Confusion about Bohm

Conclusion  It is important to distinguish between physics, which is an experimental science, andphysicists, who are people. The latter are most certainlynot objective. Thus, Lipschütz-Yevick’s assertion that Ruskai says that the publication of Bohm’s controversial articles in thePhysical Review is evidence of the objectivity of the establishment towards [Bohm] is not supported by my statement It should be noted that even though studying the foundations of quantum mechanics has long been far from the mainstream, it has never been suppressed. The papers of Bohm, Bell,et al. were published in reputable journals, … Reasonable people may disagree on the significance of a particular theory or individual’s contribution. It is here, rather than in the physicsper se, that questions of social influence are likely to arise. I have commented elsewhere, e.g., [17], on the role that gender sometimes plays. In a subsequent article, I will also discuss the distinction between the effect of the social and political climate on the development of the careers of individuals and the development of physics. The articles by Cronin and Lipschütz-Yevick have stimulated me to think anew about a number of issues related to Bohmian mechanics, for which a full discussion requires clarification of some technical issues regarding the EPR experiment and non-locality. These will be discussed in a forthcoming article.