Is Bohmian Mechanics Compatible with Polarisation Experiments?

StevieTNZ
Messages
1,934
Reaction score
873
I was thinking: if you send light through a 45 degree filter (D filter), and then sent that light through another D filter, because it is now in superposition of V+H state, and according to 'Beyond Measure', light in that state (left circularly polarised) would go through the 2nd filter 100% of the time.

But according to Bohm mechanics, the light be in a definite verticle or horizontal polarisation (even after going through the first D filter, thereby meaning that if it hit the 2nd D polariser, only half would go through, as expected if it were in a V or H polariser state (according to us, we expect it to be in a superposition, but its actually in a definite state).

Now, Ken G responded and said things about additional instructions about what to do if the photon encounters filters in particular orders.

But I see no difference in a photon with instructions and a V polarisation, and a photon with just a V polarisation. Both are the same physical realities, and the 'instructed photon' should behave just like a V polarised photon, only go through half the time if it encounters a 2nd D filter.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Demystifier said:
No, this is not so according to Bohm mechanics. See e.g.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9601013
especially Sec. 4.

Now I'm being told two different things: you say no, but two other Physics Professors tell me all physical properties of a quantum system have definite states at all times.
 
StevieTNZ said:
Now I'm being told two different things: you say no, but two other Physics Professors tell me all physical properties of a quantum system have definite states at all times.
I don't know who they are, but they are obviously not experts in Bohmian mechanics.
 
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