A question about velocities in Bohmian mechanics

In summary, according to the article, speeds higher than c are not in contradiction with relativity, but they might have consequences for time travel. 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.
  • #1
indefinite_123
7
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 Demystifier
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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 indefinite_123
  • #3
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 Demystifier
  • #4
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 indefinite_123
  • #5
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

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
11
Replies
376
Views
10K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
15
Replies
491
Views
26K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
190
Views
9K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
14
Views
4K
Back
Top