Abstract David Bohm published his “Suggested Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of Hidden Variables” some twenty five years after Louis de Broglie first presented his similar Pilot Wave theory of quantum mechanics. In the following 30 years what became known as the de Broglie–Bohm approach to quantum theory was to a large extent ignored within the physics community. Even David Bohm himself became somewhat disillusioned with the lack of impact of his interpretation of quantum theory and he directed his interest elsewhere. But some 27 years after Bohm had published his interpretation of quantum theory, interest was rekindled in part by new, detailed calculations that demonstrated clearly and graphically, exactly how his interpretation explained quantum phenomena in terms of well defined individual particle trajectories. These computations encompassed two-slit interference, quantum tunnelling, neutron interferometry, Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment, orbital and intrinsic angular momentum, quantum measurement and Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen nonlocal correlations for orbital angular momentum, intrinsic angular momentum and correlated particle interferometry. Since then, the acceptance of the validity of de Broglie–Bohm theory has steadily grown, as has the interest in the consequences of the approach. For my contribution to the current celebratory volume I was asked to provide a personal review specifically of this novel work within its historical context of the last quarter of the twentieth century.
Abstract David Bohm published his “Suggested Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of Hidden Variables” some twenty five years after Louis de Broglie first presented his similar Pilot Wave theory of quantum mechanics. In the following 30 years what became known as the de Broglie–Bohm approach to quantum theory was to a large extent ignored within the physics community. Even David Bohm himself became somewhat disillusioned with the lack of impact of his interpretation of quantum theory and he directed his interest elsewhere. But some 27 years after Bohm had published his interpretation of quantum theory, interest was rekindled in part by new, detailed calculations that demonstrated clearly and graphically, exactly how his interpretation explained quantum phenomena in terms of well defined individual particle trajectories. These computations encompassed two-slit interference, quantum tunnelling, neutron interferometry, Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment, orbital and intrinsic angular momentum, quantum measurement and Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen nonlocal correlations for orbital angular momentum, intrinsic angular momentum and correlated particle interferometry. Since then, the acceptance of the validity of de Broglie–Bohm theory has steadily grown, as has the interest in the consequences of the approach. For my contribution to the current celebratory volume I was asked to provide a personal review specifically of this novel work within its historical context of the last quarter of the twentieth century.
The de Broglie–Bohm interpretation (Bohmian mechanics, hidden-variables theory, causal interpretation
or pilot-wave theory) is one of the interpretations of quantum mechanics which opposes
to the claim of standard interpretation on the completeness of description of the state of quantummechanical
system, that description in Bohmian mechanics is completed by defining positions of
the particles of the system i.e. hidden variables and their dynamics. These facts are the basis of motivation
for the introduction of a new theory that can describe dubious axiomatic requirements of
standard interpretation. The presented theory is deterministic and explicitly nonlocal. Originators
of Bohmian mechanics were L. de Broglie (1927.) and D. Bohm (1952.) who presented mathematically
more general and conceptual elaborate formulation. Along with the historical overview,
a note is given about the main properties of the theory, such as the issue of nonlocality and hidden
variables. The aim of this paper is to present and explain the main ideas and properties of the
theory as well as to give a systematic overview of present and historical mathematical construction
of the theory and most of all to discuss implications of de Broglie–Bohm theory on the ontology of
quantum-mechanical picture, showcasing examples of the equivalency of the description of a free
particle as a propagation of the plane wave in space or as the ensemble of the trajectories and of
the spreading of the Gaussian wave packet. The main example of the obvious conceptual clashing
of the interpretations is presented: the double-slit experiment, with a detailed examination of the
Bohmian mechanics’ predictions using presented formalism on the two double-slit experiment.
The graphs of trajectories for given examples are obtained.
Abstract This introductory chapter reviews the main steps in the history of the pilot-wave theory from its inception to the present day, as well as the major philosophical discussions revolving around this theoretical framework. The first part of this essay begins with a discussion of de Broglie’ key ideas leading to the first formulation of the pilot-wave theory in 1924, followed by a detailed analysis of David Bohm’s rediscovery of this framework in 1952 along with the generalizations of his causal interpretation to the Pauli and Dirac theories. Moreover, the second renaissance of the pilot-wave theory is considered. Here I focus on the works of Hiley, Dewdney, Philippidis, Holland and other collaborators of Bohm who provided decisive contributions to the causal interpretation between the late 1970s and the 1980s. This part is concluded taking into account recent developments of the pilot-wave perspective, with particular attention to the approaches of Dürr, Goldstein, Zanghì and Valentini. The second part of the essay discusses in detail some of the main metaphysical debates concerning the ontology of this interpretative framework, as for instance the status of the wave function, the various notions of “particle” employed by various authors, as well as the meaning of quantum operators and contextuality in the de Broglie-Bohm theory. In addition, also the notion of primitive ontology is briefly introduced. Finally, the third part of this introduction illustrates the book chapters, guiding the reader into the various contents of the volume.
Louis-Victor de Broglie secured his place in the history of quantum physics by proposing the existence of matter waves. Following the concept accepted early in the twentieth century that light waves could display properties characteristic of particles (photons), de Broglie suggested the complementary principle that particles could display properties characteristic of waves. Within a few years, this far-reaching proposal was experimentally verified. The well-known formula for the wavelength λ of the wave associated with a particle of momentum p, namely λ=h/p, does not appear in de Broglie’s original paper, which was published in this journal in 1924. What is derived from the starting assumption that the frequency of the wave is the rest energy of the particle divided by Planck’s constant h, is the wave's velocity, which turns out to be c2/v, where v is the particle’s velocity. This velocity, being superluminal, means that the wave cannot transport energy. De Broglie called it a phase wave and postulated a group of such waves having virtually, but not exactly, the same velocity and wavelength. The group velocity of such a large number of almost identical phase waves is then shown, very satisfactorily, to be equal to the velocity of the particle. The proposal by de Broglie inspired Schrödinger to develop the mathematical foundations of wave mechanics. Whereas in conventional quantum theory, phase waves are considered fictional, de Broglie considered them to have a certain physical reality, renaming them pilot or guiding waves – a concept developed later by Bohm in 1952.
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.
The dominance of the Copenhagen interpretation is the result of a historical accident (Cushing, 1994). At the Solvay conference in 1927, Louis de Broglie put forward the deterministic pilot wave theory, described later. Never slow to criticize, Pauli jumped up and demolished de Broglie’s proposal, and de Broglie was so discouraged by this that he did not develop his interpretation any further. The Copenhagen interpretation was then developed by Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli and many others, as described in the previous chapter. It was strongly supported by von Neumann’s proof of the impossibility of hidden variables. Years later, in 1952, Bohm published a deterministic hidden variable theory, showing that there must be something wrong with von Neumann’s proof. The error was found by John Bell in 1966, as described in the last chapter, and he also showed how Pauli’s objections to de Broglie’s original idea can be answered. If this had been done at the conference in 1927, quantum mechanics could have been interpreted deterministically from the beginning. The essential mistake in the Copenhagen interpretation is to treat it as a complete account of the behaviour of each individual system. It is frequently claimed that it enables us to calculate, at least in principle, everything that can be measured. Thus Hooft (1997, p. 11) said that ‘The laws of quantum mechanics have been formulated very accurately. We know exactly how to compute anything we would like to know.’ Also Peierls (1997, p. 25) has said that quantum mechanics ‘had become a complete and consistent scheme capable of giving a unique answer to any questions relating to actual or possible observations’. Even if this were true, it would not imply that it is the final complete theory, for it is always possible that some new phenomenon might be found that cannot be calculated quantum-mechanically. However, it is not true: there are many phenomena such as the time of decay of a radioactive nucleus, or the direction a particle is scattered by a nucleus, that cannot be calculated, even in principle. Quantum mechanics is therefore an incomplete theory. We can only calculate the statistical properties of these systems, such as the half-life of a radioactive decay or the differential scattering cross-section that gives the probabilities that a particle is scattered through various angles. All measurements of quantum systems are of this statistical character. It might be thought that the possibility of making measurements on a single electron provides an exception to this. However, even in such cases the electron is continually bathed in a fluctuating background radiation from nearby atoms. Since this is variable, that electron is a member of an ensemble of electrons subject to different fluctuations. All these examples clearly demonstrate the statistical character of quantum mechanics. ‘I am rather firmly convinced’, Einstein (in Schilpp, 1949, pp. 666, 671) remarked, ‘that the essentially statistical character of contemporary quantum theory is solely to be ascribed to fact that this theory operates with an incomplete description of physical systems’. As a result, ‘the c-function is to be understood as the description not of a single system but of an ensemble of systems’. So, ‘if the statistical quantum theory does not pretend to describe the individual system completely, it appears unavoidable to look elsewhere for a complete description of the individual systems’. Thus ‘the difficulties of theoretical interpretation disappear, if one views the quantum-mechanical description as a description of an ensemble of systems’. If this is achieved, ‘the statistical theory would, within the framework of future physics, take an approximately analogous position to statistical mechanics within the framework of classical mechanics’. ‘Thus, essentially, nothing has changed since Galileo or Newton or Faraday concerning the status of the ‘‘observer’’ or our ‘‘consciousness’’ or of our ‘‘information’’ in physics’ (Popper, 1982, p. 46). Once this is accepted, the quantum paradoxes that plagued the Copenhagen interpretation are easily resolved, as described below. In any textbook of quantum mechanics problems such as the calculation of the energy levels of the hydrogen atom are solved as if that hydrogen atom is alone in the universe. As Feynman (1972) remarked, ‘when we solve a quantum-mechanical problem, what we really do is to divide the universe into two parts – the system in which we are interested and the rest of the universe. We then usually act as if the system in which we are interested comprised the whole universe.’ In fact, however, every hydrogen atom on which measurements are made is surrounded by other atoms and exposed to their radiations. Quantum mechanics somehow takes this into account and gives the average behaviour of an ensemble of hydrogen atoms. A more detailed theory takes these influences into account. One attempt to do this is stochastic electrodynamics, described in a later section.