Bohmian Mechanics - Durr Et Al
Bohmian Mechanics - Durr Et Al
Bohmian Mechanics - Durr Et Al
Bohmian Mechanics
January 6, 2008
dQi ~ Ψ ∗ ∇i Ψ t
Im t ∗
= Q(t) , (1)
dt mi Ψt Ψt
where mi is the mass of particle i, Im denotes the imaginary part, Ψt : R3N → Ck (i.e., a
function of the configuration with k complex components) is the wave function at time
t, Φ∗ Ψ is the scalar product in Ck , and ∇i is the gradient relative to the 3 coordinates
1
of particle i. (In case k = 1, i.e., for complex-valued wave functions, a factor Ψ∗t cancels
on the right hand side of (1).)
The wave function evolves according to the Schrödinger equation
N
X ~2
∂Ψt
i~ =− ∇2i Ψt + V Ψt , (2)
∂t i=1
2mi
where V : R3N → R is the potential function. (The potential, while often assumed to be
real-valued, may take values in the space of self-adjoint complex k × k matrices instead
of R.) The wave function is postulated to belong to the Hilbert space H = L2 (R3N , Ck )
of square-integrable functions (and to be sufficiently smooth).
Deterministic Evolution. Since the Schrödinger equation does not involve the particle
positions Qi (t), it can be solved first and determines the wave function Ψt for every
time t once an initial wave function Ψt0 is specified for any time t0 that we choose to
regard as the initial time. Next note that the right hand side of (1) consists of the 3
components corresponding to particle i out of the 3N components of a vector field v Ψt
on configuration space R3N . As a consequence, the equations (1) for all i = 1, . . . , N
can be summarized by
dQ
= v Ψt Q(t) .
(3)
dt
Regarding Ψt as known, this is a (time-dependent) ordinary differential equation (ODE)
of first order, and as such determines the entire history t 7→ Q(t) once an initial con-
figuration Q(t0 ) is specified. That is why Bohmian mechanics is deterministic: once
Q(t0 ) and Ψt0 are specified, the entire history is fixed by the equations (1) and (2). This
fact also implies that the pair (Q(t0 ), Ψt0 ) can be regarded as the state of the Bohmian
particle system at time t0 . Since the choice of t0 is arbitrary, the state at any time t is
the pair (Q(t), Ψt ), and the phase space of Bohmian mechanics is R3N × H .
2
the universe with configuration X (the x-system), so that the configuration Q of the
universe is of the form Q = (X, Y ) with Y the configuration of the environment of the
x-system. Then a natural notion of the wave function of the x-system is provided by its
conditional wave function
ψ(x) = Ψ(x, Y ) , (4)
where Ψ(q) = Ψ(x, y) is the wave function of the universe. It is easy to see that the
x-system obeys (3) (with Q = X and Ψ = ψ).
Moreover, if the x-system is suitably decoupled from its environment, (2) will hold
as well. For example, this is the case when there is no interaction between the x-system
and its environment, and the wave function of the universe is of the form
with ϕ and Φ having macroscopically disjoint y-supports (so that they will never again
overlap appreciably), and with Y lying in the support of ϕ. Such a situation often arises
after a “quantum measurement.”
3
Quantum Equilibrium Hypothesis. This is the assertion that whenever a sys-
tem has wave function ψ then its configuration is (or can be taken to be) random with
probability distribution |ψ|2 . Equivariance implies that this hypothesis is consistent
with the time evolution of isolated systems, and it is not hard to show that it is also
consistent with the time evolution if the system is not isolated, provided we take ψ to
mean the conditional wave function. An important consequence of the quantum equilib-
rium hypothesis is the empirical equivalence between Bohmian mechanics and quantum
mechanics: For every conceivable experiment, whenever quantum mechanics makes an
unambiguous prediction, Bohmian mechanics makes exactly the same prediction. Thus,
the two cannot be tested against each other.
Operators. Given that it makes the same predictions as quantum mechanics, what
is the status in Bohmian mechanics of the non-commuting operators of the quantum
formalism (the self-adjoint “observables”), with which the predictions of quantum me-
chanics seem exclusively concerned? The answer is that operators do in fact arise nat-
urally in Bohmian mechanics, but with a different meaning than the one attributed to
them in orthodox quantum mechanics (which regards them as more or less the same
thing as their classical counterparts: as “observables” that can be “measured”). In-
stead, operators in Bohmian mechanics are mathematical tools encoding statistics. Let
us explain.
The statistics of the random outcome Z of an experiment in a world governed by
Bohmian mechanics on a system with wave function ψ can be shown [8] always to be of
the form (in Dirac notation)
where E(α) is a suitable positive operator. (Together, the E(α) form a positive-operator-
valued measure, or POVM.) In relevant cases, E(α) is a family of projection operators
which are mutually orthogonal (a projection-valued measure, or PVM), and thus corre-
spond to the one self-adjoint operator
X
A= α E(α) , (8)
α
which, by the spectral theorem, contains precisely the same information as the PVM
E(α). Thus, operators encode the functional dependence of the outcome statistics on
the system’s wave function ψ. With this understanding, which is opposite to thinking
of operators as representing quantities whose values can be “measured,” it is no longer
surprising that one cannot associate actual values with all “observables” in a consistent
4
way. With this understanding, contextuality is not surprising either, since it no longer
means that the same quantity can choose different values depending on what happens
to another system, but rather that, unspectacularly, different experiments can have the
same statistics.
Now suppose that the system is initially, not in an eigenstate of A, but in a general
state, given by a superposition
X
ψ(x) = cα ψα (x). (11)
α
We then have, by (9) and the linearity of the unitary evolution, that
t
X
Ψ0 (x, y) = ψ(x)ϕ0 (y) → Ψt (x, y) = cα ψα (x)ϕα (y), (12)
α
so that the final wave function Ψt of system and apparatus is itself a superposition. The
fact that the pointer ends up pointing in a definite direction, even a random one, is not
discernible in this final wave function. Insofar as orthodox quantum theory is concerned,
we have arrived at the measurement problem.
However, insofar as Bohmian mechanics is concerned, we have no such problem,
because in Bohmian mechanics particles always have positions and pointers, which are
made of particles, always point—in a direction determined by the final configuration Yt
of the apparatus. Moreover, in Bohmian mechanics we find that the state of the system
5
is transformed in exactly the manner prescribed by textbook quantum theory, as the
final wave function of the system, i.e., its conditional wave function at time t, see (4), is
X
ψt (x) = Ψt (x, Yt ) = cα ψα (x)ϕα (Yt ) = cβ ψβ (x)ϕβ (Yt ) = N ψβ (x) (13)
α
when Yt ∈ supp(ϕβ ), i.e., when the value β is registered. (Here N is a constant that
depends upon Y but not on x. According to (13) the wave function of the system at
time t, when normalized, is ψβ .) The probability for this event is, by the quantum
equilibrium hypothesis,
Z Z
dx dy |Ψt (x, y)|2 = |cβ |2 . (14)
supp(ϕβ )
Spin. One may easily get the impression that spin cannot be explained in a realist
way, given its “non-classical two-valuedness.” But actually it can be incorporated into
Bohmian mechanics very easily, and Bell discovered how [2]: Do not assume that there
is an “actual value” associated with the spin observable σ̂z in the z (or any other)
direction! Instead, take the equation of motion (1) seriously, with Ck the spin space,
i.e., k = (2s + 1)N for N spin-s particles. (In particular, it is useful here to regard the
wave function ψt for, say, a single spin- 12 particle not as a function ψt : R3 ×{−1, 1} → C
of a continuous (position) variable and a discrete (spin) variable, but rather as a spinor-
valued function of position, ψt : R3 → C2 .)
As a consequence of (1), the motion of a particle with spin is influenced by both the
“spin-up” and the “spin-down” component of the wave function. While the particle has
6
Figure 1: Possible Bohmian trajectories in the double-slit experiment (from C. Philip-
pidis, C. Dewdney and B.J. Hiley, Il Nuovo Cimento 52, 15 (1979))
an actual position (and a wave function) but no additional actual spin degrees of freedom,
these are sufficient to completely account for all quantum phenomena associated with
spin.
Quantum Field Theory and Relativity. Bohmian mechanics does not account for
phenomena such as particle creation and annihilation characteristic of quantum field
theory. This is not an objection to Bohmian mechanics but merely a recognition that
quantum field theory explains a great deal more than does nonrelativistic quantum
mechanics, whether in orthodox or Bohmian form. There are extensions of Bohmian
mechanics to general quantum field theories based on a particle ontology, as well as
other approaches. Moreover, like nonrelativistic quantum theory, Bohmian mechanics
is incompatible with special relativity, a central principle of physics: it is not Lorentz
invariant. Nor can Bohmian mechanics easily be modified to become Lorentz invariant.
For an overview of recent proposals aimed at finding a Lorentz invariant extension of
Bohmian mechanics, see [13].
Nonlocality. In Bohmian mechanics the motion of a particle may depend on the posi-
tions of distant particles, at spacelike separation. This is an instance of nonlocality. It is
worth noting that this dependence is of a kind that does not allow superluminal commu-
nication. Orthodox quantum mechanics features nonlocality as well, associated with the
instantaneous collapse of the wave function for all particles, even distant ones. In 1964,
John Bell asked whether nonlocality could be avoided by any version of quantum me-
chanics, and his celebrated (but often misunderstood) argument [3, 10], involving Bell’s
inequality, proves that the answer is no. His argument shows that certain correlations
predicted by quantum mechanics (and Bohmian mechanics) and confirmed in experi-
ment [1] cannot be explained in a local way, i.e., without allowing influences travelling
faster than light. Thus, nonlocality is a feature of our world.
7
Literature
Primary
[4] J. S. Bell: Quantum field theory without observers. Physics Reports 137, 49–54
(1986); reprinted under the title “Beables for quantum field theory” as chapter 19
of [10].
[7] D. Dürr, S. Goldstein, N. Zanghı̀: Quantum Equilibrium and the Origin of Abso-
lute Uncertainty. Journal of Statistical Physics 67, 843–907 (1992)
[8] D. Dürr, S. Goldstein, N. Zanghı̀: Quantum Equilibrium and the Role of Operators
as Observables in Quantum Theory. Journal of Statistical Physics 116, 959–1055
(2004)
Secondary
8
[11] D. Bohm, B.J. Hiley: The Undivided Universe (Routledge, London 1993)