Status of Relativistic Bohmian Mechanics: What Open Questions Remain?

Morberticus
Messages
82
Reaction score
0
I am curious about recent progress in relativistic Bohmian mechanics. Finding a review is proving difficult (The closest I can find is a conference paper by H. Nikolic).

My understanding is a set of dynamical variables are identified as "real" (beables), and their (usually deterministic) time-evolution is obtained by decomposing the schrodinger equation. But there seems to be some tension (at least there was in 2005) between Bohmian Mechanics and QFT insofar as what you label as "real" depends on what you want to calculate, and decomposition in a fermionic field theory suggests a different reality than in a bosonic field theory.

My question is, is there a single set of "beables" that consistently obtains both non-relativistic QM (including quantum computing) and the standard model of particle physics? Is this still an avenue of research?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think one possibility is to try to obtain the entire standard model from non-relativistic physics, for example a lattice model whose spacing is so fine that the violation of Lorentz invariance is less than what is observed. 't Hooft begins his exposition of QFT this way http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/lectures/basisqft.pdf. Another possibility for obtaining some aspects of the standard model from a non-relativistic model is http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507118.

I think the chief difficulty with putting the standard model on a lattice is whether chiral interactions can be described http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.2560.
 
One possibility is that particles are ontological for both bosons and fermions in QFT:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1205.1992

But this is not the only possibility, and the research is still ongoing.
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top