Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

CRC Press eBooks

Dynamical Systems Approach to Bohmian Mechanics

Published Apr 19, 2016• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.1201/b10287-29

Related papers

Overview of Bohmian Mechanics

Xavier Oriols, J. Mompart

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.

arXiv:1206.1084•Jun 5, 2012•1 citation

Bohmian pathways into chemistry: A brief overview

Ángel S. Sanz

Perhaps because of the popularity that trajectory-based methodologies have always had in Chemistry and the important role they have played, Bohmian mechanics has been increasingly accepted within this community, particularly in those areas of the theoretical chemistry based on quantum mechanics, e.g., quantum chemistry, chemical physics, or physical chemistry. From a historical perspective, this evolution is remarkably interesting, particularly when the scarce applications of Madelung's former hydrodynamical formulation, dating back to the late 1960s and the 1970s, are compared with the many different applications available at present. As also happens with classical methodologies, Bohmian trajectories are essentially used to described and analyze the evolution of chemical systems, to design and implement new computational propagation techniques, or a combination of both. In the first case, Bohmian trajectories have the advantage that they avoid invoking typical quantum-classical correspondence to interpret the corresponding phenomenon or process, while in the second case quantum-mechanical effects appear by themselves, without the necessity to include artificially quantization conditions. Rather than providing an exhaustive revision and analysis of all these applications (excellent monographs on the issue are available in the literature for the interested reader, which can be consulted in the bibliography here supplied), this Chapter has been prepared in a way that it may serve the reader to acquire a general view (or impression) on how Bohmian mechanics has permeated the different traditional levels or pathways to approach molecular systems in Chemistry: electronic structure, molecular dynamics and statistical mechanics. This is done with the aid of some illustrative examples -- theoretical developments in some cases and numerical simulations in other cases.

arXiv:1801.04781•Jan 15, 2018•0 citations

Bohmian mechanics for instrumentalists

Hrvoje Nikolić

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.

arXiv:1811.11643•International Journal of Quantum Information•May 23, 2019•8 citations

Bohmian Mechanics as the Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

Detlef Dürr, Sheldon Goldstein, Nino Zanghı̀

arXiv:quant-ph/9511016•Boston studies in the philosophy of science•Jan 1, 1996•109 citations

Bell on Bohm

Sheldon Goldstein

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.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 31, 2016•0 citations

Multidimensional quantum dynamics with trajectories: a novel numerical implementation of Bohmian mechanics

Dmitry Nerukh, John H. Frederick

Chemical Physics Letters•Dec 1, 2000•52 citations
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 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.
Perhaps because of the popularity that trajectory-based methodologies have always had in Chemistry and the important role they have played, Bohmian mechanics has been increasingly accepted within this community, particularly in those areas of the theoretical chemistry based on quantum mechanics, e.g., quantum chemistry, chemical physics, or physical chemistry. From a historical perspective, this evolution is remarkably interesting, particularly when the scarce applications of Madelung's former hydrodynamical formulation, dating back to the late 1960s and the 1970s, are compared with the many different applications available at present. As also happens with classical methodologies, Bohmian trajectories are essentially used to described and analyze the evolution of chemical systems, to design and implement new computational propagation techniques, or a combination of both. In the first case, Bohmian trajectories have the advantage that they avoid invoking typical quantum-classical correspondence to interpret the corresponding phenomenon or process, while in the second case quantum-mechanical effects appear by themselves, without the necessity to include artificially quantization conditions. Rather than providing an exhaustive revision and analysis of all these applications (excellent monographs on the issue are available in the literature for the interested reader, which can be consulted in the bibliography here supplied), this Chapter has been prepared in a way that it may serve the reader to acquire a general view (or impression) on how Bohmian mechanics has permeated the different traditional levels or pathways to approach molecular systems in Chemistry: electronic structure, molecular dynamics and statistical mechanics. This is done with the aid of some illustrative examples -- theoretical developments in some cases and numerical simulations in other cases.
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.
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.