Undergrad What is Stochastic Quantum Mechanics (in simple terms)?

Click For Summary
Stochastic Quantum Mechanics (SM) introduces an element of randomness in predicting quantum measurements, distinguishing it from traditional Quantum Mechanics (QM), which is deterministic. While SM suggests that randomness affects measurement outcomes, it does not yield the same predictive accuracy as QM. The discussion highlights that SM is not merely an interpretation of QM, as it produces different results and lacks the consistency of QM's predictions. Additionally, SM incorporates assumptions about particle movement akin to Brownian motion, which are not directly related to measurement processes. Ultimately, the conversation underscores the complexities and limitations of SM compared to established quantum theories.
john taylor
Messages
24
Reaction score
1
Could someone, in laymen's terms explain to me what stochastic mechanics is?
 
  • Like
Likes Peter Morgan
Physics news on Phys.org
Before the position, velocity, or some QM property of a particle is measured, a probabilistic range of potential measurement results can be predicted.
But the exact measurement result cannot be fully predicted. In that sense, there is an element of randomness whenever an attempt is made at such a measurement.

The mechanics can be viewed as not fully deterministic. Thus: stochastic mechanics; mechanical rules that include an unavoidable element of randomness.

...

I am looking at this article: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012011/pdf

In the introduction, it described stochastic mechanics (SM) as an "interpretation" or quantum mechanics (QM). But it is not. One interpretation of a theory, such as QM, should yield the same predictions as any other interpretation. But the article goes on to show that the model generated by SM is not equivalent to QM. QM makes consistently accurate predictions. SM does not.

What SM does show is that there are is an awful lot of QM that results from no more than the randomness created when measurements are made - and other assumptions made by SM.

Unfortunately, as I read through the material, I cannot identify exactly what those other assumptions are.
 
Last edited:
.Scott said:
That's a nice summary. Unlike the wikipedia article, it actually gives an idea of what stochastic mechanics is about.

.Scott said:
In the introduction, it described stochastic mechanics (SM) as an "interpretation" or quantum mechanics (QM). But it is not. One interpretation of a theory, such as QM, should yield the same predictions as any other interpretation. But the article goes on to show that the model generated by SM is not equivalent to QM. QM makes consistently accurate predictions. SM does not.
Nelson seems to claim that the predictions are the same for actual experiments. In the last paragraph of the paper you cited, he writes:
"Why do I not suggest that the experiment be done? Because if a record of the observation of the first oscillator at time t1 is made by some physical means, and similarly for the second oscillator, and the two records arecompared at a common later time t3, this is an observation at a single time, for which quantum mechanics and stochastic mechanics agree. The nonlocality of stochastic mechanics conspires to bring the records into agreement."

.Scott said:
What SM does show is that there are is an awful lot of QM that results from no more than the randomness created when measurements are made - and other assumptions made by SM.
This doesn't seem right to me. The main feature of stochastic mechanics is to have a Brownian motion like stochastic movement of particles going on all the time which gives the Schrödinger equation the status of some kind of diffusion equation. Up to this point in the description, no measurements are involved.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby and .Scott
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
481
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
872
  • · Replies 710 ·
24
Replies
710
Views
41K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K