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.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.

arXiv:1707.00609Frontiers of PhysicsOct 2, 201845 citations

Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Information

Sheldon Goldstein

arXiv:0907.2427Foundations of PhysicsJun 16, 200915 citations

Time of arrival in quantum and Bohmian mechanics

C. Richard Leavens

In a recent paper Grot, Rovelli, and Tate (GRT) [Phys. Rev. A 54, 4676 (1996)] derived an expression for the probability distribution $\ensuremath{\pi}(T;X)$ of intrinsic arrival times $T(X)$ at position $x=X$ for a quantum particle with initial wave function $\ensuremath{\psi}(x,t=0)$ freely evolving in one dimension. This was done by quantizing the classical expression for the time of arrival of a free particle at $X,$ assuming a particular choice of operator ordering, and then regulating the resulting time of arrival operator. For the special case of a minimum-uncertainty-product wave packet at $t=0$ with average wave number $〈k〉$ and variance $\ensuremath{\Delta}k$ they showed that their analytical expression for $\ensuremath{\pi}(T;X)$ agreed with the probability current density $J(x=X,t=T)$ only to terms of order $\ensuremath{\Delta}k/〈k〉.$ They dismissed the probability current density as a viable candidate for the exact arrival time distribution on the grounds that it can sometimes be negative. This fact is not a problem within Bohmian mechanics where the arrival time distribution for a particle, either free or in the presence of a potential, is rigorously given by $|J(X,T)|$ (suitably normalized) [W. R. McKinnon and C. R. Leavens, Phys. Rev. A 51, 2748 (1995); C. R. Leavens, Phys. Lett. A 178, 27 (1993); M. Daumer et al., in On Three Levels: The Mathematical Physics of Micro-, Meso-, and Macro-Approaches to Physics, edited by M. Fannes et al. (Plenum, New York, 1994); M. Daumer, in Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal, edited by J. T. Cushing et al. (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1996)]. The two theories are compared in this paper and a case presented for which the results could not differ more: According to GRT's theory, every particle in the ensemble reaches a point $x=X,$ where $\ensuremath{\psi}(x,t)$ and $J(x,t)$ are both zero for all $t,$ while no particle ever reaches $X$ according to the theory based on Bohmian mechanics. Some possible implications are discussed.In a recent paper Grot, Rovelli, and Tate (GRT) [Phys. Rev. A 54, 4676 (1996)] derived an expression for the probability distribution $\ensuremath{\pi}(T;X)$ of intrinsic arrival times $T(X)$ at position $x=X$ for a quantum particle with initial wave function $\ensuremath{\psi}(x,t=0)$ freely evolving in one dimension. This was done by quantizing the classical expression for the time of arrival of a free particle at $X,$ assuming a particular choice of operator ordering, and then regulating the resulting time of arrival operator. For the special case of a minimum-uncertainty-product wave packet at $t=0$ with average wave number $〈k〉$ and variance $\ensuremath{\Delta}k$ they showed that their analytical expression for $\ensuremath{\pi}(T;X)$ agreed with the probability current density $J(x=X,t=T)$ only to terms of order $\ensuremath{\Delta}k/〈k〉.$ They dismissed the probability current density as a viable candidate for the exact arrival time distribution on the grounds that it can sometimes be negative. This fact is not a problem within Bohmian mechanics where the arrival time distribution for a particle, either free or in the presence of a potential, is rigorously given by $|J(X,T)|$ (suitably normalized) [W. R. McKinnon and C. R. Leavens, Phys. Rev. A 51, 2748 (1995); C. R. Leavens, Phys. Lett. A 178, 27 (1993); M. Daumer et al., in On Three Levels: The Mathematical Physics of Micro-, Meso-, and Macro-Approaches to Physics, edited by M. Fannes et al. (Plenum, New York, 1994); M. Daumer, in Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal, edited by J. T. Cushing et al. (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1996)]. The two theories are compared in this paper and a case presented for which the results could not differ more: According to GRT's theory, every particle in the ensemble reaches a point $x=X,$ where $\ensuremath{\psi}(x,t)$ and $J(x,t)$ are both zero for all $t,$ while no particle ever reaches $X$ according to the theory based on Bohmian mechanics. Some possible implications are discussed.

Physical Review AAug 1, 199893 citations

Surrealistic Bohmian trajectories appraised

Albert Solé

European Journal for Philosophy of ScienceMar 14, 20175 citations

In a recent paper Grot, Rovelli, and Tate (GRT) [Phys. Rev. A 54, 4676 (1996)] derived an expression for the probability distribution $\ensuremath{\pi}(T;X)$ of intrinsic arrival times

T(X)

at position

x=X

for a quantum particle with initial wave function $\ensuremath{\psi}(x,t=0)$ freely evolving in one dimension. This was done by quantizing the classical expression for the time of arrival of a free particle at

X,

assuming a particular choice of operator ordering, and then regulating the resulting time of arrival operator. For the special case of a minimum-uncertainty-product wave packet at

t=0

with average wave number

〈k〉

and variance $\ensuremath{\Delta}k$ they showed that their analytical expression for $\ensuremath{\pi}(T;X)$ agreed with the probability current density

J(x=X,t=T)

only to terms of order $\ensuremath{\Delta}k/〈k〉.$ They dismissed the probability current density as a viable candidate for the exact arrival time distribution on the grounds that it can sometimes be negative. This fact is not a problem within Bohmian mechanics where the arrival time distribution for a particle, either free or in the presence of a potential, is rigorously given by

|J(X,T)|

(suitably normalized) [W. R. McKinnon and C. R. Leavens, Phys. Rev. A 51, 2748 (1995); C. R. Leavens, Phys. Lett. A 178, 27 (1993); M. Daumer et al., in On Three Levels: The Mathematical Physics of Micro-, Meso-, and Macro-Approaches to Physics, edited by M. Fannes et al. (Plenum, New York, 1994); M. Daumer, in Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal, edited by J. T. Cushing et al. (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1996)]. The two theories are compared in this paper and a case presented for which the results could not differ more: According to GRT's theory, every particle in the ensemble reaches a point

x=X,

where $\ensuremath{\psi}(x,t)$ and

J(x,t)

are both zero for all

t,

while no particle ever reaches

X

according to the theory based on Bohmian mechanics. Some possible implications are discussed.