- 10,110
- 3,029
Did you read the paper?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?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?
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.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.
Which paper?Did you read the paper?
The one linked in my signature below.Which paper?
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.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?
There is no "signature below'' - whether a signature is shown depends on user settings!The one linked in my signature below.
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.The only question is what the Bohmian trajectories are good for? So why should you calculate them.
I didn't know that. But I think showing signature is the default.There is no "signature below'' - whether a signature is shown depends on user settings!
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.effective field theories, where there is no much point in explicit calculations in the more fundamental 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.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.
Of course. It's still not clear to me what you are after here.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.
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.The one linked in my signature below.
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.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.
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.I think showing signature is the default.
There is no need for a photon position, given that the much more natural approach ist Bohmian field theory. A standard reference for this isI'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.