The movie gives the impression that David Bohm figured out quantum mechanics several decades ago, but a conspiracy of closed-minded physicists blackballed him. He is compared to Einstein, and considered one of the great underrated geniuses of the XX century. He is shown consulting with Eastern mystics, as if no one in the West were enlightened enough to appreciate him.
His theory led a revolution to help man reach a higher state of consciousness that is happy with the oneness of the universe.
The day he died in 1992, he told his wife, "I feel that I am on the edge of something."
So what was his great discovery? A theory of nonlocal hidden variables.
This is all crap, of course. The theory of nonlocal hidden variables was a dead-end research project that has led to no new physics, no better understanding of quantum mechanics, no advantages over the Copenhagen interpretation, and certainly no philosophical enlightenment.
The movie makes a few references to him being ostracized for political reasons. There is some truth to this. He was a Jewish Communist, and an American traitor. His politics was even more abominable than his physics.
So why is Bohm such a great hero that someone spent a lot of money making a movie about him?
I cannot explain it. There is so little physics in the movie, that the makers were not trying to explain some physics. It doesn't explain his politics either, so I don't see how it could be a Communist propaganda movie.
My guess is that the movie makers are Leftist mystics, and Bohm's Communism was a motivator for the movie.
1. I watched this movie when it came, which was in June 2020.
ReplyDeleteI vaguely recall that it took me 2 sessions (on 2 different days) to complete it. I distinctly recall that the photography was excellent in some parts, though unnecessary rotations were also imparted to the camera, and the locales seemed a bit foreign.
...All in all, the movie didn't leave much of an impression. ... Just recollecting, now that you mention it.
2. Contrast: I think you know well that I don't agree with the Copenhagen interpretation. However, I remember I had actually enjoyed "Copenhagen", the 2002 movie about Heisenberg and Bohr. (I've forgotten where/how I watched it, but it wasn't in a movie theatre. Must have stumbled on it pretty much randomly---I don't watch many movies.)
I vaguely recall that I had read about the movie beforehand, and had found the idea of the James Bond actor playing Heisenberg repelling from the outset. But I think they showed it on TV some late night, and after a few minutes, I was engaged, and I completed it.
I was impressed by all the three actors, but Craig was outstanding. ... The story was what you (I mean *I*) would expect from it---I mean the Copenhagen interpretation. But the plot was engaging, and they succeeded in creating the atmosphere (in my less informed opinion). All in all, I plan to watch it again, sometime.
3. The Wiki on Jiddu Krishnamurti quotes Papul Jayakar, his biographer, saying "
>>"The boy had always said "I will do whatever you want". There was an element of subservience, obedience. The boy was vague, uncertain, woolly; he didn't seem to care what was happening. He was like a vessel with a large hole in it, whatever was put in, went through, nothing remained."
This one character is fascinating. Every time he is mentioned, I say to myself: "Worth looking into." But then, this subject has a way of not remaining in the mind.
4. The last time I checked on them, the cutting- and/or bleeding-edge Bohmians were *still* struggling with the problem that their wave "lives" in a $3ND$ configuration space but their particle in the $3D$ physical space.
I hope to be able to find the time to understand what they are exactly at or about, after I finish my ongoing work on my new approach.
Best,
--Ajit