Discussion: Are There Material Objects in Bohm's Theory
Michael Dickson
Abstract
Bedard has argued that the 'minimalist' interpretation of Bohm's theory "do[es] not make sense", essentially because one cannot account for bonding properties in terms of particles cofigurations alone. I argue that while this point is correct, the minimalist interpretation never sought to provide such an explanation (nor is it incumbant upon this interpretation to do so).
Create a lesson
Related papers
An entangling Hubbard quasiparticle collider on a digital quantum processor
Chan Bin Bark, Hanbyul Kim, Yoonil Koo et al.
A Warped Born Rule Turns an Observer into a Maxwell's Demon
Olumakinde Ogunnaike
A scalable sample-based quantum diagonalization solver for general Pauli-sum Hamiltonians
Yutaro Iiyama
Quantum Query Complexity of Maximum Degree and its Generalizations
Amin Shiraz Gilani, Nikhil S. Mande, Subhasree Patro et al.
Maximally antiflat fixed-particle-number fermionic states
Rahul Gupta, Arya Haghighian, James D. Whitfield
An Annealing-based Quantum Neural Network with Discrete Wavelet Transforms for Enhanced Air Pollution Nowcasting
Otto Menegasso Pires, André Saimon, Daniela Herrmann et al.