I New experiments supporting Bohmian mechanics?

[Demystifier]

Demystifier. Do you have other papers that expound on these truly fundamental particles that are described by non-relativistic QM? Who are the other authors who expound on this?

See Refs. [31], [32] and references therein.

If you don't.. what do you think are these non relativistic truly fundamental particles?

I don't know (yet).

What shall be their characteristics and are they described by any gauge symmetry such as U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3)?.

I expect that gauge symmetry such as U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) is not fundamental, i.e. not a property of these fundamental particles.

Also Relativistic particles = did you mean near light speed so sensitive to SR or particles that can create/annihilate as per our QFT ...?

I mean the latter.

Non relativistic particles = did you mean low speed particles or particles that can't create/annihilate as per our QFT ...?

The latter. They don't need to be slow at all, just as non-relativistic particles in condensed matter do not need to be slow compared to the velocity of sound.

 

[Blue Scallop]

See Refs. [31], [32] and references therein.I don't know (yet).I expect that gauge symmetry such as U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) is not fundamental, i.e. not a property of these fundamental particles.I mean the latter.The latter. They don't need to be slow at all, just as non-relativistic particles in condensed matter do not need to be slow compared to the velocity of sound.

What do you call particles that is 99.9999% the speed of light yet can't create/annihilate? are these called relativistic particles?

If normal particles like electrons are quasi-particles that don't have trajectories yet can create/annihilate.. and there are more fundamental particles that have trajectories.. where does the quantum potential act on.. the fundamental particles or the quasi-particles?

And why propose there are more fundamental particles than than the quasi-particles. I mean.. why not just stop at the quasi-particles.. why does there need to be more fundamental particles with trajectories? Maybe to find determinism within the indeterminism?

 

[Denis]

Also Relativistic particles = did you mean near light speed so sensitive to SR or particles that can create/annihilate as per our QFT or what?
Non relativistic particles = did you mean low speed particles or particles that can't create/annihilate as per our QFT or what?

I would say that in this context "relativistic" means a field following a wave equation, and "non-relativistic" means objects of a more fundamental theory, similar to lattice nodes in a lattice regularization of such a field theory.

Do you have other papers that expound on these truly fundamental particles that are described by non-relativistic QM? Who are the other authors who expound on this? If you don't.. what do you think are these non relativistic truly fundamental particles? What shall be their characteristics and are they described by any gauge symmetry such as U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3)?

Gauge fields - the EM field - has been described in BM already in Bohm's original paper. For a condensed-matter-like approach which would give U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) see arxiv:0908.0591.

 

[Demystifier]

What do you call particles that is 99.9999% the speed of light yet can't create/annihilate? are these called relativistic particles?

I don't have a special name for them, but I don't call them relativistic.

If normal particles like electrons are quasi-particles that don't have trajectories yet can create/annihilate.. and there are more fundamental particles that have trajectories.. where does the quantum potential act on.. the fundamental particles or the quasi-particles?

The quantum potential acts only on fundamental particles.

And why propose there are more fundamental particles than than the quasi-particles. I mean.. why not just stop at the quasi-particles.. why does there need to be more fundamental particles with trajectories? Maybe to find determinism within the indeterminism?

There are several reasons:
1) Analogy with condensed matter physics. If this is how things work effectively in condensed matter, perhaps this is how things work fundamentally everywhere.
2) To find ontology within a theory which does not explicitly talk about ontology.
3) To find fundamental determinism within an effective non-deterministic theory.

Note also that such a version of Bohmian mechanics makes a qualitative measurable prediction. It predicts that at very small distances (smaller than we can currently see with present technology) the nature should violate Lorentz symmetry in an observable way. This, for instance, makes it different from the mainstream string theory which predicts that at such smaller distances the nature should still be Lorentz invariant.

 

[Blue Scallop]

I don't have a special name for them, but I don't call them relativistic.The quantum potential acts only on fundamental particles.There are several reasons:
1) Analogy with condensed matter physics. If this is how things work effectively in condensed matter, perhaps this is how things work fundamentally everywhere.
2) To find ontology within a theory which does not explicitly talk about ontology.
3) To find fundamental determinism within an effective non-deterministic theory.

Note also that such a version of Bohmian mechanics makes a qualitative measurable prediction. It predicts that at very small distances (smaller than we can currently see with present technology) the nature should violate Lorentz symmetry in an observable way. This, for instance, makes it different from the mainstream string theory which predicts that at such smaller distances the nature should still be Lorentz invariant.

Do all Bohmian physicists working on relativistic BM use this concept of fundamental particles vs quasi-particles in the condense matter phonons analogy.. or does any still try to make the main bohmian non relativistic particles become suddenly able to create and annhiliate? what programme explore this? How successful.. and what are the main problems?

 

[Demystifier]

Do all Bohmian physicists working on relativistic BM use this concept of fundamental particles vs quasi-particles in the condense matter phonons analogy..

No. I guess I am the only one who, so far, proposed it explicitly. Implicitly, if you can read between the lines, it can also be seen in the work of Ilja Schmelzer and Forum posts by @atyy .

or does any still try to make the main bohmian non relativistic particles become suddenly able to create and annhiliate? what programme explore this? How successful.. and what are the main problems?

A not-so-long time ago, I was trying to make Bohmian mechanics inherently relativistic. How successful, judge by yourself:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.1992