Polarization in Bohmian mechanics

[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