes of measurement, Bohm’s approach is distinctly realist in orientation. Responding to the challenges posed by Einstein and other physicists, Bohm relies on extra-empirical criteria such as determinism, objectivity and intelligibility. The paper develops what will be termed the methodology of intuitive intelligibility (II), consisting of four stages: (1) reformulation of the standard quantum equations, (2) physical interpretation of the mathematical symbols, (3) drawing analogies with classical laws, and (4) drawing analogies with common experience. It is argued that Bohm applies the (II) methodology consistently, with the notable exception of the ontological status of the wave function and quantum potential. In attempting to explain causal relations from a 3N-dimensional configuration space (where N is the number of particles) to familiar three-dimensional space through an appeal to ‘information’, Bohm arguably commits a category mistake. A proposed resolution—drawing on Bohm’s own holistic analogies—is supported by the recent multi-field interpretation (Romano Multi-field and Bohm’s theory. Synthese, 198(30), 10587–10609, 2021). The term fallibilist realism aptly characterizes Bohm’s stance in the philosophy of science: he repeatedly emphasizes that the causal interpretation is not intended as a final theory. Nevertheless, holism constitutes a substantive ontological commitment that he is unwilling to abandon.
Most proponents of dialectical materialism claim it to be the most coherent understanding of developments within sciences.Hence, it should concern them that there exist seemingly contradictory dialectical materialist understandings of the accepted theory of micro physics.Among physicists who accept dialectical materialism, there are ones who argue in favour of the standard interpretation of quantum physics, as well as others who oppose it.We discuss arguments of two such physicists, Valdimir Fock and David Bohm.They both give physical arguments against the neo-Kantian and positivist elements of the dominant Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.While Bohm uses the notion of 'qualitative infinity of nature' against the maximalist form of this interpretation, Fock defends a minimalist form of this interpretation with the argument of the 'relativity to the means of observation'.Similarly, their proposals differ on the key question of the origin of randomness in quantum measurements.Despite having a consistent formalism, there are gaps in the physical understanding of quantum physics, and at least part of their divergent interpretations relates to these gaps.It is argued that the divergent views of Bohm and Fock should not be read polemically.Rather, they together help develop a more comprehensive characterization of dialectical materialism as a worldview in development.Arguments of Bohm and Fock explore and substantiate materialist and dialectical themes in physics.Their divergence shows that dialectical materialism cannot pre-empt science.In fact, as sciences discover new properties of matter, dialectical materialism needs to continually renew its repertory of generalized concepts to grasp these properties.
ABSTRACT In the early 1950s the American physicist David Bohm (1917-1992) produced a new interpretation of quantum mechanics and had to flee from McCarthyism. Rejected at Princeton, he moved to São Paulo. This article focuses on the reception of his early papers on the causal interpretation, his Brazilian exile, and the culture of physics surrounding the foundations of quantum mechanics. It weighs the strength of the Copenhagen interpretation, discusses the presentation of the foundations of quantum mechanics in the training of physicists, describes the results Bohm and his collaborators achieved. It also compares the reception of Bohm's ideas with that of Hugh Everett's interpretation. The cultural context of physics had a more significant influence on the reception of Bohm's ideas than the McCarthyist climate.