Bohm (the Person) Confuses Me

I was doing some side reading on Bohmian mechanics a few days ago. Now that my book has been published, I have been asked to do a few talks. In such a setting, I want to understand quantum mechanics a bit better. I comprehend the concepts, and I can do some (and by “some”, I mean minimal aspects) of the math involved. However, I do find the interpretations of quantum mechanics fascinating — the Copenhagen interpretation, the Everettian model, the de Broglie–Bohm model…lots and lots of philosophy here.

David Bohm

David Bohm (1917-1992) always has been interesting to me. His life is a story in itself. My understanding is that his interpretation of quantum mechanics was deterministic.

An individual particle may “start” in a random location, but its location is determined by the wave itself. This is a “pilot wave” that determines where the particle will end up. I have no problem with this theory being deterministic as many physicists have tried to see if the randomness issue associated with the Copenhagen interpretation can be ruled out. Statistical randomness at the very base of reality seems odd as an physical thing. In my work as a theologian, I like the statistical inferences of classic wave-particle duality since I can upscale it to non-scienctific ideas. For example, I have a huge problem with the theological interpretation of a deterministic or Calvinistic God. I have looked for ways to uphold theologial ideas surrounding God’s love and the downstream effects of freewill.

Recently, I read a post about how process philosophers / theologians became friends with Bohm. Now this interaction is odd because process philsophy has quite a bit in common with the Copenhagen interpretation while Bohmian mechanics is deterministic.

I then found some recording of David Bohm through the Krishnamurti Archive. Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986) was an Indian philosopher. He apparently acheived a degree of cult status worldwide although he didn’t like gurus. He had some cool quotes: “I maintain that truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect.” Very cool, indeed.

Bohm developed a relationship with Krishnamurti. He also developed friendships with process philosophers. I have tried to wrap my head around how a person who came up with a simple, beautiful interpretation of quantum mechanics which may be right but also may be wrong could then develop friendships with people who perhaps saw nature more subjectively.

I have some thoughts about how this could have happened:

1. People of completely different backgrounds, religions, cultures, etc. can become fast friends. This is a simple explanation. Friendship is important in our species.
2. People change and their belief systems can change. I have seen such changes very much when it comes to personal statements about metaphysical systems. Perhaps we all perdurants.
3. Perhaps there is more randomness in the interpretation of Bohmian mechanics than we realize, and Bohm saw this issue. I think more work is needed here.
4. Finally, I think Bohm is a model of how to think about the world as one gets older. I would probably disagree with some of his subjective belief systems, but I think it is of utmost importance to think about one’s subjective convictions as one gets older. Humans have lots of beliefs which can never be proven. Science is awesome, but Paul Feyerabend has pointed out that we aren’t exactly sure what we mean when we say “science.”

Science, philosophy, and theology — an apparent infinte amount of subjects to explore!

Diagram of what a two-slit experiment might entail (from Foundations in Physics) which contains a great, open access review.