Polarization in Bohmian mechanics

In summary, the conversation discussed the use of Bohmian mechanics to explain the working of a polarizer and the description of photons in this context. It was suggested that the concept of "Bohmian mechanics for instrumentalists" could provide a straightforward explanation for the measurement of polarization. Additionally, the dissipation in the length of the Stokes vector was mentioned as a non-unitary aspect that could be explained by Bohmian mechanics at a more fundamental level. Further details and references were provided for this idea.
  • #1
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
8,595
4,620
How does Bohmian mechanics explain the working of a polarizer?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Do you mean for photons? Then you have to even ask more generally, how does Bohmian mechanics describe photons at all? I've no clue...
 
  • #3
vanhees71 said:
Then you have to even ask more generally, how does Bohmian mechanics describe photons at all? I've no clue...
Does the description go through what we (human being) observe?

/Patrick
 
  • #4
I don't know. What we observe is completely described by standard Q(F)T without any Bohmian mechanics. It's a somewhat curious possibility to interpret non-relativistic quantum theory in terms of a non-local deterministic theory, but the additional pieces, like the trajectories, do not tell as anything else than what standard QFT tells us.

I've strong doubts that there's a Bohmian interpretation for photons. Photons are the least particle-like quanta directly observable to us. A position observable makes only a much reduced sense. All we know are detection probabilities given the state of the em. field, where the position does not directly refer to a photon but only to the location of the detector used to register the photon having interacted with it at its position.
 
  • #5
A. Neumaier said:
How does Bohmian mechanics explain the working of a polarizer?
Why do you think it's a problem? If you wonder how Bohmian mechanics explains a measurement of polarization, which is all what matters from an instrumental point of view, then "Bohmian mechanics for instrumentalists" gives a straightforward explanation. Just let the operator in Eq. (2) be the polarization operator and proceed with the analysis there ...
 
  • #6
vanhees71 said:
I've strong doubts that there's a Bohmian interpretation for photons.
In "Bohmian mechanics for instrumentalists" there is no need for that. All what one needs is a Bohmian interpretation of the detection of photons, which is quite straightforward.
 
  • #7
microsansfil said:
Does the description go through what we (human being) observe?
Yes, that's the basic idea of BM for instrumentalists.
 
  • #8
Demystifier said:
Why do you think it's a problem? If you wonder how Bohmian mechanics explains a measurement of polarization, which is all what matters from an instrumental point of view, then "Bohmian mechanics for instrumentalists" gives a straightforward explanation. Just let the operator in Eq. (2) be the polarization operator and proceed with the analysis there ...
Well, a polarizer doesn't quite measure polarization; instead it absorbs a fraction of the photons and forces the remaining into a particular polarization. This is a process not described by the Schrödinger equation, hence it is not clear to me how it would be described in Bohmian terms.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
A. Neumaier said:
This is a process not described by the Schrödinger equation,
If your point is that it is described by QFT then ...
A. Neumaier said:
hence it is not clear to me how it would be described in Bohmian terms.
... read "Bohmian mechanics for instrumentalist", as it explains how QFT should be interpreted in Bohmian terms.
 
  • #10
Demystifier said:
If your point is that it is described by QFT then ...

... read "Bohmian mechanics for instrumentalist", as it explains how QFT should be interpreted in Bohmian terms.
No, the point is that it is described by dissipative equations that do not seem to have a Bohmian equivalent.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #11
A. Neumaier said:
No, the point is that it is described by dissipative equations that do not seem to have a Bohmian equivalent.

How about considering the polarizing beam splitter which has a unitary description?
http://copilot.caltech.edu/documents/278-weihs_zeillinger_photon_statistics_at_beamsplitters_qip.pdf (Fig. 1.9)
 
  • #12
hi;

This paper describes the evolution of the polarization state during its propagation inside a polarizer.

The Stokes vector s determines a point located on the Poincaré sphere S2 of radius s. The direction of the vector s, characterizes the polarization. Thus, the polarization state of the light wave corresponds to a unique point on the Poincaré sphere S2.

The study of the trajectory does not require the use of dissipative equations!

/Patrick
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #13
microsansfil said:
hi;

This paper describes the evolution of the polarization state during its propagation inside a polarizer.

The Stokes vector s determines a point located on the Poincaré sphere S2 of radius s. The direction of the vector s, characterizes the polarization. Thus, the polarization state of the light wave corresponds to a unique point on the Poincaré sphere S2.

The study of the trajectory does not require the use of dissipative equations!

/Patrick
The dissipation is in the length, not the direction of the Stokes vector. This length represents the intensity and shrinks unless the input has the same polarization as the output. You can see it in Figure 3 of your reference. This shrinking is not unitary.
 
  • #14
A. Neumaier said:
No, the point is that it is described by dissipative equations that do not seem to have a Bohmian equivalent.
This is like saying that dissipation in classical mechanics does not have an equivalent in Hamiltonian mechanics. Dissipation is always an effective description emerging when one does not keep track of all degrees of freedom, while the underlying more fundamental dynamics is non-dissipative. So in your case the non-unitary dissipative equations emerge from more fundamental unitary evolution, implying that there is a Bohmian equivalent at a more fundamental level.
 
  • Like
Likes Auto-Didact and vanhees71
  • #15
Demystifier said:
This is like saying that dissipation in classical mechanics does not have an equivalent in Hamiltonian mechanics. Dissipation is always an effective description emerging when one does not keep track of all degrees of freedom, while the underlying more fundamental dynamics is non-dissipative. So in your case the non-unitary dissipative equations emerge from more fundamental unitary evolution, implying that there is a Bohmian equivalent at a more fundamental level.
Where can I read about details? Or is this just a conjecture and not an established fact?
 
  • #16
A. Neumaier said:
Where can I read about details? Or is this just a conjecture and not an established fact?
That quantum dissipative equations can be derived from unitary equations is an established fact.

For a basic idea see e.g. Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the Quantum to Classical Transition, Chapter 4. In particular, compare Eqs. (4.1) and (4.2). I am not aware that someone studied it in detail in the Bohmian context (but check Sec. 8.5.2 in the book above), but once one knows the unitary description, adding Bohmian trajectories is in principle straightforward.

For a more detailed analysis see the book by Breuer and Petruccione (I think you cite it in your papers on thermal interpretation), Sec. 3.1.3. and Sec. 3.3.
 
  • Like
Likes Auto-Didact and vanhees71
  • #17
Demystifier said:
That quantum dissipative equations can be derived from unitary equations is an established fact.

For a basic idea see e.g. Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the Quantum to Classical Transition, Chapter 4. In particular, compare Eqs. (4.1) and (4.2). I am not aware that someone studied it in detail in the Bohmian context (but check Sec. 8.5.2 in the book above), but once one knows the unitary description, adding Bohmian trajectories is in principle straightforward.

For a more detailed analysis see the book by Breuer and Petruccione (I think you cite it in your papers on thermal interpretation), Sec. 3.1.3. and Sec. 3.3.
Well, I know it very well in the context of ordinary QM.

But not how it is treated in the Bohmian context. It seems that there one must first throw away the particle positions to get the standard setting and then proceed from there. Thus no insight can be gained from having assumed a dynamics for definite positions.
Demystifier said:
the non-unitary dissipative equations emerge from more fundamental unitary evolution, implying that there is a Bohmian equivalent at a more fundamental level.
I'd like to see the Bohmian equivalent at a more fundamental level.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #18
A. Neumaier said:
Well, I know it very well in the context of ordinary QM.

But not how it is treated in the Bohmian context. It seems that there one must first throw away the particle positions to get the standard setting and then proceed from there. Thus no insight can be gained from having assumed a dynamics for definite positions.

I'd like to see the Bohmian equivalent at a more fundamental level.
In the ordinary QM one first has to solve the Schrodinger equation in some representation. Assuming that one has done that (in practice that's very hard because of many degrees of freedom), the rest is easy. All what one has to do is to represent the wave function in the position basis and then compute the Bohmian trajectories by the straightforward formula. I don't know what exactly seems problematic to you, but the only hard part is solving the Schrodinger equation with standard QM, the intrinsically Bohmian part is easy.
 
  • #19
Demystifier said:
In the ordinary QM one first has to solve the Schrodinger equation in some representation. Assuming that one has done that (in practice that's very hard because of many degrees of freedom), the rest is easy. All what one has to do is to represent the wave function in the position basis and then compute the Bohmian trajectories by the straightforward formula. I don't know what exactly seems problematic to you, but the only hard part is solving the Schrodinger equation with standard QM, the intrinsically Bohmian part is easy.
In quantum mechanics, dissipative systems are usually modeled by Lindblad equations for a density operator. With few degrees of freedom these are easily solved numerically. In particular, this handles passing polarization filters. One doesn't need to go to a unitary many-particle description to use and solve Lindblad equations, and never does in the applications.

So my question amounts to asking for the Bohmian equivalent of Lindblad equations.
 
  • #20
A. Neumaier said:
So my question amounts to asking for the Bohmian equivalent of Lindblad equations.
There is no such thing. It's somewhat related to the fact that there is no Hamiltonian formulation of a Newton equation with a friction term.
 
  • #21
Demystifier said:
there is no Hamiltonian formulation of a Newton equation with a friction term.
Well, there is a simple modification for the latter, which is a classical limit of a suitable Lindblad dynamics. It takes the form
$$\dot q=\partial H(q,p)/\partial p, ~~~~\dot p=-\partial H(q,p)/\partial q -C(q)\dot q.$$
For positive definite ##C(q)##, the energy decreases with time.

How would one have to modify Bohmian dynamics in the dissipative case?
 
Last edited:
  • #22
A. Neumaier said:
Well, there is a simple modification for the latter, which is a classical limit of a suitable Lindblad dynamics. It takes the form
$$\dot q=\partial H(q,p)/\partial p, ~~~~\dot p=-\partial H(q,p)/\partial q -C(q)\dot q.$$
For positive definite ##C(q)##, the energy decreases with time.

How would one have to modify Bohmian dynamics in the dissipative case?
The above is not Hamiltonian mechanics, but a generalization of it. Perhaps Bohmian mechanics can be generalized in a similar sense. But if the point of Bohmian mechanics is to give fundamental microscopic ontology, then there is no point in making such a generalization. On the other hand, there are also practical applications of Bohmian mechanics, and in this sense generalization of Bohmian mechanics to dissipative systems might be useful.

Here is a sketch how this could be done. All one needs is a probability density ##\rho(x,t)## where ##x## is a set of particle positions. This ##\rho(x,t)## can be determined by the Lindblad equation. Once one has ##\rho##, one can proceed as in http://de.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0302152 Eqs. (43)-(58). One does not have Eq. (42), but that's not a problem because one has the Lindblad equation instead.
 
  • Like
Likes Auto-Didact and A. Neumaier
  • #23
Demystifier said:
there are also practical applications of Bohmian mechanics, and in this sense generalization of Bohmian mechanics to dissipative systems might be useful.

Here is a sketch how this could be done. All one needs is a probability density ##\rho(x,t)## where ##x## is a set of particle positions. This ##\rho(x,t)## can be determined by the Lindblad equation. Once one has ##\rho##, one can proceed as in http://de.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0302152 Eqs. (43)-(58). One does not have Eq. (42), but that's not a problem because one has the Lindblad equation instead.
I'll check this...
 
  • #24
Demystifier said:
In "Bohmian mechanics for instrumentalists" there is no need for that. All what one needs is a Bohmian interpretation of the detection of photons, which is quite straightforward.
Obviously I'm too stupid to see, how this is straightforward. How can you describe the detection of photons without describing the photons to begin with?
 
  • #25
A. Neumaier said:
Well, a polarizer doesn't quite measure polarization; instead it absorbs a fraction of the photons and forces the remaining into a particular polarization. This is a process not described by the Schrödinger equation, hence it is not clear to me how it would be described in Bohmian terms.
Are you saying the interaction of photons (i.e., the electromagnetic field) with matter is not described by QED (of course not the Schrödinger equation since this is a non-relativistic approximation, which cannot describe photons of course)? How do you come to this conclusion?
 
  • #26
vanhees71 said:
Obviously I'm too stupid to see, how this is straightforward. How can you describe the detection of photons without describing the photons to begin with?
Did you read the paper?
 
  • #27
Demystifier said:
In the ordinary QM one first has to solve the Schrodinger equation in some representation. Assuming that one has done that (in practice that's very hard because of many degrees of freedom), the rest is easy. All what one has to do is to represent the wave function in the position basis and then compute the Bohmian trajectories by the straightforward formula. I don't know what exactly seems problematic to you, but the only hard part is solving the Schrodinger equation with standard QM, the intrinsically Bohmian part is easy.
The only question is what the Bohmian trajectories are good for? So why should you calculate them. Everything observable is already given by the solution of the Schrödinger equation.

Of course, BM has one appealing feature of providing a non-local deterministic reinterpretation of non-relativistic QM. From a physical point of view it doesn't however add any additional insight compared to minimally interpreted QM.
 
  • #28
Demystifier said:
Did you read the paper?
Which paper?
 
  • #29
vanhees71 said:
Which paper?
The one linked in my signature below.
 
  • #30
vanhees71 said:
Are you saying the interaction of photons (i.e., the electromagnetic field) with matter is not described by QED (of course not the Schrödinger equation since this is a non-relativistic approximation, which cannot describe photons of course)? How do you come to this conclusion?
I didn't refer to QFT, so your interpretation of what I said is unfounded. The process described follows from QED, but is modeled in the analysis of actual quantum optics experiments in a coarse-grained fashion.
 
  • #31
Demystifier said:
The one linked in my signature below.
There is no "signature below'' - whether a signature is shown depends on user settings!
 
  • Informative
Likes Demystifier
  • #32
vanhees71 said:
The only question is what the Bohmian trajectories are good for? So why should you calculate them.
In "Bohmian mechanics for instrumentalists" I explain that there is no much point in explicit calculation of Bohmian trajectories, yet they are good for having an intuitive conceptual picture of QM. This is somewhat similar to effective field theories, where there is no much point in explicit calculations in the more fundamental theory, yet the idea that there is a more fundamental theory is good for having an intuitive conceptual picture of effective QFT.
 
  • #33
A. Neumaier said:
There is no "signature below'' - whether a signature is shown depends on user settings!
I didn't know that. But I think showing signature is the default.
 
  • #34
Demystifier said:
effective field theories, where there is no much point in explicit calculations in the more fundamental theory,
This is an incorrect view. One often calculates some things from the more fundamental theory (if it is known), to be matched by the coefficients in the effective theory.
 
  • #35
A. Neumaier said:
This is an incorrect view. One often calculates some things from the more fundamental theory (if it is known), to be matched by the coefficients in the effective theory.
Yes, but once you have the coefficients, which what "to have the effective theory" means, then you don't longer need the more fundamental theory.
 
<h2>What is polarization in Bohmian mechanics?</h2><p>Polarization in Bohmian mechanics refers to the orientation of a particle's spin or angular momentum. In this theory, particles have definite positions and momenta, but their spins are not predetermined. Instead, the spin of a particle is determined by its interaction with its surrounding environment.</p><h2>How does polarization work in Bohmian mechanics?</h2><p>In Bohmian mechanics, particles have a definite position and momentum, but their spins are not predetermined. Instead, the spin of a particle is determined by its interaction with its surrounding environment. This interaction is described by the guiding equation, which takes into account the particle's position, momentum, and the potential energy of the surrounding environment.</p><h2>What is the significance of polarization in Bohmian mechanics?</h2><p>Polarization in Bohmian mechanics is significant because it helps explain the behavior of particles at the quantum level. It allows for the prediction of spin states and the understanding of quantum phenomena such as entanglement and superposition.</p><h2>How does polarization differ in Bohmian mechanics compared to other quantum theories?</h2><p>In other quantum theories, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, particles do not have definite positions or momenta until they are measured. However, in Bohmian mechanics, particles have definite positions and momenta at all times, and their spins are determined by their interaction with the environment. This leads to a different understanding of polarization and other quantum phenomena.</p><h2>What evidence supports the concept of polarization in Bohmian mechanics?</h2><p>There is currently no direct experimental evidence for the concept of polarization in Bohmian mechanics. However, the theory has been successful in explaining and predicting the behavior of particles at the quantum level, and it is consistent with other well-established quantum theories. Further research and experimentation may provide more evidence for the validity of this concept.</p>

What is polarization in Bohmian mechanics?

Polarization in Bohmian mechanics refers to the orientation of a particle's spin or angular momentum. In this theory, particles have definite positions and momenta, but their spins are not predetermined. Instead, the spin of a particle is determined by its interaction with its surrounding environment.

How does polarization work in Bohmian mechanics?

In Bohmian mechanics, particles have a definite position and momentum, but their spins are not predetermined. Instead, the spin of a particle is determined by its interaction with its surrounding environment. This interaction is described by the guiding equation, which takes into account the particle's position, momentum, and the potential energy of the surrounding environment.

What is the significance of polarization in Bohmian mechanics?

Polarization in Bohmian mechanics is significant because it helps explain the behavior of particles at the quantum level. It allows for the prediction of spin states and the understanding of quantum phenomena such as entanglement and superposition.

How does polarization differ in Bohmian mechanics compared to other quantum theories?

In other quantum theories, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, particles do not have definite positions or momenta until they are measured. However, in Bohmian mechanics, particles have definite positions and momenta at all times, and their spins are determined by their interaction with the environment. This leads to a different understanding of polarization and other quantum phenomena.

What evidence supports the concept of polarization in Bohmian mechanics?

There is currently no direct experimental evidence for the concept of polarization in Bohmian mechanics. However, the theory has been successful in explaining and predicting the behavior of particles at the quantum level, and it is consistent with other well-established quantum theories. Further research and experimentation may provide more evidence for the validity of this concept.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
11
Replies
370
Views
9K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
29
Views
924
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
4
Views
943
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
109
Views
8K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
5
Replies
165
Views
12K
Back
Top