Since its inception, Bohmian mechanics has been surrounded by a halo of controversy. Originally proposed to bypass the limitations imposed by von Neumann's theorem on the impossibility of hidden-variable models in quantum mechanics, it faced strong opposition from the outset. Over time, however, its use in tackling specific problems across various branches of physics has led to a gradual shift in attitude, turning the early resistance into a more moderate acceptance. A plausible explanation for this change may be that, since the late 1990s and early 2000s, Bohmian mechanics has been taking on a more operational and practical role. The original hidden-variable idea has gradually faded from its framework, giving way to a more pragmatic approach that treats it as a suitable analytical and computational tool. This discussion explores how and why such a shift in perspective has occurred and, therefore, answers questions such as whether Bohmian mechanics should be considered once and for all a legitimate quantum representation (i.e., worth being taught in elementary quantum mechanics courses) or, by extension, whether these ideas can be transferred to and benefit other fields. Here, the Schrödinger equation and several specific numerical examples are re-examined in the light of a less restrictive view than the standard one usually adopted in quantum mechanics.
Since its inception, Bohmian mechanics has been surrounded by a halo of controversy. Originally proposed to bypass the limitations imposed by von Neumann's theorem on the impossibility of hidden-variable models in quantum mechanics, it faced strong opposition from the outset. Over time, however, its use in tackling specific problems across various branches of physics has led to a gradual shift in attitude, turning the early resistance into a more moderate acceptance. A plausible explanation for this change may be that, since the late 1990s and early 2000s, Bohmian mechanics has been taking on a more operational and practical role. The original hidden-variable idea has gradually faded from its framework, giving way to a more pragmatic approach that treats it as a suitable analytical and computational tool. This discussion explores how and why such a shift in perspective has occurred and, therefore, answers questions such as whether Bohmian mechanics should be considered once and for all a legitimate quantum representation (i.e., worth being taught in elementary quantum mechanics courses) or, by extension, whether these ideas can be transferred to and benefit other fields. Here, the Schrödinger equation and several specific numerical examples are re-examined in the light of a less restrictive view than the standard one usually adopted in quantum mechanics.
Since its inception Bohmian mechanics has been generally regarded as a hidden-variable theory aimed at providing an objective description of quantum phenomena. To date, this rather narrow conception of Bohm’s proposal has caused it more rejection than acceptance. Now, after 65 years of Bohmian mechanics, should still be such an interpretational aspect the prevailing appraisal? Why not favoring a more pragmatic view, as a legitimate picture of quantum mechanics, on equal footing in all respects with any other more conventional quantum picture? These questions are used here to introduce a discussion on an alternative way to deal with Bohmian mechanics at present, enhancing its aspect as an efficient and useful picture or formulation to tackle, explore, describe and explain quantum phenomena where phase and correlation ( entanglement ) are key elements. This discussion is presented through two complementary blocks. The first block is aimed at briefly revisiting the historical context that gave rise to the appearance of Bohmian mechanics, and how this approach or analogous ones have been used in different physical contexts. This discussion is used to emphasize a more pragmatic view to the detriment of the more conventional hidden-variable (ontological) approach that has been a leitmotif within the quantum foundations. The second block focuses on some particular formal aspects of Bohmian mechanics supporting the view presented here, with special emphasis on the physical meaning of the local phase field and the associated velocity field encoded within the wave function. As an illustration, a simple model of Young’s two-slit experiment is considered. The simplicity of this model allows to understand in an easy manner how the information conveyed by the Bohmian formulation relates to other more conventional concepts in quantum mechanics. This sort of pedagogical application is also aimed at showing the potential interest to introduce Bohmian mechanics in undergraduate quantum mechanics courses as a working tool rather than merely an alternative interpretation.
Mermin's "shut up and calculate!" somehow summarizes the most widely accepted view on quantum mechanics. This conception has led to a rather constraining way to think and understand the quantum world. Nonetheless, a closer look at the principles and formal body of this theory shows that, beyond longstanding prejudices, there is still room enough for alternative tools. This is the case, for example, of Bohmian mechanics. As it is discussed here, there is nothing contradictory or wrong with this hydrodynamical representation, which enhances the dynamical role of the quantum phase to the detriment (to some extent) of the probability density. The possibility to describe the evolution of quantum systems in terms of trajectories or streamlines is just a direct consequence of the fact that Bohmian mechanics (quantum hydrodynamics) is just a way to recast quantum mechanics in the more general language of the theory of characteristics. Misconceptions concerning Bohmian mechanics typically come from the fact that many times it is taken out of context and considered as an alternative theory to quantum mechanics, which is not the case. On the contrary, an appropriate contextualization shows that Bohmian mechanics constitutes a serious and useful representation of quantum mechanics, at the same level as any other quantum picture, such as Schrödinger's, Heisenberg's, Dirac's, or Feynman's, for instance. To illustrate its versatility, two phenomena will be briefly considered, namely dissipation and light interference.
The ontological aspect of Bohmian mechanics, as a hidden-variable theory that provides us with an objective description of a quantum world without observers, is widely known. Yet its practicality is getting more and more acceptance and relevance, for it has proven to be an efficient and useful resource to tackle, explore, describe and explain such phenomena. This practical aspect emerges precisely when the pragmatic application of the formalism prevails over any other interpretational question, still a matter of debate and controversy. In this regard, the purpose here is to show and discuss how Bohmian mechanics emphasizes in a natural manner a series of dynamical features difficult to find out through other quantum approaches. This arises from the fact that Bohmian mechanics allows us to establish a direct link between the dynamics exhibited by quantum systems and the local variations of the quantum phase associated with their state. To illustrate these facts, simple models of two physically insightful quantum phenomena have been chosen, namely, the dispersion of a free Gaussian wave packet and Young-type two-slit interference. As it is shown, the outcomes from their analysis render a novel, alternative understanding of the dynamics displayed by these quantum phenomena in terms of the underlying local velocity field that connects the probability density with the quantum flux. This field, nothing but the so-called guidance condition in standard Bohmian mechanics, thus acquires a prominent role to understand quantum dynamics, as the mechanism responsible for such dynamics. This goes beyond the passive role typically assigned to this field in Bohmian mechanics, where traditionally trajectories and quantum potentials have received more attention instead.
To date, quantum mechanics has proven to be our most successful theoretical model. However, it is still surrounded by a "mysterious halo" that can be summarized in a simple but challenging question: Why quantum phenomena are not understood under the same logic as classical ones? Although this is an open question (probably without an answer), from a pragmatist's point of view there is still room enough to further explore the quantum world, marveling ourselves with new physical insights. We just need to look back in the historical evolution of the quantum theory and thoroughly reconsider three key issues: (1) how this has developed since its early stages at a conceptual level, (2) what kind of experiments can be performed at present in a laboratory, and (3) what nonstandard conceptual models are available to extract some extra information. This contribution is aimed at providing some answers (and, perhaps, also raising some issues) to these questions through one of such models, namely Bohmian mechanics, a hydrodynamic formulation of the quantum theory, which is currently trying to open new pathways of understanding. Specifically, the Chapter constitutes a brief and personal overview on the historic and contextual evolution of this quantum formulation, its physical meaning and interest (leaving aside metaphysical issues), and how it may help to overcome some preconceived paradoxical aspects of the quantum theory.
Prologue A memorial conference for John Bell, open to the public, was held at Rutgers University around 20 years ago. I gave a short talk there on Bell's views about David Bohm's “hidden variables” formulation of quantum mechanics, a version of quantum mechanics often called the de Broglie–Bohm theory or Bohmian mechanics. This theory was in fact discovered by Louis de Broglie in 1927. In 1952, it was rediscovered and developed by Bohm, who was the first to appreciate its connection to the predictions of standard quantum mechanics. I did not publish the talk. I have decided that it would be appropriate to publish a very lightly edited version of it here, in this volume devoted to the work of Bell on the foundation of quantum mechanics. One reason for doing so is that the connection between Bell and Bohm continues to be somewhat underplayed, with the strength of his advocacy of Bohmian mechanics not properly appreciated. For example, about half of the papers in Bell's collected works on the foundations of quantum mechanics deal with Bohmian mechanics. But in his fine introduction to the revised edition of this great book [1], Alain Aspect mentions this theory in only a single sentence, and parenthetically at that. For several decades after Bell proved his nonlocality theorem, based in part on Bell's inequality, it was widely claimed that Bell had shown that hidden variables – and Bohmian mechanics in particular – were impossible, that they were incompatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. For example, the great physicist Eugene Wigner, who, unlike most of his contemporaries, was profoundly concerned with the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics and usually wrote on the subject with great clarity and insight, has written that This [hidden variables] is an interesting idea and even though few of us were ready to accept it, it must be admitted that the truly telling argument against it was produced as late as 1965, by J. S. Bell … This appears to give a convincing argument against the hidden variables theory.
It is shown that, although correct mathematically, the celebrated 1932 theorem of von Neumann which is often interpreted as proving the impossibility of the existence of "hidden variables" in Quantum Mechanics, is in fact based on an assumption which is physically not reasonable. Apart from that, the alleged conclusion of von Neumann proving the impossibility of the existence of "hidden variables" was already set aside in 1952 by the counterexample of the possibility of a physical theory, such as given by what is usually called the "Bohmian Mechanics". Similar arguments apply to other two well known mathematical theorems, namely, of Gleason, and of Kochen and Specker, which have often been seen as equally proving the impossibility of the existence of "hidden variables" in Quantum Mechanics.