I was under the impression that Bohmian mechanics were known to be equivalent if and only if hidden variables were strictly non-local (in the case of the macrophysical observations, the "universe" can for a reasonable higher-order approximation be the limits of the chamber being observed).
IIRC, There is also an interesting 'alternative' relativity which has non-local effects and a universal frame of reference formulated by a physicist named Frank Tangherlini (I'll be interviewing him this month). It also has weird properties like anisotropy of the vacuum speed of light!!
Might be interesting if Bohmian and Tangherlini mechanics provided a better mathematical rapprochement of quantum mechanics with relativity than Copenhagen/Lorentz/Einstein
I was under the impression that Bohmian mechanics were known to be equivalent if and only if hidden variables were strictly non-local
Correct. The same is true of Bell's theorem; it shows that no local hidden variable theory can reproduce the predictions of standard quantum mechanics. It's true that the "local" part often gets left out in pop science treatments of Bell's theorem; but Bell himself was quite clear about it, and about the fact that Bohm's pilot wave theory is nonlocal. The article completely fails to mention this, which IMO is a huge omission.
I have been contemplating Julian Barbour's work which has a frame of reference in it. This would make it natural as to what the "now" of Bohmian mechanics would be. That "now" is the mystery at the moment.
IIRC, There is also an interesting 'alternative' relativity which has non-local effects and a universal frame of reference formulated by a physicist named Frank Tangherlini (I'll be interviewing him this month). It also has weird properties like anisotropy of the vacuum speed of light!!
Might be interesting if Bohmian and Tangherlini mechanics provided a better mathematical rapprochement of quantum mechanics with relativity than Copenhagen/Lorentz/Einstein