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

arXiv:quant-ph/0412119

Why isn't every physicist a Bohmian?

O. Passon

Published Dec 15, 2004• 19 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This note collects, classifies and evaluates common criticism against the de Broglie Bohm theory, including Ockham's razor, asymmetry in the de Broglie Bohm theory, the ``surreal trajectory'' problem, the underdetermination of the de Broglie Bohm theory and the question of relativistic and quantum field theoretical generalizations of the de Broglie Bohm theory. We argue that none of these objections provide a rigorous disproof, they rather highlight that even in science theories can not solely be evaluated based on their empirical confirmation.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0412119

Related papers

Why isn’t every physicist a Bohmian? Common objections and their response

O. Passon

Abstract This chapter provides a very brief introduction to the de Broglie-Bohm theory and collects, classifies and evaluates common criticism against this interpretation of quantum mechanics. The objections include: Ockham’s razor, asymmetry in the de Broglie-Bohm theory, return (or departure) from established principles, underdetermination of the theory, the status of the quantum equilibrium hypothesis, the “surreal trajectory” problem and the question of relativistic and quantum field theoretical generalizations. All these points give rise to interesting debates that deepen the understanding of quantum theory. However, no objection seems to be so strong that it leads to a necessary rejection of the de Broglie-Bohm theory. The whole debate highlights that even in science theories can not solely be evaluated based on their empirical confirmation.

•Apr 1, 2025•0 citations

On a Common Misconception Regarding the de Broglie–Bohm Theory

O. Passon

We discuss a common misconception regarding the de Broglie-Bohm (dBB) theory; namely, that it not only assigns a position to each quantum object but also contains the momenta as "hidden variables". Sometimes this alleged property of the theory is even used to argue that the dBB theory is inconsistent with quantum theory. We explain why this claim is unfounded and show in particular how this misconception veils the true novelty of the dBB theory.

Entropy•Jun 5, 2018•9 citations

Is the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics really plausible?

Kurt Jung

Bohmian mechanics also known as de Broglie-Bohm theory is the most popular alternative approach to quantum mechanics. Whereas the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is based on the complementarity principle Bohmian mechanics assumes that both particle and wave are concrete physical objects. In 1993 Peter Holland has written an ardent account on the plausibility of the de Broglie-Bohm theory. He proved that it fully reproduces quantum mechanics if the initial particle distribution is consistent with a solution of the Schrödinger equation. Which may be the reasons that Bohmian mechanics has not yet found global acceptance? In this article it will be shown that predicted properties of atoms and molecules are in conflict with experimental findings. Moreover it will be demonstrated that repeatedly published ensembles of trajectories illustrating double slit diffraction processes do not agree with quantum mechanics. The credibility of a theory is undermined when recognizably wrong data presented frequently over years are finally not declared obsolete.

Journal of Physics Conference Series•Jun 10, 2013•7 citations

On Quantum Mechanics and the Pilot-Wave Theory

Valia Allori

Quantum theory and the de Broglie – Bohm pilot-wave theory are empirically equivalent. In addition to other objections to the pilot-wave theory, many physicists (and some philosophers) take this to be enough to dismiss the pilot-wave theory, as they say it adds nothing to the standard theory. In this short paper I review some objections and replies to the pilot-wave theory. In particular I respond to the empirical equivalence challenge arguing that, given their mutual relationship, there is no reason to expect the two theories to make different predictions, even if they actually might.

Epistemology & Philosophy of Science•Jan 1, 2025•1 citation

Comment on Valentini, "De Broglie-Bohm Pilot-Wave Theory: Many Worlds in Denial?"

Harvey R. Brown

Valentini has recently defended the de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave version of quantum theory from the claim that it is essentially Everett theory encumbered with the redundant postulation of point particles. In this note, Valentini’s central arguments are questioned. 1

•Jan 1, 2009•8 citations

Inertial Trajectories in de Broglie-Bohm Theory: an unexpected problem

Pablo Acuña

A salient feature of de Broglie-Bohm quantum theory is that particles have de-terminate positions at all times and in all physical contexts. Hence, the trajec-tory of a particle is a well-defined concept. One then may expect that the closely related notion of inertial trajectory is also unproblematically defined. I show that this expectation is not met. I provide a framework that deploys six different ways in which de Broglie-Bohm theory can be interpreted, and I state that only in the canonical interpretation the concept of inertial trajectory is the customary one. However, in this interpretation the description of the dynamical interac-tion between the pilot-wave and the particles, which is crucial to distinguish inertial from non-inertial trajectories, is affected by serious difficulties, so other readings of the theory intend to avoid them. I show that in the alternative in-terpretations the concept at issue gets either drastically altered, or plainly un-defined. I also spell out further conceptual difficulties that are associated to the redefinitions of inertial trajectories, or to the absence of the concept.

•Jan 1, 2017•0 citations
This note collects, classifies and evaluates common criticism against the de Broglie Bohm theory, including Ockham's razor, asymmetry in the de Broglie Bohm theory, the ``surreal trajectory'' problem, the underdetermination of the de Broglie Bohm theory and the question of relativistic and quantum field theoretical generalizations of the de Broglie Bohm theory. We argue that none of these objections provide a rigorous disproof, they rather highlight that even in science theories can not solely be evaluated based on their empirical confirmation.
Abstract This chapter provides a very brief introduction to the de Broglie-Bohm theory and collects, classifies and evaluates common criticism against this interpretation of quantum mechanics. The objections include: Ockham’s razor, asymmetry in the de Broglie-Bohm theory, return (or departure) from established principles, underdetermination of the theory, the status of the quantum equilibrium hypothesis, the “surreal trajectory” problem and the question of relativistic and quantum field theoretical generalizations. All these points give rise to interesting debates that deepen the understanding of quantum theory. However, no objection seems to be so strong that it leads to a necessary rejection of the de Broglie-Bohm theory. The whole debate highlights that even in science theories can not solely be evaluated based on their empirical confirmation.
Bohmian mechanics also known as de Broglie-Bohm theory is the most popular alternative approach to quantum mechanics. Whereas the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is based on the complementarity principle Bohmian mechanics assumes that both particle and wave are concrete physical objects. In 1993 Peter Holland has written an ardent account on the plausibility of the de Broglie-Bohm theory. He proved that it fully reproduces quantum mechanics if the initial particle distribution is consistent with a solution of the Schrödinger equation. Which may be the reasons that Bohmian mechanics has not yet found global acceptance? In this article it will be shown that predicted properties of atoms and molecules are in conflict with experimental findings. Moreover it will be demonstrated that repeatedly published ensembles of trajectories illustrating double slit diffraction processes do not agree with quantum mechanics. The credibility of a theory is undermined when recognizably wrong data presented frequently over years are finally not declared obsolete.
Quantum theory and the de Broglie – Bohm pilot-wave theory are empirically equivalent. In addition to other objections to the pilot-wave theory, many physicists (and some philosophers) take this to be enough to dismiss the pilot-wave theory, as they say it adds nothing to the standard theory. In this short paper I review some objections and replies to the pilot-wave theory. In particular I respond to the empirical equivalence challenge arguing that, given their mutual relationship, there is no reason to expect the two theories to make different predictions, even if they actually might.
A salient feature of de Broglie-Bohm quantum theory is that particles have de-terminate positions at all times and in all physical contexts. Hence, the trajec-tory of a particle is a well-defined concept. One then may expect that the closely related notion of inertial trajectory is also unproblematically defined. I show that this expectation is not met. I provide a framework that deploys six different ways in which de Broglie-Bohm theory can be interpreted, and I state that only in the canonical interpretation the concept of inertial trajectory is the customary one. However, in this interpretation the description of the dynamical interac-tion between the pilot-wave and the particles, which is crucial to distinguish inertial from non-inertial trajectories, is affected by serious difficulties, so other readings of the theory intend to avoid them. I show that in the alternative in-terpretations the concept at issue gets either drastically altered, or plainly un-defined. I also spell out further conceptual difficulties that are associated to the redefinitions of inertial trajectories, or to the absence of the concept.