Can Bohmian mechanics be made relativistic? · HackerPapers discussions

Can Bohmian mechanics be made relativistic? — mentioned by raattgift

Tue, 24 Jan 2023 16:53:49 GMT

If you want to write, "Bohmian mechanics is incompatible with special relativity", then I will agree with you. If you want to write, "therefore special relativity is wrong", then do so, and we'll have a lot less to talk about given how well-supported special relativity is by direct in-solar-system evidence. In a previous edit up-thread you added that [de Broglie]-Bohmian mechanics has not been turned into a field theory. Incorrect. It is easy to do turn it into a field theory, but that field theory will not be relativistic. One can add extra structure on the spacetime of special relativity…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Can Bohmian mechanics be made relativistic? — mentioned by jostylr

Tue, 05 Jan 2021 19:03:46 GMT

> Whether pilot wave theory can be made consistent with at least special relativity is still open as far as I know It can be made consistent, namely, adding a foliation (a notion of a canonical present moment) makes it work out fine. The foliation is not detectable, it gives the right predictions, it is mathematically sound, etc. But it does feel philosophically sketchy and not fundamentally relativistic. However, there is a paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1714 which explores how to derive foliations from the wave function itself and thus would be as relativistic as in theory involving the…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Can Bohmian mechanics be made relativistic? — mentioned by jostylr

Sun, 21 Jul 2019 22:25:14 GMT

What EPR and Bell's arguments showed is that if you have definite results of experiments at the space-time locations where/when we think the results happened, then there has to be something non-local going on and a foliation is the simplest way to orchestrate that. So either give up a certain kind of definiteness (MW) or introduce a foliation (BM). A foliation is somewhat unpleasant, but there are ways to tease them out of the existing structures of relativity + wave function [0]. As for determinism, that is not the main point for many proponents of BM. Rather, it was about having a clear…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Can Bohmian mechanics be made relativistic? — mentioned by thraway180306

Wed, 15 Aug 2018 21:14:04 GMT

Relativistic extensions aren't pleasant in standard QM either. Bohmian formalism would require something perhaps no less aesthetically repulsive, but surely more alien: a preferred foliation of spacetime to avoid a preferred reference frame. Turns out it wouldn't have to be an artificial choice, as it can be derived from the wave function itself https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1714 (that would also mean this preference existing within QM irrespective of any interpretation).

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Can Bohmian mechanics be made relativistic? — mentioned by jostylr

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 22:28:51 GMT

The standard stuff of the Copenhagen interpretation is derivable from Bohmian mechanics, to the extent that the collapse in Copenhagen is sufficiently well-specified. This obviously prevents finding experimental disagreements. One thing that is somewhat problematic from an orthodox perspective is that of arrival times since, in some sense, nothing is arriving. Time is problematic, in general, in standard QM. One recent paper that explores Bohmian mechanical predictions concerning arrival times is https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07141 It explains how it is not clear in the standard formulation what…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Can Bohmian mechanics be made relativistic? — mentioned by naasking

Sat, 07 Jan 2017 15:54:43 GMT

> While the Copenhagen interpretation can skirt the issue completely, Bohm's must wrangle with the implications of both relativity and non-locality and no one has been completely successful as such. Some might consider that a feature. John Bell of Bell's theorem thought QM's non-locality was the most important unresolved issue, so placing it front and center where it couldn't be ignored was a great idea. Interpretations like Copenhagen simply let you paper over the problems which will inevitably just arise elsewhere. Finally, I think there's been some promising work in deriving covariant…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Can Bohmian mechanics be made relativistic? — mentioned by naasking

Sun, 18 Dec 2016 15:46:46 GMT

> Pilot Wave posits a bunch of extra crap and derives the Born rule. Regular / MWI QM posits the born rule and skips the extra crap. They're both positing something - but the Born rule is a far simpler claim Except it's not, because you also have to posit the measurement postulates in orthodox QM. This so-called "extra crap" reproduces the measurement postulates and the Born rule, thus replacing a large set of assumptions with a much smaller set. Many-Worlds is indeed much simpler than orthodox QM, but it's still not simpler than pilot waves. They are roughly comparable, with many-worlds…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Can Bohmian mechanics be made relativistic? — mentioned by jostylr

Sat, 17 Dec 2016 14:28:21 GMT

A big difference is that standard analysis is well-defined on its own. The standard Copenhagen interpretation is simply not a well-defined theory because measurement is not well-defined, e.g., the cat problem. A more appropriate analogy to the SA v NSA would be GRW formulation vs Bohmian or even a well-defined many worlds (that does exist, but it does not involve splitting of worlds which is as problematic as collapse). These are different theories and they can lead to different generalizations. In particular, GRW seems more amenable to being relativistic without adding a foliation or some…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Can Bohmian mechanics be made relativistic? — mentioned by jostylr

Sat, 15 Oct 2016 01:18:19 GMT

The tension is not with FTL, but rather with the tension of a seeming need in QM for "now" and that in relativity of "not now". There are a number of ways to work in a "now" in a way compatible with the mathematics of relativity. For a full exploration of these ideas, one can see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.1714.pdf which explores ways that the wave function itself possesses multiple possibilities of extracting a "now". To what extent those "now"s are acceptable is certainly open to much debate.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.