>>16758125
A real theory like bohmian mechanics in the abstract sounds fine but I think as you look into it, realize its just hype.
First, all Bohmian mechanics does is simply in the abstract imagine some system of hidden variables that interacts in some way with the wave function, but it doesn't say at all in what way. Normally one has Ξ¨(t) as a wave-function, and one solves explicitly for what Ξ¨ looks like as a function of t. What Bohmian does is speculate instead on some function Ξ¨(q(t),t) where q(t) is particle configuration, so Ξ¨ is actually a wave that guides the particles and their real states. But never can it in any meaningful, measurable way say how Ξ¨ depends on q itself. Maybe it can in the future but Bohmian mechanics does not at all. It's about as well an explanation as saying 'it does because it does'.
Bohmian mechanics 'wants' q(t) to be the actual physical state, something that exists in space, but Ξ¨ is the one with actual presence in physical laws (see Schrodinger equation). But Ξ¨ is a function over *all* configurations at all points in time, so it's like you want me to calculate all possible worlds here to determine what's going on in this one. Hmmmm, I wonder what name we have for that? This has lead to the criticism that it is essentially many worlds interpretation with extra steps.
Because of the totally unspecified manner of q, it is not relativistic and has had issues reconciling with that, meanwhile ordinary quantum mechanics has lead to quantum field theory and that has been wildly successful.
There is some pragmatic level of clear 'measurability weirdness' going on, about measuring something one way and changing the property of another, or even destroying information from a past measurement: look at the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
So from the pragmatic end, typical theories feel more honest about what we know and some of the inherent difficulty in separating 'observation' to the experiment itself (Heisenberg cuts)
