It is generally believed that two rival non-relativistic quantum theories, the realist interpretation of quantum mechanics and Bohmian mechanics, are empirically equivalent. In this paper, I use these two quantum theories to show that it is possible to offer a solution to underdetermination in some local cases, by specifying what counts as relevant empirical evidence in empirical equivalence and underdetermination. I argue for a domain-sensitive approach to underdetermination. Domain sensitivity on theories’ predictions plays a role in determining whether two or more theories are empirically equivalent and underdetermined. To support my argument for the denial of the empirical equivalence between Bohmian mechanics and the realist interpretation of quantum mechanics, I argue that they are not empirically equivalent when we consider their predictions for domains outside their application, using the relativistic domain as an example.

人们普遍认为，两种对立的非相对论量子理论，量子力学的实在论解释和波希米亚力学，在经验上是等价的。在本文中，我使用这两种量子理论来表明，通过指定在经验等价和欠定中哪些是相关的经验证据，可以为某些局部情况下的欠定提供解决方案。我主张对领域敏感确定不足的方法。理论预测的领域敏感性在确定两个或多个理论是否在经验上是等效的和未确定的方面发挥作用。为了支持我否认波希米亚力学和量子力学的实在论解释之间的经验等价性的论点，我认为当我们以相对论域为例来考虑他们对应用之外的域的预测时，它们在经验上并不等价。