Bohm's work is theoretical, but not unscientific. To understand this, you have to be aware of the context and history of his theory.
The essence of a theory is some number of axiomatic concepts - presumptions about reality. Working from the starting point of these axioms, a good theory logically concludes some perspective on the issue in question. To be scientific, a theory must include some such conclusions which are testable in observing reality.
There are numerous ways to attack a theory, scientific or not. Following Ockham's Razor, for example, we can suggest that one axiom is superfluous - that it can be discarded completely, and the theory accounts for the pertinent observations just as well. Another method of attack is to suggest an entirely different set of axioms which nonetheless accounts for the observations. Such an attack is the basis of Bohm's work. In this instance, it can be difficult to critically compare competing theories - as it comes down to deciding which set of axioms is most reasonable.
Technically, when we say quantum theory we do not mean precisely one such set of axioms: but rather, a certain set of observations, a certain feature of reality, which is being explained.
The most popular theory in this regard is the Copenhagen Interpretation.
Bohm's theory resulted from the aforementioned logical attack against this model and its other competitors. Insofar as you accept quantum theory to be a scientific enterprise, Bohm's work is, then, scientific.
Central to his attack is that a fundamental axiom of the Copenhagen Interpretation, irreducible lawlessness, is profoundly unacceptable. Thus, he presents us with the problem of trying to explain what the Copenhagen Interpretation explains - but without such a problematic assumption.
Irreducible lawlessness is the assumption that quantum particles behave in a nondeterministic manner simply because that is their nature - that is, there is no underlying reason or mechanism for this lawlessness.
Bohm believes that so assuming an unexplainable feature of reality is not an acceptable manner of determining a scientific theory.
If you agree with that belief, Bohm's theory will probably be persuasive. If you disagree, it probably won't. In either case, it is essentially scientific.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 01:23 pm (UTC)The essence of a theory is some number of axiomatic concepts - presumptions about reality. Working from the starting point of these axioms, a good theory logically concludes some perspective on the issue in question. To be scientific, a theory must include some such conclusions which are testable in observing reality.
There are numerous ways to attack a theory, scientific or not. Following Ockham's Razor, for example, we can suggest that one axiom is superfluous - that it can be discarded completely, and the theory accounts for the pertinent observations just as well. Another method of attack is to suggest an entirely different set of axioms which nonetheless accounts for the observations. Such an attack is the basis of Bohm's work. In this instance, it can be difficult to critically compare competing theories - as it comes down to deciding which set of axioms is most reasonable.
Technically, when we say quantum theory we do not mean precisely one such set of axioms: but rather, a certain set of observations, a certain feature of reality, which is being explained.
The most popular theory in this regard is the Copenhagen Interpretation.
Bohm's theory resulted from the aforementioned logical attack against this model and its other competitors. Insofar as you accept quantum theory to be a scientific enterprise, Bohm's work is, then, scientific.
Central to his attack is that a fundamental axiom of the Copenhagen Interpretation, irreducible lawlessness, is profoundly unacceptable. Thus, he presents us with the problem of trying to explain what the Copenhagen Interpretation explains - but without such a problematic assumption.
Irreducible lawlessness is the assumption that quantum particles behave in a nondeterministic manner simply because that is their nature - that is, there is no underlying reason or mechanism for this lawlessness.
Bohm believes that so assuming an unexplainable feature of reality is not an acceptable manner of determining a scientific theory.
If you agree with that belief, Bohm's theory will probably be persuasive. If you disagree, it probably won't. In either case, it is essentially scientific.