Much attention has been drawn to quantum computing and the exponential speed-up in computation the technology would be able to provide. Various claims have been made about what aspect of quantum mechanics causes this speed-up. Formulations of quantum computing have traditionally been made in orthodox (Copenhagen) and sometimes many-worlds quantum mechanics. We will aim to understand quantum computing in terms of de Broglie-Bohm Pilot-Wave Theory by considering different simple systems that may function as a basic quantum computer. We will provide a careful discussion of Pilot-Wave Theory and evaluate criticisms of the theory. We will assess claims regarding what causes the exponential speed-up in the light of our analysis and the fact that Pilot-Wave Theory is perfectly able to account for the phenomena involved in quantum computing.
Much attention has been drawn to quantum computing and the exponential speed-up in computation the technology would be able to provide. Various claims have been made about what aspect of quantum mechanics causes this speed-up. Formulations of quantum computing have traditionally been made in orthodox (Copenhagen) and sometimes many-worlds quantum mechanics. We will aim to understand quantum computing in terms of de Broglie-Bohm Pilot-Wave Theory by considering different simple systems that may function as a basic quantum computer. We will provide a careful discussion of Pilot-Wave Theory and evaluate criticisms of the theory. We will assess claims regarding what causes the exponential speed-up in the light of our analysis and the fact that Pilot-Wave Theory is perfectly able to account for the phenomena involved in quantum computing.
As we discussed in Section 2.4, in his Solvay lecture of 1927 de Broglie presented the pilot-wave dynamics of a non-relativistic many-body system, and outlined some simple applications of his ‘new dynamics of quanta’ (to interference, diffraction and atomic transitions). Further, as we saw in Section 10.2, contrary to a widespread misunderstanding, in the general discussion de Broglie's reply to Pauli's objection contained the essential points needed to treat inelastic scattering (even if Fermi's misleading optical analogy confused matters): in particular, de Broglie correctly indicated how definite quantum outcomes in scattering processes arise from a separation of wave packets in configuration space. We also saw in Section 10.4 that de Broglie was unable to reply to a query from Kramers concerning the recoil of a single photon on a mirror: to do so, he would have had to introduce a joint wave function for the photon and the mirror. De Broglie's theory was revived by Bohm 25 years later (Bohm 1952a,b) (though with the dynamics written in terms of a law for acceleration instead of a law for velocity). Bohm's truly new and very important contribution was a pilot-wave account of the general quantum theory of measurement, with macroscopic equipment (pointers, etc.) treated as part of the quantum system. In effect, in 1952, Bohm provided a detailed derivation of quantum phenomenology from de Broglie's dynamics of 1927 (albeit with the dynamical equations written differently).
We consider an example of a quantum algorithm from the point of view of the de Broglie-Bohm formulation of quantum mechanics. For concreteness we look at two particular implementations: one using spin-1/2 particles as described by a simple model due to Bell and the other as energy states in an infinite-well potential. We extend the analysis to encompass a complete set of quantum gates. We conclude by discussing the relevance of our investigations for the debate about the origin of the quantum-computational speed-up.
In this essay I survey recent developments in the theory of tunnelling times in quantum mechanics. The study of this concept is polarised depending on one’s interpretation of quantum mechanics, which require different approaches and yield starkly different results. I survey this topic through the lenses of the orthodox (Copenhagen) and de Broglie-Bohm (pilot wave) interpretations, presenting the requisite theory and definitions and expounding the literature of the original authors through proofs and figures. I do this in sections 2 and 3 respectively. Before embarking on tunnelling times as a topic, I survey the conceptual aspects of how time is treated in classical and quantum mechanics. This topic has many subtle aspects which have hindered progress in understanding tunnelling times in the past. In this essay I hope to demonstrate the success that has been achieved in recent years, but also that further theoretical and experimental work is required, if we are to arrive at a universally accepted definition of tunnelling times in quantum mechanics - if indeed such a definition exists.
The de Broglie-Bohm “pilot-wave” theory replaces the paradoxical wave-particle duality of ordinary quantum theory with a more mundane and literal kind of duality: each individual photon or electron comprises a quantum wave (evolving in accordance with the usual quantum mechanical wave equation) and a particle that, under the influence of the wave, traces out a definite trajectory. The definite particle trajectory allows the theory to account for the results of experiments without the usual recourse to additional dynamical axioms about measurements. Instead, one need simply assume that particle detectors click when particles arrive at them. This alternative understanding of quantum phenomena is illustrated here for two elementary textbook examples of one-dimensional scattering and tunneling. We introduce a novel approach to reconcile standard textbook calculations (made using unphysical plane-wave states) with the need to treat such phenomena in terms of normalizable wave packets. This approach allows for a simple but illuminating analysis of the pilot-wave theory's particle trajectories and an explicit demonstration of the equivalence of the pilot-wave theory predictions with those of ordinary quantum theory.
The alternative pilot-wave theory of quantum phenomena—associated especially with Louis de Broglie, David Bohm, and John Bell—reproduces the statistical predictions of ordinary quantum mechanics but without recourse to special ad hoc axioms pertaining to measurement. That (and how) it does so is relatively straightforward to understand in the case of position measurements and, more generally, measurements, whose outcome is ultimately registered by the position of a pointer. Despite a widespread belief to the contrary among physicists, the theory can also account successfully for phenomena involving spin. The main goal of this paper is to explain how the pilot-wave theory's account of spin works. Along the way, we provide illuminating comparisons between the orthodox and pilot-wave accounts of spin and address some puzzles about how the pilot-wave theory relates to the important theorems of Kochen and Specker and Bell.
Some two centuries before the quantum revolution, Newton (1) suggested that corpuscles of light generate waves in an aethereal medium like skipping stones generate waves in water, with their motion then being affected by these aether waves. Times have changed. Light corpuscles are now known as photons, and the majority of physicists have dispensed with the notion of aether. Nevertheless, certain features of Newton's metaphor live on in one particular version of quantum mechanics. According to pilot wave theory, first proposed by de Broglie (2) and later developed by Bohm (3) with Einstein's encouragement, microscopic elements such as photons and electrons consist of both particle and wave, the former being guided by the latter. Although this physical picture has not been widely accepted, it has had some notable proponents, including Bell (4). Its principal appeal is that it restores realism and determinism to quantum mechanics, its weakness that the physical nature of the guiding wave field remains unclear. At the time that pilot wave theory was developed and then overtaken by the Copenhagen interpretation as the standard view of quantum mechanics, there was no macroscopic pilot wave analog to draw upon. Now there is.