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.
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.
We formulate Bohmian mechanics (BM) such that the main objects of concern are macroscopic phenomena, while microscopic particle trajectories only play an auxiliary role. Such a formulation makes it easy to understand why BM always makes the same measurable predictions as standard quantum mechanics (QM), irrespective of the details of microscopic trajectories. Relativistic quantum field theory (QFT) is interpreted as an effective long-distance theory that at smaller distances must be replaced by some more fundamental theory. Analogy with condensed-matter physics suggests that this more fundamental theory could have a form of nonrelativistic QM, offering a simple generic resolution of an apparent conflict between BM and relativistic QFT.
Quantum mechanics is often praised as a theory which unifies classical mechanics and classical wave theory. Quanta are said to behave either as particles or waves, depending on the type of experiment they are subjected to. But where in the standard formalism can a pointlike particle structure actually be found? Perhaps only to some degree in the reduction postulate applied to position measurements. In reaction to this unsatisfactory state of affairs, Bohmian mechanics introduces a mathematically precise particle concept into quantum mechanical theory. The fuzzy wave functions are supplemented by sharp particle world-lines. Through this additional structure some quantum phenomena like the double slit experiment have lost their mystery.
Bohmian mechanics (BM) draws a picture of nature, which is completely different from that drawn by standard quantum mechanics (SQM): Particles are at any time at a definite position, and the universe evolves deterministically. Astonishingly, according to a proof by Bohm the empirical predictions of these two very different theories coincide. From the very beginning, BM has faced all kinds of criticism, most of which are either technical or philosophical. There is, however, a criticism first raised by Correggi et al. (2002) and recently strengthened by Kiukas and Werner (2010), which holds that, in spite of Bohm's proof, the predictions of BM do not agree with those of SQM in the case of local position measurements on entangled particles in a stationary state. Hence, given that SQM has been proven to be tremendously successful in the past, BM could most likely not be considered an empirically adequate theory. My aim is to resolve the conflict by showing that 1) it relies on hidden differences in the conceptual thinking, and that 2) the predictions of both theories approximately coincide if the process of measurement is adequately accounted for. My analysis makes no use of any sort of wavefunction collapse, refuting a widespread belief that an "effective collapse" is needed to reconcile BM with the predictions of SQM.
Bohmian mechanics, also known as pilot-wave theory or de Broglie-Bohm theory, is a formulation of quantum mechanics whose fundamental axioms are not about what observers will see if they perform an experiment but about what happens in reality. It is therefore called a "quantum theory without observers," alongside with collapse theories and many-worlds theories and in contrast to orthodox quantum mechanics. It follows from these axioms that in a universe governed by Bohmian mechanics, observers will see outcomes with exactly the probabilities specified by the usual rules of quantum mechanics for empirical predictions. Specifically, Bohmian mechanics asserts that electrons and other elementary particles have a definite position at every time and move according to an equation of motion that is one of the fundamental laws of the theory and involves a wave function that evolves according to the usual Schrödinger equation. Bohmian mechanics is named after David Bohm (1917-1992), who was, although not the first to consider this theory, the first to realize (in 1952) that it actually makes correct predictions.
This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the Bohmian formulation of quantum mechanics. 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 Schrodinger 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.
Bohmian mechanics is a theory that provides a consistent explanation of quantum phenomena in terms of point particles whose motion is guided by the wave function. In this theory, the state of a system of particles is defined by the actual positions of the particles and the wave function of the system; and the state of the system evolves deterministically. Thus, the Bohmian state can be compared with the state in classical mechanics, which is given by the positions and momenta of all the particles, and which also evolves deterministically. However, while in classical mechanics it is usually taken for granted and considered unproblematic that the state is, at least in principle, measurable, this is not the case in Bohmian mechanics. Due to the linearity of the quantum dynamical laws, one essential component of the Bohmian state, the wave function, is not directly measurable. Moreover, it turns out that the measurement of the other component of the state — the positions of the particles — must be mediated by the wave function; a fact that in turn implies that the positions of the particles, though measurable, are constrained by absolute uncertainty. This is the key to understanding how Bohmian mechanics, despite being deterministic, can account for all quantum predictions, including quantum randomness and uncertainty.