Talk:David Bohm

Untitled

"For information on his work at Berkeley and his dealings with HUAC, or is it HCUA"

for discussion of whether it's HUAC or HCUA, see House Committee on Un-American Activities discussion wherein it is claimed HCUA is correct, and join the fray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.100.45 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2004 (UTC)

Did he die Oct 22 or Oct 27? Kwantus 20:30, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

• I looked up the NYT obituary on ProQuest and it said Oct. 27. --Fastfission 21:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Typo

"Pribram believes that if psychology is to understand the conditions that produce the world of appearances, it must hook to the thinking of physicists like Bohm."

"Pribram believes that if psychology is to understand the conditions that produce the world of appearances, it must look to the thinking of physicists like Bohm."

is this a typo? either word works, but i assumed that the intended word was hook . . . Heah 01:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

The long quote should be paraphrased and summarized.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcAurel (talk • contribs) 03:04, February 2, 2006

I beg to strongly differ. Please do not dumb down wikipedia. Please leave these quotes in. If this part doesn't keep someone's attention, they may go read a comic book version of Bohm's life and achievements. I'm thinking of the high school students, particularly, who often are only exposed to deep, time-consuming ideas through brief intros provided by wikipedia. I find this PARTICULAR series of quotes to be a depth of coverage not only interesting but also an integral part of what makes Bohm such a great thinker. Making the effort to understand difficult things should be encouraged. Those who are able to go further intellectually, in ALL fields, need to feel there are real gains, possibly altruistic, in addition to -- or aside from -- personal satisfaction or monetary gain, to do so. Cmberger (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Cynthia Berger

Why in the world is McCarthyism cited in External References? If Bohm suffered because of McCarthyism, that should be stated in the article.207.112.6.120 (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I just came to this page and found the quote to be invaluable in the research I was doing. What surprises me is that this section was flagged as having readability issues simply because of a quote viewed as too extensive. First, I think it's always preferable to put in the subject's own words, and this was the right choice here. Secondly, I, like the other commenter, am fearful we are dumbing things down when we are cautionary of descriptions or (direct quotes in particular are targets) that go beyond a sentence or two. This section was well done. ----J. Sewell

Questionable formulation?

made significant contributions in the fields of [...], and to scientists working on the Manhattan Project.

How do you make a contribution to a scientist? Could that first sentence be rewritten such that it is a little clearer to whether he contributed to the project or to the science behind? \Mike(z) 23:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I thought on seeing it, and one has to concldue, after this long an interval, that the answer is no. I wonder where it was quoted from? Midgley 20:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Parked

"who made significant contributions in the fields of theoretical physics, philosophy and neuropsychology, and to scientists working on the Manhattan Project"

Needs backup Midgley 20:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing word inserted

I edited the phrase

"Thought doesn't know it is doing something and then it struggles against it is doing."

to read this way:

"Thought doesn't know it is doing something and then it struggles against what it is doing."

(Italics added only to highlight the inserted word.)

I Googled the phrase and discovered that several Bohm hagiographic web sites copy this erroneous quote verbatim from Wikipedia. A few, however, have spotted the error and fixed it -- on THEIR web site!

Timothy Campbell 17:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

When did he die?

At the top of the page it says "David Joseph Bohm (born December 20, 1917 in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, died October 27, 1992 in London) "

Yet towards the bottom it informs us "David Bohm died of a heart attack in London on October 27, 1994."

Sorry, I don't know about this, I was just reading the page and noticed the inconsistency.

Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.89.240.153 (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I heard from people of the Krishnamurti Foundation that the day he died, he called by phone Saral (his wife), telling her that he discovered (or got very clore to) something of utmost importance. He sounded very excited, and he told her that later he will explain what was that, as soon as he arrives home. No one know what was it, but if you have read his book The Ending of Time (dialogues with J. Krishnamurti), you may get a clue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contactarlo (talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Bohm's time at Birkbeck

Hi, there seems to be no mention of Bohm's time at Birkbeck College London, when I was a student there. Would like to chase this up and put something in - what do the other editors on this page feel about it?

A very good account of Bohm's contribution to quantum theory is Peter R. Holland's 'Quantum Theory of Motion'. Holland was a student of Bohm, last time I talked to him teaching in UWE Bristol. The book is a systematic exposition of Bohm's very original contribution.

I also have a rather aged work by de Broglie in which he acknowledges Bohm's contribution - would be nice to source this also on this page.

Alan XAX Freeman 22:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In 1961, Bohm was made Professor of Theoretical Physics at Birkbeck College London, where his collected papers are kept. This sentence is in the section on The Aharonov-Bohm effect. Feel free to expand on it.--Blainster 20:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK thnks will try to gather thoughts and info from former pupils, and put something in.

Alan XAX Freeman 21:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking about this too, and also about a page for Basil Hiley. Keith Bowden

[email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithbowden (talk • contribs) 18:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bohm was at Birbeck a long time, I met him there when I was, I think 17 or 18 around 1979. Rich Farmbrough, 23:18, 15th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Jack Sarfatti was with Bohm at Birkbeck in 1971 and also 1974 see David Kaiser's "How the Hippies Saved Physics" and John Hasted's "Geller Notebooks" online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:102:27F0:CD24:67FA:FE6A:84D2 (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"Thought as a System"

As someone else pointed out a year and a half ago, the quoted material in this section is way too long and needs to be trimmed substantially. I'm hoping somebody who's worked on the article in the past will take this on and do it right, as I am overloaded with other work at present. Cgingold 12:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think this section is too long. For me it gets at the heart of the human condition in which it is all too easy to project our own thoughts onto reality. This has the effect of creating the reality we originally only projected. For instance, when one has a paranoid frame of mind one tends to actually create enemies when they originally only exist in your mind. This happens all the time between societies and between individuals. How can one say that this very important idea of Bohm's,that our thoughts are the problem, doesn't deserve this amount of space? I therefore am removing the criticism.75.6.238.87 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

How are Bohm's theories viewed today? I have heard Quantum students say his theories are now not highly regarded. Is this so? In truth, it feels to this layman that String Theory is not a million miles away from Bohm's theories of Implicate and Explicate Orders... Anyone want to add something about how Bohm is seen now? ThePeg (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bohm's work in physics is respected, but his deterministic Bohm interpretation of pilot wave theory is now considered to be superseded. His later work (implicate/explicate order) is more philosophical and, I think mostly ignored by the physical scientist community. --Blainster (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, John Stewart Bell, whose work is and was seminal and universally respected, thought highly of Bohm's interpretation, which in fact inspired him.John Z (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Bohm"

Could someone add how to pronounce his name, specifically the common pronunciation used in the U.S.? DBlomgren (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The ö in English is usually pronounced "er" as in "fern," so "Bohm" would rhyme with "term." 71.138.155.228 (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Jordan 23:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, there never was an umlaut-o (ö) in Bohm's name. His name rhymes with "home", in British English as well as American English. 14:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.88.208.39 (talk)

"British"

The characterization of Bohm as "British" in the lead and under "Nationality" is problematic if not downright misleading. He lived nearly as many years of his life in the US (34) as in the UK (35). He was born in the US to two non-British parents and got all his formal education in the US. While it doesn't say so, presumably he renounced his US citizenship when he left the US (or perhaps once he immigrated to the UK), but given how rarely Americans immigrate to Britain, the "British" term would imply to most that he was born in Britain.

I think "American-born British" is the least misleading description, since "American-British" is not in common use the way "Indo-American" is. JoelWest (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

We use the nationality held at the time the subject became notable in the lead sentence. Thus the lead sentence should read "American", as should nationality in the infobox. This is precisely why there is also a citizenship field in the infobox, for changes of citizenship, so that field should read "British". This has all been done and is a good solution. We specifically don't use hyphenated nationalities or phrases like "American-born British" in the lead sentence, see WP:OPENPARA. Yworo (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"Pribram"

The reference to the effect that "Bohm also made significant theoretical contributions to neuropsychology and the development of the holonomic model of the functioning of the brain." and the following is not valid. The text found at the URL does not specify such a thing. This sentence should be removed if no proper reference is found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.23.35.189 (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Aharonov-Bohm

Prior to Nov 4, 2009, there was the sentence:

"... the Aharonov-Bohm effect, showing how an electro-magnetic field could affect a region of space in which the field had been shielded, although its vector potential did not exist there."

It is correct that the field has been shielded (i.e. it is zero), but totally incorrect that "its vector potential does not exist there". On the contrary, the vector potential exists there (i.e. it is not zero).

I fixed the error simply by changing "exist" to "vanish", although it would have been better to rephrase the whole sentence. I also changed "electro-magnetic field" to "magnetic field", because the usual applications of Aharonov-Bohm are to static magnetic fields, and also in general an electromagnetic field is described by a 4-potential and not simpoly by a (3-dimensional) vector potential. To bring in the 4-potential would open a can of worms.

So the sentence I propose reads: "... the Aharonov-Bohm effect, showing how a magnetic field could affect a region of space in which the field had been shielded, although its vector potential did not vanish there."

It would probably be better to say (changing "although" to "if"):

"... the Aharonov-Bohm effect, showing how a magnetic field could affect a region of space in which the field had been shielded, if its vector potential did not vanish there."

If anybody wants to make this change, I have no objection.

Further down I have changed "vector potential" to "magnetic vector potential", so the readers who do not know about this subject can follow a useful link. (I expect that many people reading this article are interested in Bohm's politics or philosophy, and do not know what a vector potential is, either as a general mathematical device or specifically in relation to the magnetic field). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torrazzo (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd Beliefs

Something should be really said about his odd beliefs. The guy carried around a bent key that Uri Geller bent. He lost it for an hour and it was taken as the magic powers of Geller working at a distance that made it vanish and another amazing feat when he found the key again [1]. Although, a lot of his physics work is now generally by the wayside, he was clearly a good theoretical physicist, but he was also extremely gullible and the way the article is written you really can't tell where he was actually was crazy. His good contributions to science are matched with his bizarre crackpot notions. It's a lot like saying somebody made considerable contributions to mathematics and astrology. The two sides of David Bohm's life might need a bit more separation and a better writeup. Tat (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that any belief (same as opinion, only one that is often older, coherently organized and better expressed) may be considered "odd" by those who hold other beliefs. I'd say that there are people who consider quantum mechanics full of "bizarre crackpot notions", something an astrologer-mathematician would feel comfortable in. Other people seem to accept the relevance of the field on the basis of belief: they have no way of reproducing the experiments, interpreting the results or understanding the theories. Might as well be Uri Geller showing them a bent spoon. I'm not picking on quantum mechanics, a subject that (in my limited knowledge) I find fascinating, this is just for illustration. I do have a problem with the article cited above though. It is as full of opinion, questionable sources, "directed" research, and arguments that are flimsy and non-rigorous, as its representation of the people and ideas it criticizes. I also don't know how (outside of personal experience - please share it if you have any, so we can judge for ourselves) Bohm or anyone can be characterized as "extremely gullible". In my opinion, the two sides of David Bohm's life might need a bit more integration and a better writeup. Thanks. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Crackpot notions? LoL - I consider something like this as bordering on the trivial. Show me one quantum physicist, at least from the times of David Bohm himself, who could be said to have been utterly free of "crackpot notions" in any sense. I mean, seriously?! David Bohm may have been somewhat potty, but he couldn't have been any more potty than almost all of the really great scientists were anyway! Just consider Newton.. then.. think again. That's what great science is about, in the end, at times the pot of cosy dogma simply needs to be cracked, in order to somehow get ahead. Albert Einstein, as should be known, liked to converse with one of those very (wooooh..) "potty" Indian mystics too, by the way, just as David Bohm. And this very Einstein, at Princeton, wished for.. whom.. as his personal assistant? David Bohm! None other. I guess this alone says a lot concerning the standing of Mr. Bohm, and what exactly, then, are your credentials, so as to call this man a crackpot? Try to get, where he has been, then speak again. It'll take a while... Zero Thrust (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely potty, and if you want to talk standing than the word embarrassment comes to mind. Also, he is a crackpot by the principle of Six Degrees of Smarandache : Bohm - Vigier - Evans - Crothers - Smarandache.137.205.101.7 (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Particle Physics, Quantum Theory and Taoism by Gerry Teekman

The American physicist, David Bohm, in his book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" proposed his theories of the universe of 'explicit order' and 'intricate order'. Simply put, 'explicit order' being the universe of matter we see, and 'intricate order', where everyone and everything is part of an indivisible energy continuum.

'He had difficulty accepting that the quantum theory conventions that subatomic particles had no objective existence and took on definite properties only when physicists tried to observe and measure them.' [The Uncertainty Principle.] 'He also had difficulty believing that the quantum world was characterized by absolute indeterminism and chance, and that things just happened for no reason whatsoever. He began to suspect that there might be deeper causes behind the apparently random and crazy nature of the subatomic world.' ["David Bohm and the Implicate Order" by David Pratt, Theosophical University Press 1993]

To Bohm, all the separate objects, entities, structures, and events in the visible or explicate world around us are relatively autonomous, stable, and temporary sub-totalities derived from a deeper, implicate order of unbroken wholeness. Bohm uses the analogy of a flowing stream: 'On this stream, one may see an ever-changing pattern of vortices, ripples, waves, splashes, etc, which evidently have no independent existence as such. Rather, they are abstracted from the flowing movement, arising and vanishing in the total process of the flow. Such transitory subsistence as may be possessed by these abstracted forms implies only a relative independence or autonomy of behaviour, rather than absolutely independent existence as ultimate substances. 'We must learn to view everything as part of "Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement."' (David Bohm, "Wholeness and the Implicate Order", Routledge & Kegan Paul 1980.)

There are amazing parallels between modern physics and ancient Chinese mysticism, especially the concept of the Tao (literally 'The Way') - a subtle, universal, all-pervading force that permeates everything in the universe, and also is, in some sense, (possibly paradoxically,) the foundation upon which the universe was formed, is based, and in which space and time unfolds. The Tao is 'natural law', or the Way of things.

Taoism was first documented circa 500BC by the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tsu (an older contempory of K'ung Fu-Tsu, commonly known as Confucius,) in his astoundingly insightful book "Tao Te Ching" (roughly 'the book of the Way of rightness and virtue', but definitely not in a moralistic sense.) Its philosophy is based upon a much older set of concepts documented in the ancient, (possibly the first book ever written,) the "I Ching", or ‘Book of Change/s’, attributed to King Wen (the first Chinese emporer, circa 2000BC). Lao Tsu astutely and correctly intuited the quantum nature of the universe, based soley upon his observation of the world and way events unfold. That the only constant in the universe is change, is a very Taoist point of view.

Taoism also postulates that everything is a continuous, dynamic interplay between opposites. Positive and negative - polar opposites, but from another point of view, both part of a larger totality.

Without darkness, there would be no light. No heat without cold. No protons without electrons. No matter without space. No death without life. No action, unless there was first inaction, and so on. And the binary (digital) concept upon which computer science is based - everything is either ones or zeroes. To quote Lao Tsu: 'Something mysteriously formed, Born before heaven and earth In the silence of the void, standing alone and unchanging. Ever present and in motion...' ["Tao Te Ching", Chapter 25]

The Tao also encompasses the Sanskrit concept of 'samsara' - the material world we see around us (samsara), is really illusion. Let go of the illusion, strive for oblivion - nothingness and stillness, and you achieve nirvana - ultimate enlightenment. The ultimate existence is non-existence. What seems solid and real, is in fact a chaotic, but also paradoxically orderly, dance of sub-atomic particles, which wink into and out of existence, as time passes (or seems to pass). Whatever time is... And when these particles are examined closely, they turn out to be 'balls of fluff' apparently without substance, in the large empty void, which makes up most of the atom. Everything is nothing.... It's all relative to your point of view, as Einstein would point out.

Lao Tsu's first precepts, and the first words in the "Tao Te Ching", are: 'The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.' [Chapter 1]

'Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form. Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound. Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible. These three are indefinable; therefore they are joined in one. From above it is not bright, From below it is not dark; An unbroken thread beyond description. It returns to nothingness. The form of the formless. The image of the imageless. It is called indefinable and beyond imagination. Stand before it and there is no beginning. Follow it and there is no end. Stay with the ancient Tao, Move with the present. Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao.' [Chapter 14]

There is much in Taoism that parallels modern quantum physics. There is even a book called "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra [Fontana/Collins 1972] which discusses the parallels between modern physics, which it seems daily becomes more and more like mysticism, and ancient Taoism and other Eastern philosophies. The life philosophy of Taoism is based on the concept of going with the flow: 'Empty yourself of everything. Let the mind rest at peace. The ten thousand things (an analogy for all the material things in the world,) rise and fall while the Self watches their return. They grow and flourish, and then return to the source. Returning to the source is stillness, which is the way of nature. The way of nature is unchanging. Knowing constancy is insight. Not knowing constancy leads to disaster. Knowing constancy, the mind is open. With an open mind, you will be open-hearted. Being open-hearted, you will act royally. Being royal, you will attain the divine. Being divine, you will be at one with the Tao. Being at one with the Tao is eternal. And though the body dies, the Tao will never pass away.' [Chapter 16]

{Quotes from the Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English translation of "Tao Te Ching" by Lao Tsu. 1972. Vintage books.}

Eastern philosophy has much to offer us. It is astute, perceptive, relevant and insightful. Perhaps the final word is: If sometimes you don't get lost, there's a chance you may NEVER find The Way.

'The Gift of Truth Excels all Other Gifts.', Siddharta Gautama (‘Buddha') —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry Teekman (talk • contribs) 14:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Gerry Teekman (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think in Bohm's generation, physicists had prejudices against any statement of the concepts of "mind", "thought", etc. Furthermore, I almost never believe that physicists have no bias when making a surmise and experiment, but they like the masses believe that they and their peer reviews are simply objective. Researching needs funds. Who offers funds, where the research goes. I personally have some mystery experiences, like Merkaba. I don't think physicists are ever glad to face these topics (they don't like supernature). By the way, I personally interpret that Lao Tsu was just one of the author of Tao Te Ching, this usually happened (and keep happening now) on any religions or philosophy factions -- The master had his opinion and experience, and his students explained the teacher's concept to be another stuff. Just like Jung ever said: "Thank God I'm not a Jungian". According to a story that Gary R. Renard wrote, Buddha was Lao Tsu's student in his pastlife (he wasn't as famous an Confucius, another Lao Tsu's student), many of Lao Tsu's concept were similar to Buddhism, but there were still many slight differences. Historians usually like to distort something (everyone has his own belief), just like some other field of scholars did. It's really hard to know the truth of history, although the "difficulty" might just be my believe system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.170.131.132 (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Reassessment

I've downgraded this article from B to C-Class due to a lack of inline sources. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Youth and college

In 2004, User:Fastfission removed

Although he was invited, he refused to join the Manhattan Project and to work with other leading scientists like Robert Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi in developing the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. After the war Bohm became assistant professor at Princeton University where he worked closely with Albert Einstein.

and replaced it with the following:[2]

Bohm became increasingly involved not only with physics, but radical politics. Like many young idealists in the late 1930s (including Oppenheimer himself), Bohm and his colleagues were attracted to alternative models of society, and were active in organizations like the Young Communist League, the Campus Committee to Fight Conscription, and the Committee for Peace Mobilization (all would be branded Communist fronts by the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover). During the World War II, much of Berkeley physics was mobilized in the effort to produce the first atomic bomb during the Manhattan Project. Though Oppenheimer had asked Bohm to work with him at Los Alamos, the top-secret laboratory established in 1942 to design the weapon, the head of the Manhattan Project, General Leslie Groves, would not approve his security clearance, after tip-offs about Bohm's politics (Bohm's friend, Joseph Weinberg, was also then under suspicion for espionage). Bohm remained in Berkeley, teaching physics, before completing his Ph.D. in 1943. He would later, however, work on the theoretical calculations for the Calutrons at the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, which were used to electromagnetically enrich uranium for use in the bomb which was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. After the war Bohm became assistant professor at Princeton University where he worked closely with Albert Einstein. In May 1949, at the beginning of the McCarthyism hysteria period, Bohm was called upon to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee because of his previous ties to suspected Communists, but pleaded the Fifth amendment right to decline to testify, and refused to give evidence against his colleagues. In 1950 Bohm was charged for refusing to answer questions before the Committee and arrested. He was acquitted in May 1951 but Princeton had already suspended him and after his acquittal refused to renew his contract. Bohm's colleagues sought to have his position at Princeton reinstated, and Einstein reportedly wanted Bohm to serve as his assistant, but Bohm's contract with the university was not renewed. Then, Bohm left for Brazil to take up a Chair in Physics at the University of São Paulo, Brazil.

Since this is a biography article, we are going to need sources for all of this. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

the driver turned back and found that Bohm had collapsed.

Death as a wave function collapse? haha I bet Bohm would have appreciated the posthumous joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.101.208.152 (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration with Jiddu Krishnamurti

It seems to me almost incredible that there is not a single mention (except on the Publications list) about his collaboration and relationship with Jiddu Krishnamurti. There are more than two publications by both, and many hours of recorded video of their conversations. Bohm was a teacher at Brockwood Park School, in England, a school founded by Krishnamurti, and I think he was also a trustee of the Krishnamurti Fund Trust. In this Foundation, and in the Krishnamurti Foundation of America (in Ojai, California) there are still many people who knew Bohm and can tell about his passion and interest to Krishnamurti "teachings", even after Krishnamurti's death. You can find the videos and audio recordings on Youtube and the books almost on any important book trader online. By the amount of published material you can have an idea about the importance Bohm gave to this collaborative relationship. After Krishnamurti's death, he kept organising dialogues with a reduced number of interested people, mostly from a non-scientific background. The idea behind that was to avoid the use of any academic knowledge for their investigations. The topics discussed were similar to those you can find in other dialogues with Krishnamurti, usually not related to science. I recommend to watch or listen to that material in order to have an idea of what Bohm was seriously attracted to. This may give a better picture of who David Bohm really was, how his mind worked, what he devoted his time and energy to, etc. I hope the Krishnamurti Foundations (who owns the original material and copyrights) could elaborate an article or section about this fascinating collaborative relationship. Contactarlo (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:David Bohm/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is an altogether unsatisfactory account of David Bohm's contributions to Quantum Theory. It does not engage in any of the substantive contributions nor does it give any sense of the development/evolution of Bohm's thinking over time. It is unfortunate that this is what pops on Google when folks search for information.

Last edited at 01:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 12:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on David Bohm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326192406/http://www.controversia.fis.ufba.br/index_arquivos/Freire-Bohm-HSPS.pdf to http://www.controversia.fis.ufba.br/index_arquivos/Freire-Bohm-HSPS.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326192406/http://www.controversia.fis.ufba.br/index_arquivos/Freire-Bohm-HSPS.pdf to http://www.controversia.fis.ufba.br/index_arquivos/Freire-Bohm-HSPS.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926212330/http://www.ctr4process.org/publications/Articles/LSI05/Hiley%20paper.pdf to http://www.ctr4process.org/publications/Articles/LSI05/Hiley%20paper.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on David Bohm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212130742/http://www.uni-frankfurt.de/fb/fb13/Dateien/paf/paf73.html to http://www.uni-frankfurt.de/fb/fb13/Dateien/paf/paf73.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150309114214/http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/martin_gardner_on_david_bohm_and_krishnamurti.html to http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/martin_gardner_on_david_bohm_and_krishnamurti.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20111009151609/http://www.tkpi.org/content/meaning-and-information-david-bohm to http://www.tkpi.org/content/meaning-and-information-david-bohm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040412155034/http://fdavidpeat.com/ to http://www.fdavidpeat.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050421132413/http://www.thinkg.net/david_bohm/ to http://www.thinkg.net/david_bohm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Bohm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ed.augie.edu/~wjdelfs/381bohm.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010303172350/http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/bohm.htm to http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/bohm.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

See also-Present

Present defined-"occurring now"-this would apply to his "Dialogue groups" activity of being present to what they are thinking-understanding and communicating.Arnlodg (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)