132 CHAPTER VI. BOHMIAN <strong>MECHANICS</strong> With S(⃗q) = ⎧ ⎪⎨ ⎪⎩ S A (⃗q) for ⃗q ∈ A, S B (⃗q) for ⃗q ∈ B, 0 elsewhere, (VI. 17) and ψ A (⃗q) = R A (⃗q)e i S A(⃗q) , etc., (VI. 14) reads ψ(⃗q) = ( a R A (⃗q) + b R B (⃗q) ) e i S(⃗q) , (VI. 18) which means that also the quantum potential, as depicted in figure VI. 1, can now be taken as a sum of terms belonging to separate areas. The particles in area A do not perceive the wave function in area B at all. Figure VI. 2: A simulation of the double slit experiment in Bohmian mechanics. Each particle follows a certain path between the slits and the photographic plate. All particles coming from the upper slit arrive at the upper half of the photographic plate, likewise for the lower slit and lower half of the plate. The twists in the paths are caused by the quantum potential U. (Vigier et al. 1987 ) VI. 3 COMPOSITE SYSTEMS The technique used to rewrite the Schrödinger equation into equations describing particles with definite position and momentum in a non - classical potential field, can easily be generalized. For
VI. 3. COMPOSITE SYSTEMS 133 example, for a system of two particles, represented by the wave function ψ (⃗q 1 , ⃗q 2 , t), we interpret |ψ(⃗q 1 , ⃗q 2 , t)| 2 as the probability density that, simultaneously, particle 1 is located at position ⃗q 1 and particle 2 at position ⃗q 2 . We write ψ(⃗q 1 , ⃗q 2 , t) = R(⃗q 1 , ⃗q 2 , t) e i S(⃗q 1, ⃗q 2 , t) , (VI. 19) and the quantum potential is now given by 2 ( 2 ∇1 R(⃗q 1 , ⃗q 2 , t) U (⃗q 1 , ⃗q 2 , t) = − + ∇ 2 2 ) R(⃗q 1 , ⃗q 2 , t) , (VI. 20) R(⃗q 1 , ⃗q 2 , t) 2 m 1 2 m 2 where ∇ i := ∂ /∂⃗q i is the gradient to the coordinates of particle i. In this expression the coordinates of both particles occur. Therefore, the force on particle 1, ⃗ F 1 = −∇(V + U), also depends, by means of the quantum potential, on the position of particle 2, and vice versa. This can be compared to the situation in Newton’s gravitation theory, where such a dependence appears in the classical potential V ; there is an instantaneous interaction (Latin: actio in distans) between particles, a choice of another initial position of one particle immediately influences the dynamics of the other. Notice, however, that in Bohmian mechanics this influence does not have to decrease with the distance between the particles. Even if R (⃗q 1 , ⃗q 2 , t) would go to 0 for ∥⃗q 1 − ⃗q 2 ∥ → ∞, the quantum potential U(⃗q 1 , ⃗q 2 ) does not need to do so, it depends on the second derivative, which means that it depends on the strength of the oscillation of R, not on the amplitude. Also notice that the mutual dependence between the particles does not only appear by means of the quantum potential. The momentum of particle 1, given by ∇ 1 S(⃗q 1 , ⃗q 2 , t), cannot be chosen independently of the position of particle 2, and vice versa. This does not even happen in a classical theory with an actio in distans, and it gives Bohmian mechanics a deeply ‘holistic’ character. Only when the total wave function is a product this mutual dependence disappears, because then yielding ψ(⃗q 1 , ⃗q 2 , t) = ψ 1 (⃗q 1 , t) ψ 2 (⃗q 2 , t), (VI. 21) R(⃗q 1 , ⃗q 2 , t) = R 1 (⃗q 1 , t) R 2 (⃗q 2 , t), S(⃗q 1 , ⃗q 2 , t) = S 1 (⃗q 1 , t) + S 2 (⃗q 2 , t) (VI. 22) and, consequently, (VI. 20) becomes U (⃗q 1 , ⃗q 2 , t) = U 1 (⃗q 1 , t) + U 2 (⃗q 2 , t). (VI. 23) Each particle only feels its own potential field, and its momentum does not depend on the position of the other particle. If now the classical potential V is also a sum of 1 - particle potentials, this factorizability is preserved in time. We know, however, that the wave function ψ (⃗q 1 , ⃗q 2 , t) does in general not have to be a product state, and even if it is a product state at some moment, it will generally not remain to be one. We must therefore conclude that the quantum potential U represents a non - local connection between the particles.
- Page 1 and 2:
FOUNDATIONS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS JO
- Page 3 and 4:
CONTENTS I CONCEPTUAL PROBLEMS 7 I.
- Page 5 and 6:
VI BOHMIAN MECHANICS 127 VI. 1 Intr
- Page 7 and 8:
LIST OF FIGURES III. 1 A discontinu
- Page 9 and 10:
I CONCEPTUAL PROBLEMS Anyone who is
- Page 11 and 12:
I. 1. INTRODUCTION 9 of affairs. [.
- Page 13 and 14:
I. 2. INCOMPLETENESS AND LOCALITY 1
- Page 15 and 16:
I. 2. INCOMPLETENESS AND LOCALITY 1
- Page 17 and 18:
I. 2. INCOMPLETENESS AND LOCALITY 1
- Page 19 and 20:
II THE FORMALISM As far as the laws
- Page 21 and 22:
II. 1. FINITE - DIMENSIONAL HILBERT
- Page 23 and 24:
II. 2. OPERATORS 21 representation
- Page 25 and 26:
II. 2. OPERATORS 23 An example of a
- Page 27 and 28:
II. 3. EIGENVALUE PROBLEM AND SPECT
- Page 29 and 30:
II. 4. FUNCTIONS OF NORMAL OPERATOR
- Page 31 and 32:
II. 4. FUNCTIONS OF NORMAL OPERATOR
- Page 33 and 34:
II. 5. DIRECT SUM AND DIRECT PRODUC
- Page 35 and 36:
II. 5. DIRECT SUM AND DIRECT PRODUC
- Page 37 and 38:
II. 6. ADDENDUM: INFINITE - DIMENSI
- Page 39 and 40:
II. 6. ADDENDUM: INFINITE - DIMENSI
- Page 41 and 42:
The angular momentum operator II. 6
- Page 43 and 44:
III THE POSTULATES The sciences do
- Page 45 and 46:
III. 1. VON NEUMANN’S POSTULATES
- Page 47 and 48:
III. 2. PURE AND MIXED STATES 45 Ad
- Page 49 and 50:
III. 2. PURE AND MIXED STATES 47 Ea
- Page 51 and 52:
III. 2. PURE AND MIXED STATES 49 Th
- Page 53 and 54:
III. 3. THE INTERPRETATION OF MIXED
- Page 55 and 56:
ut the probability to find the syst
- Page 57 and 58:
III. 4. COMPOSITE SYSTEMS 55 Proof
- Page 59 and 60:
III. 4. COMPOSITE SYSTEMS 57 With (
- Page 61 and 62:
III. 4. COMPOSITE SYSTEMS 59 ◃ Re
- Page 63 and 64:
Now consider an operator W of the f
- Page 65 and 66:
III. 5. PROPER AND IMPROPER MIXTURE
- Page 67 and 68:
III. 6. SPIN 1/2 PARTICLES 65 In th
- Page 69 and 70:
III. 6. SPIN 1/2 PARTICLES 67 we ha
- Page 71 and 72:
III. 6. SPIN 1/2 PARTICLES 69 and w
- Page 73 and 74:
III. 6. SPIN 1/2 PARTICLES 71 EXERC
- Page 75 and 76:
III. 6. SPIN 1/2 PARTICLES 73 The t
- Page 77 and 78:
III. 6. SPIN 1/2 PARTICLES 75 We ar
- Page 79 and 80:
IV THE COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION It
- Page 81 and 82:
IV. 1. HEISENBERG AND THE UNCERTAIN
- Page 83 and 84: IV. 1. HEISENBERG AND THE UNCERTAIN
- Page 85 and 86: IV. 2. BOHR AND COMPLEMENTARITY 83
- Page 87 and 88: IV. 2. BOHR AND COMPLEMENTARITY 85
- Page 89 and 90: IV. 2. BOHR AND COMPLEMENTARITY 87
- Page 91 and 92: IV. 3. DEBATE BETWEEN EINSTEIN EN B
- Page 93 and 94: IV. 3. DEBATE BETWEEN EINSTEIN EN B
- Page 95 and 96: IV. 4. NEUTRON INTERFEROMETRY 93 If
- Page 97 and 98: IV. 4. NEUTRON INTERFEROMETRY 95 al
- Page 99 and 100: IV. 5. THE UNCERTAINTY RELATIONS 97
- Page 101 and 102: IV. 5. THE UNCERTAINTY RELATIONS 99
- Page 103 and 104: IV. 5. THE UNCERTAINTY RELATIONS 10
- Page 105 and 106: IV. 5. THE UNCERTAINTY RELATIONS 10
- Page 107 and 108: IV. 5. THE UNCERTAINTY RELATIONS 10
- Page 109 and 110: IV. 5. THE UNCERTAINTY RELATIONS 10
- Page 111 and 112: V HIDDEN VARIABLES While we have th
- Page 113 and 114: V. 2. NON - CONTEXTUAL HIDDEN VARIA
- Page 115 and 116: V. 2. NON - CONTEXTUAL HIDDEN VARIA
- Page 117 and 118: V. 3 KOCHEN AND SPECKER’S THEOREM
- Page 119 and 120: V. 3. KOCHEN AND SPECKER’S THEORE
- Page 121 and 122: V. 3. KOCHEN AND SPECKER’S THEORE
- Page 123 and 124: V. 4. CONTEXTUAL HIDDEN VARIABLES 1
- Page 125 and 126: V. 4. CONTEXTUAL HIDDEN VARIABLES 1
- Page 127: V. 4. CONTEXTUAL HIDDEN VARIABLES 1
- Page 130 and 131: 128 CHAPTER VI. BOHMIAN MECHANICS s
- Page 132 and 133: 130 CHAPTER VI. BOHMIAN MECHANICS E
- Page 136 and 137: 134 CHAPTER VI. BOHMIAN MECHANICS
- Page 138 and 139: 136 CHAPTER VI. BOHMIAN MECHANICS B
- Page 141 and 142: VII BELL’S INEQUALITIES There is
- Page 143 and 144: VII. 1. LOCAL DETERMINISTIC HIDDEN
- Page 145 and 146: VII. 1. LOCAL DETERMINISTIC HIDDEN
- Page 147 and 148: VII. 2. LOCAL DETERMINISTIC CONTEXT
- Page 149 and 150: dµ A(⃗a, λ, µ) dν B( ⃗ b,
- Page 151 and 152: Likewise we calculate the following
- Page 153 and 154: VII. 4. THE DERIVATION OF EBERHARD
- Page 155 and 156: VII. 5. STOCHASTIC HIDDEN VARIABLES
- Page 157 and 158: VII. 5. STOCHASTIC HIDDEN VARIABLES
- Page 159 and 160: VII. 5. STOCHASTIC HIDDEN VARIABLES
- Page 161 and 162: VII. 6. AN ALGEBRAIC PROOF WITHOUT
- Page 163 and 164: VII. 7. MISCELLANEA 161 Therefore,
- Page 165 and 166: VIII THE MEASUREMENT PROBLEM [. . .
- Page 167 and 168: VIII. 2. MEASUREMENT ACCORDING TO C
- Page 169 and 170: VIII. 3. MEASUREMENT ACCORDING TO Q
- Page 171 and 172: VIII. 3. MEASUREMENT ACCORDING TO Q
- Page 173 and 174: VIII. 4. THE MEASUREMENT PROBLEM IN
- Page 175 and 176: VIII. 4. THE MEASUREMENT PROBLEM IN
- Page 177 and 178: VIII. 4. THE MEASUREMENT PROBLEM IN
- Page 179 and 180: VIII. 4. THE MEASUREMENT PROBLEM IN
- Page 181 and 182: VIII. 5. INCOMPATIBLE QUANTITIES 17
- Page 183 and 184: VIII. 6. COMMENTS ON THE THEORY OF
- Page 185 and 186:
A GLEASON’S THEOREM Proofs really
- Page 187 and 188:
A. 2. CONVERSION TO A 3 - DIMENSION
- Page 189 and 190:
A. 3. FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM ON
- Page 191 and 192:
A. 3. FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM ON
- Page 193 and 194:
A. 3. FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM ON
- Page 195 and 196:
A. 3. FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM ON
- Page 197 and 198:
A. 3. FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM ON
- Page 199 and 200:
A. 4. AN ANALYTIC LEMMA 197 To prov
- Page 201:
WORKS CONSULTED Most subjects in th
- Page 204 and 205:
202 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bohm, D.J., Aharon
- Page 206 and 207:
204 BIBLIOGRAPHY Daneri, A., Loinge
- Page 208 and 209:
206 BIBLIOGRAPHY Frank, P.G. (1949)
- Page 210 and 211:
208 BIBLIOGRAPHY Isham, C.J. (1995)
- Page 212 and 213:
210 BIBLIOGRAPHY Pauli, W.E. (1933)
- Page 214 and 215:
212 BIBLIOGRAPHY Suppes, P., Zanott