Abstract

This essay examines various issues surrounding the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics. These began with the famous debate between Einstein and Bohr on the topics of quantum uncertainty, wave-particle dualism, and nonlocal interaction. Where Bohr maintained the in-principle ‘completeness’ of orthodox QM - i.e., the conceptual impossibility that it should ever be subject to major revision - Einstein argued that it must be incomplete since it failed to provide any adequate interpretation. Until recently the orthodox doctrine continued to hold sway despite counter-arguments advanced by David Bohm and others of a realist persuasion. In their view there is no reason to accept the veto on supposing particles to possess simultaneous objective values of position and momentum. That we cannot precisely determine those values has to do with certain well-defined limits on our powers of observation/measurement rather than with any intrinsic ‘strangeness’ about microphysical objects and events. Bohm’s theory perfectly matches the established predictive and empirical results while providing a credible realist ontology that avoids any drastic break with the principles of causal realism and inference to the best, most rational explanation. My article discusses the way that Bohm’s heterodox account was often rejected out of hand by proponents of the Copenhagen doctrine. I also review some recent studies - by Beller, Cushing, and Holland - which have either declared strongly in favour of Bohm or challenged the prevailing bias by offering a historically contextualised account of how the orthodox theory took hold