Phase in Bohm Theory: Meaning & Difference from Classical Action

Thread starter phyky
Start date Jan 14, 2013
Tags

Phase Theory

Jan 14, 2013

phyky

What is the meaning of phase, S in Bohm theory? Is it same as the action in classical 1? What is their different?

Physics news on Phys.org

Scientist returns to microbial roots and discovers potential quantum computing advancement
Physicists achieve record precision in measuring proton-to-electron mass ratio with H₂⁺
Quantum calculations provide a sharper image of subatomic stress

Jan 15, 2013

Demystifier

Science Advisor

Insights Author

For spinless particles, the meaning of S in Bohm theory is pretty much the same as action (or more precisely, the Hamilton-Jacobi principal function) in classical mechanics.

Thread 'Violation of Bell Inequality with unentangled photons'

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...

View full post »

Thread 'Question about discussions around quantum interpretations'

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...

View full post »

Thread 'Modern View of Quantum Phenomena'

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...

View full post »