Bohm interpretation is not compatible with relativity. One can argue that Copenhagen interpretation is also not compatible, but then from practical purposes both interpretations are equivalent and predict the same results so why bother with changing explanations when the new one still does not address the fundamental problem.
One can argue it gives better ontology of what is going on, but shifts the burden further into what the pilot wave is. And this actually is far more complicated maybe than QM itself.
The whole idea of Bohmian mechanics is to preserve the notion of « classical trajectory » while trying to cover existing experimental evidence for QM. I was a fan of it ant the University - but slowly realised that the strategy seems to be just add the classical-limit consequences of the QM as extra postulates. And even that approach faced larger and larger obstacles - like fermions statistics, the QFT with creation / annihilation of particles, spinor fields requiring Grassmanian « classical trajectories » and the whole thing still requires preferred reference frame - in obvious contradiction with basic SR.
This whole story is very similar to attempts of physics fringe to preserve the notion of « aether » while satisfying the experimental evidence for SR.
What do you think about the efforts of Hiley and Denis [1], which may suggest that the pilot wave may be a manifestation, a mathematical projection, of a deeper physical process which hierarchically gives way to the pilotwave, particles, like a coordinati9n space.
aggrrrh | an hour ago
fpoling | an hour ago
_bobm | 33 minutes ago
quantum_mcts | 50 minutes ago
This whole story is very similar to attempts of physics fringe to preserve the notion of « aether » while satisfying the experimental evidence for SR.
_bobm | 26 minutes ago
[1] https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/16/1/67
isoprophlex | an hour ago
Video:
https://gfm.aps.org/meetings/dfd-2015/55f71c7b69702d060d7505...
Paper:
https://thales.mit.edu/bush/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/GFM-P...