[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I think the bohm interpretation goes further than that. Even Einstein decried it as unnecessary superstructure.

I havent heard this before, but Einstein died only 3 years after Bohm published his theory so I'm sceptical over whether it's true. Anyway, I dont think too much weight could be given to Einstein's opinion here since he didnt live to see Bell's theorem and the relevant experiments. Einstein believed that there could be a hidden variables interpretation of QM, yet it was later shown that this could only be the case if you were willing to accept some degree of non-locality. Whether this would have caused him to abandon either hidden variables or locality can only be a matter of speculation - in any case, the claim that the superstructure is 'unnecessary' seems wrong.

It's a coherent proposition that at the atomic level particles do not have definite positions or velocities.

No it isnt.

I'm not sure what you mean here.The specific values are concerning wave fronts, not particles.

When you describe the interaction of a quantum system with a measuring apparatus in purely quantum mechanical terms, treating the measuring apparatus as being a collection of particles subject to the laws of QM, you end up with the measuring apparatus being in a superposition of states. This in conflict with the fact that we do, in practice, get a single definite measurement. Standard QM gives no explanation of how this is possible - its not that it doesnt explain how we get the value we get (although it doesnt do that either) - it doesnt explain how we can get _any_ value. The standard solution to this is to declare that the measurement apparatus has to be treated as a classical object rather than a quantum one, but this is ad hoc and arbitrary.

Standard quantum mechanics is non-local anyways dude.

Sort of, but not in quite the same way. Standard QM navigates around the non-locality issues with a fair bit of handwaving, whereas its very very explicit in Bohm's theory.