I Physical properties of a particle in Bohmian mechanics

Nickyv2423
Messages
46
Reaction score
3
Are the physical properties of a particle spread out through the wave function in bohmian mechanics?
This is from wikipedia
"Also, unlike in classical mechanics, physical properties (e.g., mass, charge) are spread out over the wavefunction in de Broglie–Bohm theory, not localized at the position of the particle.[9][10]"
If this is true, then how come we always detect particle properties as points?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nickyv2423 said:
Are the physical properties of a particle spread out through the wave function in bohmian mechanics?

I don't think this question has a well-defined meaning.

Nickyv2423 said:
This is from wikipedia

What article? Please give a link. Also, Wikipedia is not a good source by itself, particularly for a subject like this; you need to look at a textbook or peer-reviewed paper (and the Wikipedia article might give references to these).

Nickyv2423 said:
how come we always detect particle properties as points?

We don't. First, a particle's properties, like mass or charge, aren't the same as the particle itself. Second, we never actually detect a particle at a precise point; the best we can do is to detect it within some small region of space.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
Nickyv2423 said:
"Also, unlike in classical mechanics, physical properties (e.g., mass, charge) are spread out over the wavefunction in de Broglie–Bohm theory, not localized at the position of the particle.[9][10]"
That's true.

Nickyv2423 said:
If this is true, then how come we always detect particle properties as points?
Because we detect positions, not charges and masses. Have you ever seen the mass of your body? No, but you have seen the position of the needle on your weight scale, as in this picture
https://livehealthyosu.com/2011/08/25/dairy-plus-or-minus/weight-scale/
 
Demystifier said:
That's true.Because we detect positions, not charges and masses. Have you ever seen the mass of your body? No, but you have seen the position of the needle on your weight scale, as in this picture
https://livehealthyosu.com/2011/08/25/dairy-plus-or-minus/weight-scale/
But what about bubble chambers and cloud chambers? Don't they shows charged particles as point charges with no charge spread out?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electron-spherical-electric-dipole-moment/
When we measure electrons we see them as point charges with a cloud of photons around them, its like a sphere.
I don't think we would get these results if particles in bohmian mechanics had their charge spread out at all times, right?
 
Nickyv2423 said:
But what about bubble chambers and cloud chambers? Don't they shows charged particles as point charges with no charge spread out?
They do not - they show a succession of single-point position measurements. If you google for "Mott Problem" you will find much good stuff including Sir Nevill Mott's 1929 paper which substantially resolved the quantum mechanical treatment of cloud and bubble chambers.

(As you might infer from the date, the appearance of tracks in cloud and bubble chambers was a problem for collapse interpretations as well as the Bohmian mechanics of this thread - the initial wavefunction is spherically symmetrical, so where does this linear track come from?)
 
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