I Polarization in Bohmian mechanics

Demystifier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
10,110
3,029
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?
 

vanhees71

Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
12,971
4,997
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.
 

A. Neumaier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
6,716
2,674
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.
 

Demystifier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
10,110
3,029
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.
 

A. Neumaier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
6,716
2,674
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.
 

Demystifier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
10,110
3,029
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.
 

vanhees71

Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
12,971
4,997
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.
Of course. It's still not clear to me what you are after here.
 

vanhees71

Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
12,971
4,997
The one linked in my signature below.
Yes, I did. As you know, I've my quibbles with listing photons just along massive particles, and I'm not convinced that there's a consistent Bohmian reinterpretation of relativistic QFT.
 

Demystifier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
10,110
3,029
Yes, I did. As you know, I've my quibbles with listing photons just along massive particles, and I'm not convinced that there's a consistent Bohmian reinterpretation of relativistic QFT.
If you did, then you know that particles of the Standard Model, including photons, do not have Bohmian trajectories in my version of BM. In this way, this version of BM is very similar to the minimal standard interpretation of relativistic QFT, which, I believe, you could find satisfying.
 
26,260
6,864
I think showing signature is the default.
Even so, if you are going to reference a paper in a specific thread, it's a good idea to put the link directly in a post instead of relying on your sig.
 
23
4
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.
There is no need for a photon position, given that the much more natural approach ist Bohmian field theory. A standard reference for this is
Bohm.D., Hiley, B.J., Kaloyerou, P.N. (1987). An ontological basis for the quantum theory, Phys. Reports 144(6), 321-375
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"Polarization in Bohmian mechanics" You must log in or register to reply here.

Related Threads for: Polarization in Bohmian mechanics

  • Posted
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
543
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
738

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top