Wave/Particle Duality: Interesting Visualization with Parallels to Bohm’s Work

Your question is excellent. We call a walker the ensemble of the droplet and its associated wave. Since the work you refer to we have shown that the wave field contains a memory of the past trajectory that is at the origin of the quantum like effects we observe. You will find attached a recent work dealing with this effect. In the double slit experiment, while the droplet passes through one slit the associated wave passes through both so that one coud say that the walker passes through both. Our system is similar to a pilot wave system and this is what we are working on recently. These models are usually called de Broglie – Bohm models, a term that is very misleading because the two approaches are different from one another. Bohm gets a dynamical equation from Shrödinger equation so that it concerns the dynamics of a maximum of probability. What de Broglie had in mind was a the dynamics of an individual particle associated with a wave. Our system appears to be closer to de Broglie. — Yves Couder

View the paper that the following video is referring to: Single-Particle Diffraction and Interference at a Macroscopic Scale

David Bohm on Proprioception of Thought

“We could say that practically all the problems of the human race are due to the fact that thought is not proprioceptive.” — David Bohm

Bohm’s notion of proprioception of thought is one of his most profound and important contributions.  We have put together a page with various quotes and talks of his on this subject: David Bohm on Proprioception of Thought

“So, the idea of thought-proprioception is not so strange as it may sound at first. Thoughts and felts are movements and therefore we suppose that it must be possible to have proprioception of them. Since the body has the ability to sense it’s own movements, which is proprioception in a physical sense, we should also be able to extent this ability in the psychological realm. It is only a natural extension of body-proprioception. In fact, it’s very strange that we haven’t developed it very much, not enough anyway.” — David Bohm

Science, Spirituality, and the Present World Crisis

We have released a new (to the internet) talk of David Bohm’s titled: Science, Spirituality, and the Present World Crisis.  This talk was presented at the 12th International Transpersonal Association Conference by David Bohm in 1992.  It is an excellent presentation that summarizes several key aspects of Bohm’s work in regards to the crises that humanity faces and the possible resolution of them.

On the other hand, it has become evident that because of the general incoherence of society and the individual that I just described the further progress of science along its current lines cannot resolve these crises and may indeed tend to aggravate them. Thus for example it seems clear that science cannot make it possible for us to act together with the coherence and general good will needed to provide everyone with an adequate physical and social basis for life and at the same time to avoid destroying the planet through ecological disasters, climate changes, and so on. Nor can it help us deal with the forces of nationalism and religious divisions so these will no longer prevent us from getting together to meet all these problems which are evidently of a world-wide nature.

Clearly this sort of thing will be possible only if there is wide spread sharing of meaning allowing for the creation of a coherent culture which would eventually be planetary. How can a coherent culture come about? I want to suggest that the essential start is to be able to have a dialogue. This way people in different sub-cultures can come together to dialogue to share their meanings, perhaps to emerge with new meanings that would be common. We have to begin with people who are open enough to start the dialogue. We cannot begin with those who don’t want to. We need a place where people could get together merely to talk without trying to solve any problems. Simply to communicate, to share and to see if they could come to a common understanding.