I agree with EY that collapse interpretations of QM are ridiculous but are there any arguments against the Bohm interpretation better than the ones canvassed in the SEP article?
Conflict with special relativity is the most common decisive reason for rejecting Bohmian mechanics—which is oddly not covered in the SEP article. Bohmian mechanics is nonlocal, which in the context of relativity means time travel paradoxes. When you try to make a relativistic version of it, instead of elegant quantum field theory, you get janky bad stuff.
I agree with EY that collapse interpretations of QM are ridiculous but are there any arguments against the Bohm interpretation better than the ones canvassed in the SEP article?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#o
Conflict with special relativity is the most common decisive reason for rejecting Bohmian mechanics—which is oddly not covered in the SEP article. Bohmian mechanics is nonlocal, which in the context of relativity means time travel paradoxes. When you try to make a relativistic version of it, instead of elegant quantum field theory, you get janky bad stuff.
Not that I know of, but, in my interpretation preference Bohm is only beat by “shut up and calculate,” so I may not be the most informed source.