Bohmian determinism for aspects other than position?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter georgir
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Determinism Position
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of Bohmian mechanics, particularly its deterministic nature regarding particle positions and whether this determinism extends to other properties such as spin or polarization. Participants explore how entanglement is treated within this framework and question the nature of measurements in relation to position and other observables.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that Bohmian mechanics is deterministic regarding particle positions but question whether this determinism applies to spin or polarization as well.
  • There is a suggestion that all measurements in Bohmian mechanics can be reduced to measurements of position, implying that particle positions might be the only true observables that exist.
  • One participant raises the issue of how entanglement is treated in Bohmian mechanics, particularly regarding predictions along various measuring angles.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the interpretation of the EPR paradox and its relation to the uncertainty principle, suggesting that Bohmian mechanics might eliminate the uncertainty principle by always having a definite position.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of properties other than position and how they might relate to violations of Bell-type inequalities, with some participants questioning the relevance of the EPR paradox in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of Bohmian mechanics for spin and polarization, as well as the interpretation of the EPR paradox. There is no consensus on whether the determinism of Bohmian mechanics extends beyond position or how entanglement should be understood within this framework.

Contextual Notes

Some claims depend on the interpretation of measurements and the nature of observables in quantum mechanics, which remain unresolved. The discussion touches on complex concepts such as the uncertainty principle and Bell-type inequalities without reaching definitive conclusions.

georgir
Messages
266
Reaction score
10
If I got the general idea correctly, Bohmian mechanics is completely deterministic regarding particle positions. But can it also do the same for spin or polarization? How does entanglement work out in it, considering that it should be able to give predictions along any measuring angles, not just the two selected ones?

Edit: On a somewhat related tangent, is it possible to have entanglement and an EPR paradox with position?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
georgir said:
If I got the general idea correctly, Bohmian mechanics is completely deterministic regarding particle positions. But can it also do the same for spin or polarization?

The following will probably help:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3026/1/bohm.pdf

Thanks
Bill
 
georgir said:
If I got the general idea correctly, Bohmian mechanics is completely deterministic regarding particle positions. But can it also do the same for spin or polarization? How does entanglement work out in it, considering that it should be able to give predictions along any measuring angles, not just the two selected ones?
Bohmian mechanics is deterministic about ALL observables (including spin), but it is not ONTOLOGICAL about spin. When you perform a measurement which you call a measurement of spin, what you really observe is a POSITION of something (see e.g. how the Stern-Gerlach apparatus work). More generally, all measurements can be reduced to a measurement of position of something. This suggests that particle positions might be the only thing which really exist, and Bohmian mechanics takes this idea seriously.

georgir said:
Edit: On a somewhat related tangent, is it possible to have entanglement and an EPR paradox with position?
The original EPR paradox is formulated in terms of positions and momenta.
 
Demystifier said:
The original EPR paradox is formulated in terms of positions and momenta.
Oh right - cheating the uncertainty principle by using a pair of particles. To be honest, I never understood how that could be interpreted as anything other than implying both properties exist and the uncertainty principle is just BS. How can it ever be interpreted as an effect from one measurement on the other?
Bohmian mechanics, always having a certain position also must have its derivative, and so eliminates the uncertainty principle?

But no, I was not referring to violating the uncertainty principle. Rather, I'm curious about violating some statistical Bell-type inequalities. With properties other than position, which can be said to not exist until measured and to depend on the specific way they are measured, I can more easily see how such violation can be interpreted as "spooky action at a distance" - a dependency on the remote detector and not just the local one. But I guess it was incorrect to call that "EPR paradox". My bad :p

I see your point about such properties ultimately boiling down to position though, so I guess the distinction I'm trying to make is pointless. I'll need some more processing time trying to think about all that.
 
georgir said:
But I guess it was incorrect to call that "EPR paradox". My bad :p

You're fine! The EPR Paradox generally means:

"With 2 reasonable assumptions, a more complete specification of a system is possible than QM provides."
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 159 ·
6
Replies
159
Views
14K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 376 ·
13
Replies
376
Views
25K
  • · Replies 109 ·
4
Replies
109
Views
12K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K