- #1

- 825

- 54

**Bohm trajectories and "protective" measurements?**

I'm having trouble understanding the arguments presented in these papers. They seem to be both arguing against the de Broglie-Bohm theory bassed on the concept of "protective measurements". Is this just a rehash of the problems with the meaning of "weak measurements" described in previous threads and summarized in Demystifier's blog on that topic?

Accordingly, one has to concede either that the particle’s Bohm trajectory and its position are unrelated, or that the particle’s position is irrelevant for its participation in local interactions...Therefore we can hardly avoid the conclusion that the formally introduced Bohm trajectories are just mathematical constructs with no relation to the actual motion of the particle.

**Protective measurements and Bohm trajectories**

http://www.tau.ac.il/~yakir/yahp/yh26

One may also want to deprive the Ψ-field of mass and charge density to eliminate the electrostatic self-interaction. But, on the one hand, the theory will break its physical connection with quantum mechanics, as the wave function in quantum mechanics has mass and charge density according to our analysis, and on the other hand, since protective measurement can measure the mass and charge density for a single quantum system, the theory will be unable to explain the measurement results either. Although de Broglie-Bohm theory can still exist in this way as a mathematical tool for experimental predictions (somewhat like the orthodox interpretation it tries to replace), it obviously departs from the initial expectations of de Broglie and Bohm, and as we think, it already fails as a physical theory because of losing its explanation ability.

**Meaning of the wave function**

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1001/1001.5085.pdf