Tumulka on Bohmian QED

[A. Neumaier]

Roderich Tumulka (a long-time Bohmian) demonstrates in his newest preprint,

• R. Tumulka, A Vision for a Bohm-Style Theory of Quantum Electrodynamics, arXiv:2409.07784.

that for the interpretation QED, the Bohmian interpretation has nothing to offer (apart from speculation called vision), and that the renormalization problem (which needs to be addressed in any serious interpretation of QED) is still completely unsolved on the interpretation level.

 

[Demystifier]

for the interpretation QED, the Bohmian interpretation has nothing to offer

Is it his words or your words?

 

[A. Neumaier]

Is it his words or your words?

I cited the source of the paper so that you can find out for yourself.

 

[Demystifier]

I have read the paper even before you posted it, and I didn't see that Tumulka is in any sense negative about BM. I guess you see in it what you want to see.

 

[A. Neumaier]

I have read the paper even before you posted it, and I didn't see that Tumulka is in any sense negative about BM.

Of course he isn't, since it is his main field of research.

But one needs to read between the lines. (Renormalized) QED and Bohmian mechanics both exist for now slightly more than 70 years. While QED was and still is a magnificent success, with a huge number of applications, Tumulka's paper documents the fact that the Bohmian version of it is still at the level of mere ideas and conjectures only, none of them really working, and without any change of this in sight.

 

[Demystifier]

and that the renormalization problem (which needs to be addressed in any serious interpretation of QED) is still completely unsolved on the interpretation level

In my opinion, renormalization on the interpretation level is best understood with Wilson philosophy, according to which QED (and the whole Standard Model) is just a long-distance effective theory, emerging from some unknown more fundamental theory formulated with entirely different degrees of freedom. From this point of view trying to find a Bohmian formulation of QED is misguided. The Bohmian formulation should be applied to this more fundamental theory, which makes it a part of a larger, more ambitious and more difficult problem of finding a better theory beyond the Standard Model.

 

[A. Neumaier]

The Bohmian formulation should be applied to this more fundamental theory, which makes it a part of a larger, more ambitious and more difficult problem of finding a better theory beyond the Standard Model.

This makes it even more speculative than Tumulka's alrady vague vision....

 

[Demystifier]

This makes it even more speculative than Tumulka's alrady vague vision....

It is, but it gives me a peace of mind, because then in practice I can just use quantum theory on an instrumental level, without a need to think about the details of Bohmian mechanics, and yet having a vague but intuitive picture of what might go on at a more fundamental level. For me, quantum interpretations are just tools for intuitive thinking. This particular tool works for me pretty well. But I use other tools (other interpretations) as well, whenever it helps me to grasp some aspects of quantum theory intuitively.

 

[Demystifier]

When I evaluate various interpretations of QM, I try to use the principle of charity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

 

[apostolosdt]

In my opinion, renormalization on the interpretation level is best understood with Wilson philosophy, according to which QED (and the whole Standard Model) is just a long-distance effective theory, emerging from some unknown more fundamental theory formulated with entirely different degrees of freedom. From this point of view trying to find a Bohmian formulation of QED is misguided. The Bohmian formulation should be applied to this more fundamental theory, which makes it a part of a larger, more ambitious and more difficult problem of finding a better theory beyond the Standard Model.

Sorry, but which Wilson are you referring to? Not Kenneth, I presume.

 

[Demystifier]

Sorry, but which Wilson are you referring to? Not Kenneth, I presume.

Kenneth Wilson, of course, did not not talk about Bohmian mechanics, but his approach to renormalization can be used in Bohmian mechanics as well. Sorry for using the p-word (philosophy), I know that this word irritates you.

 

[apostolosdt]

Kenneth Wilson, of course, did not not talk about Bohmian mechanics, but his approach to renormalization can be used in Bohmian mechanics as well. Sorry for using the p-word (philosophy), I know that this word irritates you.

I appreciate your understanding of my... caprice with "philosophy" in a physics context. But still, my question genuinely holds: Which Wilson are you referring to? For I googled the name and a lot of philosophers under "Wilson" came up. Looks like the name is quite popular among philosophers. My wild guess is in connection with the term "principle of charity" (never heard before, though). Is it Neil Wilson? Just curious.

 

[Demystifier]

If I wrote "approach" instead of "philosophy", would it look more like Kenneth to you?

 

[apostolosdt]

If I wrote "approach" instead of "philosophy", would it look more like Kenneth to you?

It looks like I've caused sort of sidetrack in your thoughts, for which I apologize.

In one of your previous posts here, the passage "...QED (and the whole Standard Model) is just a long-distance effective theory, emerging from some unknown more fundamental theory formulated with entirely different degrees of freedom..." you used does sound like Kenneth to anyone knowing sth about the subject, but that "interpretation" term fuzzed the text a bit.

I've nothing against philosophy per se; in fact, being Greek, I've been exposed to enough philosophy at school. But I cannot overstate my stance that physics is an experimental science that may help us know about the world, but not revealing the truth about the world. That's what Feynman so emphatically repeated. And yet, "interpretation" implies "knowing the truth;" that's irritating to me, yes it is.

 

[Demystifier]

And yet, "interpretation" implies "knowing the truth;" that's irritating to me, yes it is.

I don't see it this way. For me, interpretation implies having an idea what truth might be.

 

[A. Neumaier]

Kenneth Wilson, of course, did not not talk about Bohmian mechanics, but his approach to renormalization can be used in Bohmian mechanics as well.

Where is a published example of the use of the renormalization approach in Bohmian mechanics?

 

[Demystifier]

Where is a published example of the use of the renormalization approach in Bohmian mechanics?

Why do you ask? Would you like to read it, or are you just hoping that I will say that there isn't any?

 

[apostolosdt]

Why do you ask? Would you like to read it, or are you just hoping that I will say that there isn't any?

Can we remain polite, please? And 'academic'? I find Neumaier's question much related and I'd like to hear more about this topic. It's the possible involvement of Wilson that interests me.

And I confess I know very little about interpretation of quantum mechanics.

 

[PeterDonis]

Why do you ask? Would you like to read it, or are you just hoping that I will say that there isn't any?

The way for you to find out which of these possibilities is correct is to answer the question. Please do so. I would be interested to see the answer too.

 

[Demystifier]

In my "Bohmian mechanics for instrumentalists" I used a Wilsonian way of thinking to argue that one does not need to worry about the details of Bohmian mechanics. To my knowledge, in a Bohmian context there is no paper that uses Wilsonian renormalization in a technical sense.

 

[A. Neumaier]

Why do you ask? Would you like to read it, or are you just hoping that I will say that there isn't any?

As you know I read quite a number of publications on Bohmian mechanics! But I haven't seen one on the topic you mentioned, so I was asking (ns would have read it). Your answer showed that renormalization is so far not applied in Bohmian mechanics, except as an excuse not to have to think deeper about the foundations, because

one does not need to worry about the details of Bohmian mechanics.

That's why I don't worry about Bohmian mechanics at all; it is just a carpet under which to sweep all nontrivial problems....

 

[Demystifier]

As you know I read quite a number of publications on Bohmian mechanics! ...
That's why I don't worry about Bohmian mechanics at all;

Why do you read it, if you don't worry about it?

 

[A. Neumaier]

Why do you read it, if you don't worry about it?

What a question! Worry is a poor guide for choosing what to read.

I read to be informed about possible progress.

 

[Demystifier]

I read to be informed about possible progress.

So you think Bohmian interpretation has a potential? If so, could you explain why you think so? You often say what you don't like about BM, which is fine, but perhaps now you could say what you like about it.