Abstract When Oppenheimer was drawn to Los Alamos, his student David Bohm stepped in to co-present his Berkeley lectures on quantum mechanics. The effort led to a textbook, which Bohm published in 1951. Although inclined towards Copenhagen teachings, he remained enough of a Marxist to explore the possibility that the radical probabilities of the theory might be removed using hidden variables. The book included a detailed analysis of the EPR experiment, cast in a much more accessible form. A subsequent encounter with Einstein at Princeton led him to become interested in whether a deterministic extension of quantum theory could be found. He rediscovered a version of the mathematically equivalent but deterministic pilot wave theory. Its hidden variables were obliged to be non-local, which caused Bohm no discomfort. But Einstein did not like it, calling it ‘too cheap’. Driven from McCarthyite America, Bohm argued his case from exile in Brazil.
Abstract When Oppenheimer was drawn to Los Alamos, his student David Bohm stepped in to co-present his Berkeley lectures on quantum mechanics. The effort led to a textbook, which Bohm published in 1951. Although inclined towards Copenhagen teachings, he remained enough of a Marxist to explore the possibility that the radical probabilities of the theory might be removed using hidden variables. The book included a detailed analysis of the EPR experiment, cast in a much more accessible form. A subsequent encounter with Einstein at Princeton led him to become interested in whether a deterministic extension of quantum theory could be found. He rediscovered a version of the mathematically equivalent but deterministic pilot wave theory. Its hidden variables were obliged to be non-local, which caused Bohm no discomfort. But Einstein did not like it, calling it ‘too cheap’. Driven from McCarthyite America, Bohm argued his case from exile in Brazil.
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.
Abstract David Bohm published his “Suggested Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of Hidden Variables” some twenty five years after Louis de Broglie first presented his similar Pilot Wave theory of quantum mechanics. In the following 30 years what became known as the de Broglie–Bohm approach to quantum theory was to a large extent ignored within the physics community. Even David Bohm himself became somewhat disillusioned with the lack of impact of his interpretation of quantum theory and he directed his interest elsewhere. But some 27 years after Bohm had published his interpretation of quantum theory, interest was rekindled in part by new, detailed calculations that demonstrated clearly and graphically, exactly how his interpretation explained quantum phenomena in terms of well defined individual particle trajectories. These computations encompassed two-slit interference, quantum tunnelling, neutron interferometry, Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment, orbital and intrinsic angular momentum, quantum measurement and Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen nonlocal correlations for orbital angular momentum, intrinsic angular momentum and correlated particle interferometry. Since then, the acceptance of the validity of de Broglie–Bohm theory has steadily grown, as has the interest in the consequences of the approach. For my contribution to the current celebratory volume I was asked to provide a personal review specifically of this novel work within its historical context of the last quarter of the twentieth century.
In the early 1950s the American physicist David Bohm (1917-1992) lived through a critical moment, when he produced a new interpretation for quantum mechanics and had to flee from the United States as McCarthyism's victim.At that time he faced vicissitudes related to the Cold War and his move from Princeton to São Paulo.This article focuses on the reception among physicists of his papers on the causal interpretation, which were poorly received at the time.I describe his Brazilian exile and analyze the culture of physics surrounding the foundations of quantum mechanics.This article takes into account the strength of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics among physicists, the way in which issues concerning the foundations of quantum mechanics were present in the training of physicists, the low status of these issues on research agendas, and the kind of results Bohm and collaborators were able to achieve.It also compares the reception of Bohm's ideas with that of Hugh Everett's interpretation.This article argues that the obstacles growing from the cultural context of physics at that time had a more significant influence in the reception of Bohm's ideas than did the vicissitudes related to the McCarthyist climate.WHEN DAVID BOHM and Richard Feynman concluded their physics dissertations, during the first half of the 1940s, they were among the most promising students of their generation in American physics.After the war, however, their fates were very different.Feynman reached the zenith of his scientific career in the United States.In 1951, Bohm was forced to leave the United States forever.Before that, he got a position in Princeton, carried out his research on plasma theory, and published a praised graduate
David Bohm's career as a postwar American physicist demonstrates the effects of the cold war on the theoretical physics of that period. Bohm was fired from Princeton University because of his connections to the Communist Party while a graduate student at Berkeley during World War II; he left the country and took positions in Brazil and Israel and finally found a permanent post in England at Birkbeck College, University of London. Because of his political beliefs, Bohm was cut off from the scientific community that had nourished his early career; his isolation led him to explore creative alternatives to orthodox quantum mechanics but also limited his influence and audience within the mainstream physics community. In the 1970s, physicists and philosophers of science returned to Bohm's work as part of a reexamination of quantum physics.
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.
Abstract This chapter outlines Bohm’s intellectual development leading to the lectures delivered in Israel. An attempt to understand the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics led him to a new, “causal” explanation based on the notion of “hidden variables.” This development was accompanied by extensive correspondence with another quantum dissident, Albert Einstein, which is also discussed in this part. This discussion is followed by a section exploring his deepening interest in the philosophical aspects of scientific theories, leading to a revision of his earlier views and to his book Causality and Chance in Modern Physics. The next section reexamines the exchanges at the 1957 Colston Conference, which brought together physicists and philosophers of science, representing a turning point in the way foundational issues were treated by the quantum community. It then investigates in some detail what inspired Bohm to interpret quantum theory in the context of dialectical materialism.