Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Routledge eBooks

The issue of retrodiction in Bohm's theory: Y. Aharonov and D. Albert

Basil J. Hiley, F. David Peat

Published Jun 25, 2012• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Bohm's pathbreaking hidden variable theory of 1952 1 is often accused of artificiality and inelegance, and doubtless it is guilty of both. But to make such accusations, and to leave it at that, is to entirely miss the point. What Bohm was after in his theory was not elegance and not naturalness; Bohm's intentions were simply to produce a theory which, whatever its other characteristics, had logically clear foundations. It is for that clarity which Bohm's theory is highly and rightly praised.

DOI
10.4324/9780203392799-14

Related papers

Bell on Bohm

Sheldon Goldstein

Prologue A memorial conference for John Bell, open to the public, was held at Rutgers University around 20 years ago. I gave a short talk there on Bell's views about David Bohm's “hidden variables” formulation of quantum mechanics, a version of quantum mechanics often called the de Broglie–Bohm theory or Bohmian mechanics. This theory was in fact discovered by Louis de Broglie in 1927. In 1952, it was rediscovered and developed by Bohm, who was the first to appreciate its connection to the predictions of standard quantum mechanics. I did not publish the talk. I have decided that it would be appropriate to publish a very lightly edited version of it here, in this volume devoted to the work of Bell on the foundation of quantum mechanics. One reason for doing so is that the connection between Bell and Bohm continues to be somewhat underplayed, with the strength of his advocacy of Bohmian mechanics not properly appreciated. For example, about half of the papers in Bell's collected works on the foundations of quantum mechanics deal with Bohmian mechanics. But in his fine introduction to the revised edition of this great book [1], Alain Aspect mentions this theory in only a single sentence, and parenthetically at that. For several decades after Bell proved his nonlocality theorem, based in part on Bell's inequality, it was widely claimed that Bell had shown that hidden variables – and Bohmian mechanics in particular – were impossible, that they were incompatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. For example, the great physicist Eugene Wigner, who, unlike most of his contemporaries, was profoundly concerned with the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics and usually wrote on the subject with great clarity and insight, has written that This [hidden variables] is an interesting idea and even though few of us were ready to accept it, it must be admitted that the truly telling argument against it was produced as late as 1965, by J. S. Bell … This appears to give a convincing argument against the hidden variables theory.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 31, 2016•0 citations

The hidden-variables controversy in quantum physics

Trevor Pinch

The author discusses the work of Bohm in the 1950s on the hidden variables approach to quantum theory, and the subsequent debate and controversy that it produced.

Physics Education•Jan 1, 1979•7 citations

The missing history of Bohm's hidden variables theory: The Ninth Symposium of the Colston Research Society, Bristol, 1957

Boris Kožnjak

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics•Jul 4, 2017•44 citations

The issue of retrodiction in Bohm's theory

Yakir Aharonov, Dietrich Albert

•Jan 1, 1987•7 citations

Constraints on quantum hidden-variables and the Bohm theory

Christopher Dewdney

The no-hidden-variables arguments of Mermin and Peres (1990) are assessed in the light of the Bohm formulation of quantum theory.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Jun 21, 1992•15 citations

Five Cautions for the Copenhagen Interpretation's Critics

Norwood Russell Hanson

Within the past decade there has grown an acute and highly articulate group of critics of the orthodox interpretation of quantum theory,—the so-called “Copenhagen Interpretation.” The writings of people like Bopp, Janossy, and particularly Bohm and Feyerabend, must be taken very seriously indeed. The future of some important discussions in the philosophy and the logic of science rests with these individuals. But they have, in their own writings, occasionally matched the inelegancies of Bohr and Heisenberg with as many inelegancies of their own. The present paper is meant to present a quintet of considerations which may possibly lead to a reassessment of the issues between Bohr, Heisenberg, and their critics, especially Bohm and Feyerabend.

Philosophy of Science•Oct 1, 1959•9 citations
Bohm's pathbreaking hidden variable theory of 1952 1 is often accused of artificiality and inelegance, and doubtless it is guilty of both. But to make such accusations, and to leave it at that, is to entirely miss the point. What Bohm was after in his theory was not elegance and not naturalness; Bohm's intentions were simply to produce a theory which, whatever its other characteristics, had logically clear foundations. It is for that clarity which Bohm's theory is highly and rightly praised.
Prologue A memorial conference for John Bell, open to the public, was held at Rutgers University around 20 years ago. I gave a short talk there on Bell's views about David Bohm's “hidden variables” formulation of quantum mechanics, a version of quantum mechanics often called the de Broglie–Bohm theory or Bohmian mechanics. This theory was in fact discovered by Louis de Broglie in 1927. In 1952, it was rediscovered and developed by Bohm, who was the first to appreciate its connection to the predictions of standard quantum mechanics. I did not publish the talk. I have decided that it would be appropriate to publish a very lightly edited version of it here, in this volume devoted to the work of Bell on the foundation of quantum mechanics. One reason for doing so is that the connection between Bell and Bohm continues to be somewhat underplayed, with the strength of his advocacy of Bohmian mechanics not properly appreciated. For example, about half of the papers in Bell's collected works on the foundations of quantum mechanics deal with Bohmian mechanics. But in his fine introduction to the revised edition of this great book [1], Alain Aspect mentions this theory in only a single sentence, and parenthetically at that. For several decades after Bell proved his nonlocality theorem, based in part on Bell's inequality, it was widely claimed that Bell had shown that hidden variables – and Bohmian mechanics in particular – were impossible, that they were incompatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. For example, the great physicist Eugene Wigner, who, unlike most of his contemporaries, was profoundly concerned with the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics and usually wrote on the subject with great clarity and insight, has written that This [hidden variables] is an interesting idea and even though few of us were ready to accept it, it must be admitted that the truly telling argument against it was produced as late as 1965, by J. S. Bell … This appears to give a convincing argument against the hidden variables theory.
Within the past decade there has grown an acute and highly articulate group of critics of the orthodox interpretation of quantum theory,—the so-called “Copenhagen Interpretation.” The writings of people like Bopp, Janossy, and particularly Bohm and Feyerabend, must be taken very seriously indeed. The future of some important discussions in the philosophy and the logic of science rests with these individuals. But they have, in their own writings, occasionally matched the inelegancies of Bohr and Heisenberg with as many inelegancies of their own. The present paper is meant to present a quintet of considerations which may possibly lead to a reassessment of the issues between Bohr, Heisenberg, and their critics, especially Bohm and Feyerabend.