Do Empty Waves in Bohm Theory Evolve Differently Than Non-Empty Ones?

camboy
Messages
42
Reaction score
1
I'm following a course in Bohm's theory of QM, and I'm trying to understand what happens to 'empty waves'.

Consider artificial universe: contains 1 H atom only and an external potential which is zero everywhere except at a little barrier.

The H atom particles are traveling along in their guiding wave packet, following the streamlines of the probability flow. The packet is incident on the barrier. The barrier is so shaped that the result is two identical packets, one reflected back, one transmitted through. The particles deterministically end up in one of the packets (50% chance either way).

Thus there is an actual H atom (particles + Psi) going one way, and an 'empty H atom' (Psi only) going the other.

My question is this:

Given that the positions of the particles appear in the Hamiltonian of the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, is the change in shape of the packet with time different for the actual and empty H atoms?

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
camboy said:
Given that the positions of the particles appear in the Hamiltonian of the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, is the change in shape of the packet with time different for the actual and empty H atoms?
This is an excellent question!
The answer is - no.
Instead, you calculate the wave function in exactly the same way as without the Bohmian interpretation. Otherwise, you could not achieve the observational equivalence between Bohmian theory and standard quantum theory.
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top