Polarization in Bohmian mechanics

[A. Neumaier]

The one linked in my signature below.

There is no "signature below'' - whether a signature is shown depends on user settings!

 

[Demystifier]

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.

 

[Demystifier]

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.

 

[A. Neumaier]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[PeterDonis]

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.

 

[Elias1960]

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