A question about velocities in Bohmian mechanics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the implications of velocities in Bohmian mechanics, particularly in the context of relativity. Participants explore whether there is an upper limit to velocities when considering relativistic effects and the potential for particles to move faster than light.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that in Bohmian mechanics, velocities can exceed the speed of light without violating non-relativistic principles.
  • Another participant references a source suggesting that superluminal speeds do not contradict relativity, specifically citing a section of an article.
  • A participant expresses concern about the philosophical implications of superluminal particles moving backwards in time, questioning if this is an inevitable feature of a Lorentz-invariant version of Bohmian mechanics.
  • In response, another participant argues that traveling backwards in time is not a necessary feature of relativistic Bohmian mechanics, particularly for particles with non-integer spin.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of superluminal velocities in Bohmian mechanics, with some suggesting that such velocities could lead to time travel, while others argue that this is not necessarily the case. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the necessity of backward time travel in a Lorentz-invariant framework.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of integrating Bohmian mechanics with relativistic principles, particularly concerning non-locality and the nature of particle velocities. There are references to specific articles that may contain additional insights but are not fully explored in the thread.

indefinite_123
Messages
7
Reaction score
4
Hi all,

In 'Bohmian mechanics,' (BM) velocities are given by the 'guiding equation' as explained, for instance, in this article of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#DefiEquaBohmMech
These velocities can, in principle, be greater than c. This is not a problem in a non-relativistic context.

Is there an upper limit to velocities when relativity is taken into account?

I know that non-locality is the main issue for finding a 'relativistic' version of BM. In contrast, it seems that faster than light velocities are not a problem.

Thanks in advance! :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to the forum! :welcome:

Speeds higher than c, by themselves, are not in contradiction with relativity. See http://de.arxiv.org/abs/1205.1992 Sec. 8.2.2, especially the text between Eqs. (8.13) and (8.14).

For a different approach to relativity in Bohmian mechanics, which now I think is more promising, see "Bohmian mechanics for instrumentalists" linked in my signature below.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: indefinite_123
Thank you for the informative answer and for the welcome! :smile:

Demystifier said:
Speeds higher than c, by themselves, are not in contradiction with relativity. See http://de.arxiv.org/abs/1205.1992 Sec. 8.2.2, especially the text between Eqs. (8.13) and (8.14).

Ok! I agree that strictly speaking they are not a problem for Lorentz invariance.

However... particles that move faster than light move backwards in time.
Personally, I find this problematic (mainly for philosophical reasons...). But, anyway, I agree that it does not violate Lorentz invariance.

So, if one builds a Lorentz-invariant 'version' of BM it seems necessary that particles can travel backwards in time. Am I right?

Edit: in other words, superluminal particle velocities are an inevitable feature of BM? I ask this because in the article only non-locality is mentioned as a possible cause of friction with relativity.

Demystifier said:
For a different approach to relativity in Bohmian mechanics, which now I think is more promising, see "Bohmian mechanics for instrumentalists" linked in my signature below.

Well, it is a very interesting proposal! I am too open to the possibility that 'elementary particles' might not be fundamental :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier
indefinite_123 said:
So, if one builds a Lorentz-invariant 'version' of BM it seems necessary that particles can travel backwards in time. Am I right?

Edit: in other words, superluminal particle velocities are an inevitable feature of BM? I ask this because in the article only non-locality is mentioned as a possible cause of friction with relativity.
Traveling backwards in time is not a necessary feature of relativistic BM. For instance, it seems that it doesn't occur for particles with non-integer spin http://de.arxiv.org/abs/0806.4476
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: indefinite_123
Demystifier said:
Traveling backwards in time is not a necessary feature of relativistic BM. For instance, it seems that it doesn't occur for particles with non-integer spin http://de.arxiv.org/abs/0806.4476

Ok, I see. Thank you very much!

Kind regards!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 376 ·
13
Replies
376
Views
25K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
5K
  • · Replies 109 ·
4
Replies
109
Views
12K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 491 ·
17
Replies
491
Views
40K
  • · Replies 235 ·
8
Replies
235
Views
26K