>>10659435I have yes, quite a bit in fact. Bohmian mechanics is very alluring when first encountering it because it seems to line up with classical intuition so well. However, a deeper investigation has disillusioned me. A one particle state can be imagined as a particle riding on a real physical wave that occupies real space. This neatness disappears when describing states of more than one particle. Now, this wave has three spatial parameters for each particle (so 6 for 2 particles, 9 for 3, etc). It's not a single wave occupying real space in the intuitive sense, and it's not just a combination of single-particle waves.
Also, there hasn't been a successful relativistic formulation. Several have been proposed over the decades, but none are without major issues. Meanwhile, standard QM was made relativistic back in 1928. Given how often relativistic quantum experiments have been performed over the decades, this makes Bohmian mechanics essentially useless to working physicists.
Standard QM and QFT have done extraordinarily well, and have been consistent with experiment to the absolute boundary of measuring capability. Bohmian mechanics just has almost a century of experimental evidence to catch up with if it wants to be taken seriously again.
