Like many earlier bearers of light and conscious evolution, e.g. Meister Eckhardt and Giordano Bruno, David Bohm was made to suffer grievously for his pursuit of truth, holistic insight and seeing physics in a more unified light. The result was a very real professional martyrdom in which Bohm saw his career nearly destroyed.[1] I had been aware of Bohm’s shabby treatment at the hands of his fellow physicists even before I received two of his ground breaking papers in 1982, published in Foundations Of Physics, I have retained the packet the papers were mailed in:
The note accompanied two recent ground breaking papers in quantum physics they'd published, which I received in the envelope, i.e.
Nevertheless, the dismissive treatment of Bohm– even today – remains a terrible blight on the history of physics and discloses how emotional reactions can undermine scientific objectivity.
This persecution began
amidst the anti-communist hysteria that swept the U.S. during the McCarthy era
in the early 1950s. Bohm, then a fellow at the Institute of Advanced Study in
Princeton, became caught up in the furor when he was asked to testify against
colleagues in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1949.[2]
He refused and immediately became a pariah, including being ruled 'persona
non grata' at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. Thus, despite
being acquitted of all charges, his employment potential on American soil was
forever shattered thereafter.
However, that was not to be the end of
it. Now working overseas (in England) and mainly alone, Bohm in 1952 at last saw
the publication of his new model of quantum mechanics employing physically real
waves and hidden variables. The reception was less than enthusiastic and even
his earlier mentor J. Robert Oppenheimer remarked: “If we cannot disprove Bohm, then we must agree to ignore him.”
Oppenheimer, with this reckless statement, disclosed he had placed his personal emotional investment in what he regarded as “true physics”, above the scientific method. Of course, science is not entirely about proof and disproof like mathematics, but it does demand the critic demonstrate his own contravening evidence to support his objections to a theory, hypothesis or model.
Indeed Oppenheimer, then a leading light in quantum and nuclear physics, left a bitter legacy behind for Bohm. In my own case, I recall asking a professor in a graduate-level quantum mechanics class about Bohm's hidden variables theory. This was soon after receiving Bohm’s papers from University College, London. He sneered then pointedly replied:
"We don't discuss
such nonsense in a serious class on quantum mechanics. If you wish to pursue
science fiction then by all means do so, but not on my time."
That prof’s emotive, small-minded response showed me more than he intended. (As a footnote this prof - as Chairman of the then UWI Physics Dept. - subsequently torpedoed my own Ph.D. because he’d grown livid that I’d published four different papers in premier peer-reviewed journals to his one. That one in a backwater Brazilian journal.)
Anyway, the professor’s behavior and reactions enabled me to see an outwardly serious rationalist who was inwardly terrified of the very possibility that Bohm’s theory might be true. All of which indicated that professional scientists are nowhere near being the dispassionate and objective persons they fancy themselves. Something I saw repeated during a seminar I gave at The Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska - Fairbanks, e.g.
If a novel idea or concept (or even proven one they despise) violates their temperaments, they are as likely to become dogmatic and doctrinaire – as well as emotional- as anyone else. This is most unfortunate, because apart from retarding scientific progress it distorted the perception of reality for everyone else in the extended human family.
For my part, I took the UWI Physics Professor's words
with a grain of salt and continued my own individual (side) research into Bohmian
quantum mechanics without his help. Those papers which I received directly from
Bohm (See preceding graphic) also helped (along with his text Quantum Mechanics).
These papers dealt with his updated theory in what has been called Stochastic
Quantum Mechanics.
It is fair to ask at this point: What
basis, if any, is there for respecting David Bohm and taking his work
seriously? That requires we delve into
some of the physics at the time and how it ultimately supported Bohm’s
“undivided universe” model.
(To be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment