Physical Nature of the Bohmian Quantum Potential

Athanasios C. Tzemos, G. Contopoulos

Mahdi Atiq, Mozafar Karamian, Mahdi Golshani

Sophya V. Garashchuk, Vitaly A. Rassolov

Faramarz Rahmani, Mehdi Golshani

Emmanuel E. Haven, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Short introduction to Bohmian mechanics Sheldon Goldstein in a Foundations of Physics paper [1] indicates (p. 341): “Since macroscopic objects are normally regarded as built out of microscopic constituents …there can be no problem of macroscopic reality per se in Bohmian mechanics.” Goldstein in the same paper remarks (p. 342) that this | ψ | 2 has “a status very much the same as that of a thermodynamic equilibrium.” Basil Hiley the closest collaborator of David Bohm, says the following (Hiley [2] (p. 2)): “What Bohm (1952a; 1952b) did was to show how to retain a description of all the usual properties of a classical world and yet remain completely within the quantum formalism.” The Bohm (1952) [3] [4] references in that quote refer to the original work of Bohm in which he sets out the basics of the Bohmian mechanics. As we will see later in the next section of this chapter, the appearance of an “additional term” in the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, is the hallmark of Bohmian mechanics and it is very often termed the “quantum potential.” Hiley [2] (p. 2) remarks that since the Bohmian momentum is a well-defined function of position and time, an ensemble of trajectories can be found when the quantum potential is non-zero. A unique, classical path is found when the quantum potential is zero. From the outset, we hope the reader can savor the beauty of this simple but very powerful result. Bohmian mechanics indeed shows this very gentle transition from quantum mechanics to classical mechanics via the value of the quantum potential.

Shan Gao

The nature of the wave function has been a hot topic of debate since the early days of quantum mechanics. The recent PBR theorem proves that the wave function is ontic, representing the ontic state of a physical system or a concrete physical entity. On the other hand, Bohmian mechanics regards the wave function as not ontic but nomological, like a law of nature. This raises an interesting question: does the PBR theorem refute Bohmian mechanics? It seems widely thought that the ontic view and the nomological view are compatible, and thus the PBR theorem has no implications for Bohmian mechanics. In this paper, I argue that this is not the case. First, I point out that the nomological view and the ontic view are two different views of the wave function. This means that the result of the PBR theorem and Bohmian mechanics are incompatible. Next, I argue that the PBR theorem and Bohmian mechanics are nevertheless compatible, and the former does not refute the latter. The reason is that the PBR theorem and Bohmian mechanics are based on different fundamental assumptions, and in particular, Bohmian mechanics rejects one key assumption of the ontological models framework on which the PBR theorem is based. Finally, I argue that the rejection of this assumption will bring to our attention a potential important issue of Bohmian mechanics.