# Question on Bohmian Intepretation

• JK423
In summary, the Copenhagen interpretation and the Bohmian interpretation have different views on fundamental probabilities and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Virtual particle creation is not a deterministic process and is not described by any interpretation.
JK423
Gold Member
One of the weird stuff in the Copenhagen interpretation are foundamental probabilities, which are not due to our lack of knowledge about the system.
However the Bohmian interpretation argues the opposite but we still don't know which one is correct (if any). Also, the B.I interprets differently the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle such as ΔΕ Δτ~hbar.
Can someone tell me how this relation is interpreted in BI?
(Cause i want to see if its compatible with virtual particle creation..)
My basic question is about whether B.I. is forced to "accept" fundamental probabilities in order to explain the virtual particle creation..

JK

Last edited:
The uncertainty principle has nothing to do with virtual particle creation, neither in Copenhagen nor in Bohmian interpretation.
More precisely, virtual particle creation makes sense only in quantum fields theory, while the uncertainty principle exists in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics of fixed number of particles as well.

More on the uncertainty principle, virtual particles, Bohmian interpretation and other related and unrelated stuff can be found in
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0609163 [Found.Phys.37:1563-1611,2007]

Last edited:
JK423 said:
My basic question is about whether B.I. is forced to "accept" fundamental probabilities in order to explain the virtual particle creation..
It is not. In fact, probabilities have not much to do with virtual particle creation. Quantum theory does not give the probability that a virtual pair will be created. It gives the probability that REAL particles will be created.

Demystifier said:
The uncertainty principle has nothing to do with virtual particle creation, neither in Copenhagen nor in Bohmian interpretation.
What i know about virtual particles creation is the following:
Virtual particle owes its existence to the uncertainty relation ΔΕ*Δt~hbar.
It "borrows" energy ΔΕ and has a lifetime Δt~hbar/ΔE. Isnt that correct?
(At least that's what we are taught in 3rd year @ university)

I agree that we don't assign probabilities to virtual particle creation, but we know that the latter is not deterministic! We can't predict when its going to be created. But what i want to emphasize is that its not a deterministic process as far as we know. Shouldnt the Bohmian intepretation be able -in principle- to describe virtual particle creation in a deterministic manner (with hidden variables ofcourse). e.g. to be able to tell us when a virtual particle would be created if we knew some initial condition.

Thanks a lot for the paper, I am going to read it.

JK423 said:
What i know about virtual particles creation is the following:
Virtual particle owes its existence to the uncertainty relation ΔΕ*Δt~hbar.
It "borrows" energy ΔΕ and has a lifetime Δt~hbar/ΔE. Isnt that correct?
(At least that's what we are taught in 3rd year @ university)
It is often explained so in popular books, but it is not really correct.

JK423 said:
I agree that we don't assign probabilities to virtual particle creation, but we know that the latter is not deterministic! We can't predict when its going to be created. But what i want to emphasize is that its not a deterministic process as far as we know. Shouldnt the Bohmian intepretation be able -in principle- to describe virtual particle creation in a deterministic manner (with hidden variables ofcourse). e.g. to be able to tell us when a virtual particle would be created if we knew some initial condition.
First of all, virtual particle creation is - NOT REAL. They are not really created. Therefore, the Bohmian interpretation, or any other interpretation, does not describe virtual particle creation, neither in a deterministic nor in a probabilistic manner. Please, read Sec. 9.3 of the paper I mentioned above!

## 1. What is the Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics?

The Bohmian interpretation, also known as the pilot-wave theory, was developed by physicist David Bohm in the 1950s as an alternative explanation for the phenomena observed in quantum mechanics. It suggests that particles have definite trajectories and positions, but are guided by a hidden pilot wave that determines their behavior. This interpretation challenges the traditional view of quantum mechanics where particles do not have definite positions until they are observed.

## 2. How does the Bohmian interpretation differ from other interpretations of quantum mechanics?

The Bohmian interpretation differs from other interpretations such as the Copenhagen interpretation and the Many Worlds interpretation, which do not involve a hidden pilot wave. It also differs from the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation, which suggests that particles have definite positions but are not guided by a pilot wave.

## 3. What evidence supports the Bohmian interpretation?

There is no concrete evidence to support the Bohmian interpretation over other interpretations of quantum mechanics. However, it does provide a more intuitive and deterministic explanation for quantum phenomena. Some experiments have also shown results that are consistent with the predictions of the Bohmian interpretation.

## 4. What are the criticisms of the Bohmian interpretation?

One of the main criticisms of the Bohmian interpretation is that it introduces a hidden variable, the pilot wave, which cannot be directly observed. This goes against the principles of Occam's razor, which states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Additionally, the Bohmian interpretation has difficulty explaining certain quantum phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and the uncertainty principle.

## 5. Is the Bohmian interpretation widely accepted among scientists?

The Bohmian interpretation is not widely accepted among scientists, as it is considered a minority view in the field of quantum mechanics. Most scientists continue to adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation, which has been the dominant interpretation since the early 20th century. However, the Bohmian interpretation continues to be studied and debated by scientists and philosophers.

• Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
376
Views
13K
• Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
13
Views
2K
• Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
14
Views
2K
• Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
491
Views
29K
• Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
2K
• Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
76
Views
4K
• Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
21
Views
2K
• General Discussion
Replies
190
Views
10K
• Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
8
Views
2K
• Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
2K