David Moody has released the book An Uncommon Collaboration: David Bohm and J. Krishnamurti. This book is currently available on Amazon.
For more than two decades, renowned theoretical physicist David Bohm engaged in a close collaboration with psychological philosopher J. Krishnamurti. The two men participated together in 144 recorded dialogues and many unrecorded conversations, and the transcripts of their discussions appear in several published volumes. Their mutual interests encompassed the whole of human consciousness, its nature and structure, and the sources of illusion and conflict in the individual and in society. An Uncommon Collaboration: David Bohm and J. Krishnamurti describes the course of their relationship from beginning to end, including the substance of their dialogues as well as the uneven quality of their personal interactions. Author David Edmund Moody worked with both men for more than a decade, and his observations of them inform and supplement his description of their relationship. Bohm’s background as a physicist was characterized by his close associations with Oppenheimer and Einstein, his revolutionary contributions to the foundations of quantum mechanics, and his clash with the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, an event which ultimately deprived him of his American citizenship. Krishnamurti’s background was notable for his break with the Theosophical Society, which had nurtured him as a youth and hailed him as the World Teacher. He developed his own independent philosophy, one which offered penetrating insights into the human condition and emphasized freedom from all authority in psychological and religious matters. An Uncommon Collaboration: David Bohm and J. Krishnamurti describes the life stories of the two men individually as well as the nature and quality of their relationship. The book concludes with a critical assessment of each man’s contribution to the work they were engaged in, their mutual accomplishments, and the issues that remain unresolved. Moody’s work with Bohm featured several recorded dialogues that examined Bohm’s views on Krishnamurti’s philosophy and his personality. Complete transcripts of these conversations provide a rich, illuminating supplement to the text.
Physics World, New Scientist, and others have reported on the recent experiment titled Experimental nonlocal and surreal Bohmian trajectories.
“It is a new way of looking at quantum non-locality, which vindicates the Bohm position.” – Basil Hiley
You can view the New Scientist article here.
The theoretical physicist Thad Roberts wrote an interesting reply to the question on Quora of Why don’t more physicists subscribe to pilot wave theory?
Physicists today remain largely unaware of the fact that quantum mechanics is perfectly choreographed by the mathematics of the de Broglie-Bohm theory, otherwise known as Bohmian mechanics. Despite the fact that Bohm’s formalism is entirely deterministic, and less vague than the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, so far it has only been widely recognized and embraced among philosophers of physics.
There are several historical events, or “unfortunate accidents,” that have led to the present ignorance of the superior mathematical clarity Bohm’s formalism offers. Understanding this historical posture goes a long way towards explaining why the orthodox or “standard” interpretation of quantum mechanics is still held by the majority of physicists today—something that I would argue is one of the greatest intellectual tragedies of our time.
In his reply his also links to a lecture by Mike Towler on the pilot wave theory that our readers may also find interesting.
We have added a page to our website about Dr. Chris Dewdney, physicist, as he was essential to the development of the Causal Interpretation and his other work is very relevant as well.
We now have 7 members on the forums, and 100 followers on Twitter at @bohmsociety. This is important. Most communities like ours start small. To carry the proposals made by David Bohm we need people like you and I who are interested enough in all of this. If we can’t bring some of these proposals to life who else will? We need all the help and support we can get so do considering joining on us these attempts.
This discussion is available to read on our website.
The conversation starts off with Professor Maurice Pryce stating:
In this discussion I seem to stand for orthodoxy and you for unorthodoxy—that’s fair, isn’t it? For instance, you’d criticize the orthodox viewpoint on the ground that it doesn’t give enough prominence to actuality in physical theory. Is that right?