The trajectory-based formalism of Bohmian mechanics constitutes an alternative (but equivalent at a predictive level) approach to the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. Here we show the advantages of this formalism in providing both an accurate description and a novel interpretation when it is applied to different phenomena of interest in elastic particle scattering, such as diffraction by “hard” and “soft” slits, and quantum vortical dynamics due to the presence of single adsorbates. These problems illustrate fairly well how quantum trajectories are able to satisfactorily reproduce the main features of real scattering experiments as well as to provide a causal insight of the underlying dynamics
The trajectory-based formalism of Bohmian mechanics constitutes an alternative (but equivalent at a predictive level) approach to the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. Here we show the advantages of this formalism in providing both an accurate description and a novel interpretation when it is applied to different phenomena of interest in elastic particle scattering, such as diffraction by “hard” and “soft” slits, and quantum vortical dynamics due to the presence of single adsorbates. These problems illustrate fairly well how quantum trajectories are able to satisfactorily reproduce the main features of real scattering experiments as well as to provide a causal insight of the underlying dynamics
Diffraction and interference of matter waves are key phenomena in quantum mechanics. Here we present some results on particle diffraction in a wide variety of situations, ranging from simple slit experiments to more complicated cases such as atom scattering by corrugated metal surfaces and metal surfaces with simple and isolated adsorbates. The principal novelty of our study is the use of the so-called Bohmian formalism of quantum trajectories. These trajectories are able to satisfactorily reproduce the main features of the experimental results and, more importantly, they provide a causal intuitive interpretation of the underlying dynamics. In particular, we will focus our attention on: (a) a revision of the concepts of near and far field in undulatory optics; (b) the transition to the classical limit, where it is found that although the quantum and classical diffraction patterns tend to be quite similar, some quantum features are maintained even when the quantum potential goes to zero; and (c) a qualitative description of the scattering of atoms by metal surfaces in the presence of a single adsorbate.
In a recent publication, Goldfarb et al. have proposed a new trajectory scheme to solve quantum problems: Bohmian mechanics with complex action BOMCA . According to these authors, their contribution represents “a novel formulation of Bohmian mechanics.” In our opinion, rather than a new formulation of Bohmian mechanics, the proposal of Goldfarb et al. consists of a novel quantum computational scheme, which is based on solving the complex trajectory equations resulting from an already known complex version of Bohmian dynamics. On the other hand, Goldfarb et al. also claimed that their numerical scheme describes “fully local complex quantum trajectories,” with the reward of a significantly higher degree of localization than in the conventional Bohmian mechanics by lowering the magnitude of the quantum potential. At least from a theoretical and interpretative point of view, we consider that it is very important to clarify what “fully local quantum trajectories” means. Bohmian mechanics is a nonlocal theory because standard quantum mechanics is a nonlocal theory. This nonlocality manifests via the presence of a quantum potential, and therefore the corresponding quantum trajectories will display features that reflect such nonlocality. Something similar should also occur for any trajectory-based approach that intends to be equivalent to standard quantum mechanics. In this Comment we would like to provide a general discussion on these two aspects arising from the work of Goldfarb et al., which can be of much interest to the Chemical Physics community. In particular, we would like to stress the special interest relying on how the term locality should be employed. The approach of Goldfarb et al. starts with the timedependent quantum Hamilton-Jacobi equation. This equation was considered by Leacock and Padgett in 1983 within the context of the quantum transformation theory as a way to obtain bound-state energy levels of quantum systems with no need to calculate the corresponding eigenfunctions. According to Leacock and Padgett, the quantum Hamilton-Jacobi equation can be either stated as a postulate as done by these authors or derived from the Schrodinger equation through a simple connection formula. In the second case, the quantum action corresponds to the complex phase of the wave function when the latter is expressed as a pure complex exponential function. This relationship allows one to pass straightforwardly from the quantum Hamilton-Jacobi formalism to the standard one in terms of the time-dependent Schrodinger and vice versa . Although both the Ansatz and the formulation used by Leacock and Padgett are similar to those considered in the standard quantum WKB semiclassical approximation, as pointed out by these authors, their approach conceptually differs from the WKB one. Within Bohmian mechanics, energy eigenstates present an inconvenience: they give rise to zero velocity fields. Hence, when particles are described by this type of states, they will remain steady motionless . To overcome this problem, Floyd and Faraggi and Matone developed timeindependent quantum Hamilton-Jacobi-like formulations starting from real bipolar Ansatze, though they did not claim full equivalence with standard quantum mechanics regarding their predictions. Later, John proposed a timedependent complex quantum trajectory formalism based on the same connection formula mentioned by Leacock and Padgett to study the dynamics associated with some simple analytical cases, such as the harmonic oscillator or the step barrier. This “modified de Broglie–Bohm approach to quantum mechanics,” as termed by John, is formally equivalent to the BOMCA formulation of Goldfarb et al. Nevertheless, we would like to specify that, due to the fundamental theoretical nature of John’s contribution, a separate calculation of the wave function is required in order to obtain the corresponding trajectories John makes use of the “guiding wave” idea from Bohmian mechanics . Meanwhile, in the version of Goldfarb et al. the modified de Broglie–Bohm approach is formulated in terms of a closed set of equations in the spirit of quantum hydrodynamical formalisms , which avoids the calculation of the wave functions, thus providing a new, practical use to such an approach. Furthermore, within the approach of Goldfarb et al., the expression for the quantum force happens to be typically much smaller than in standard Bohmian mechanics. On the other hand, we would also like to note that a related formulation has also been used by Chou and Wyatt, though they developed a different, novel numerical scheme to tackle the problem of bound-energy levels and scattering in one dimension. When trying to understand the quantum-classical correspondence from the perspective of a WKB-like formulation of Bohmian mechanics WKB-BM , Sanz and co-workers reached the complex quantum HamiltonJacobi equation the same year as John, but independently. The WKB-BM formulation constitutes an excellent, compreTHE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS 127, 197101 2007
Acknowledgments..................................................................................................388 Bibliography ..........................................................................................................389 The predictive power of quantum mechanics (QM) plays a role of paramount importance in the understanding of matter and its fundamental laws [8]. Despite this great success, the standard formulation of QM, usually known as the Copenhagen interpretation [10], has always suffered from interpretational difficulties [7]. For this reason, David Bohm introduced in the 1950s an alternative version [3], which has experienced a revitalization in the past few years, supported by a new computationally oriented point of view. The so-called Bohmian mechanics (BM) constitutes a true theory of quantum dynamics [6,18], and many interesting practical applications, including the analysis of the tunneling mechanism [9], scattering processes [12,14], or the classicalquantum correspondence [13], just to name a few, have been revisited using this novel point of view.
This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the Bohmian formulation of quantummechanics. It starts with a historical review of the difficulties found by Louis de Broglie, David Bohm, and John S. Bell to convince the scientific community about the validity and utility of Bohmian mechanics. Then, a formal explanation of Bohmian mechanics for nonrelativistic, single-particle quantum systems is presented. The generalization to many-particle systems, where the exchange interaction and the spin play an important role, is also presented. After that, the measurement process in Bohmian mechanics is discussed. It is emphasized that Bohmian mechanics exactly reproduces the mean value and temporal and spatial correlations obtained from the standard, that is the Copenhagen or orthodox, formulation. The ontological characteristics of Bohmian mechanics provide a description of measurements as another type of interaction without the need for introducing the wave function collapse. Several solved problems are presented at the end of the chapter, giving additional mathematical support to some particular issues. A detailed description of computational algorithms to obtain Bohmian trajectories from the numerical solution of the Schro¨dinger or the Hamilton-Jacobi equations are presented in an appendix. The motivation of this chapter is twofold: first, as a didactic introduction to Bohmian formalism, which is used in the subsequent chapters, and second, as a self-contained summary for any newcomer interested in using Bohmian mechanics in his or her daily research activity.
(Dated: April 8, 2011)Standard quantum mechanics relies on a series of postulates which constitute its fundamentalpillars. In Bohmian mechanics such postulates appear as a natural consequence of the statisticaltreatment of a trajectory-based theory (just as in classical mechanics). This is a reflection onBohmian mechanics and its physical implication at both a pedagogical and applied level whenanalyzing the role of quantum phase in different contexts of quantum mechanics. In particular, tocarry out this study, here we have mainly focused on the phenomena of quantum coherence andquantum interference, which are central to many different fundamental and applied problems ofinterest at present.I. INTRODUCTION
The popular impression of Bohmian mechanics is that it is standard quantum mechanics with the addition of some extra gadgets---exact particle positions and a guiding equation for particle trajectories---the advantages being that the gadgets pave the way for a resolution of the measurement problem that eschews state vector reduction while restoring the determinism lost in standard quantum mechanics. In fact, the Bohmian mechanics departs in significant ways from standard quantum mechanics. By itself this is not a basis for criticism; indeed, it makes Bohmian mechanics all the more interesting. But Bohmian mechanics is not, as the popular impression would have it, empirically equivalent to standard quantum mechanics in terms of probabilistic predictions for the outcomes of measurements of quantum observables. Indeed, in physically important applications to systems for which standard quantum mechanics delivers empirically well-confirmed probabilistic predictions, the sophisticated form of Bohmian mechanics designed to prove the global existence of Bohmian particle trajectories fails to deliver unequivocal predictions---of even a probabilistic variety---for the future behavior of said systems. Possible responses to this lacuna are discussed.