De Broglie- Bohm Theory - An Other Way of Thinking About Quantum Mechanics

Christine Klauser

Section de physique, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

Standard Quantum Mechanics (SQM) introduces new concepts such as a mysterious probability
wave-function in order to describe quantum phenomena. Published in the early fifties of the last
century by David Bohm, a new interpretation of quantum mechanics, basing on earlier work of Louis-
Victor de Broglie, called De Broglie-Bohm Theory (”DBB” or ”Bohmian Mechanics” will be used
equivalently as well)refuses to this and stays with notions like the trajectory, known from Newtonian
mechanics. Basing on the usual Schrödinger equation and an additional equation of motion, DBB
delivers a full description of quantum phenomena, predicting the same results as SQM by avoiding
its paradoxes.

INTRODUCTION Equation (1) describes the motion of N particle in terms

SQM seems to be an appropriate theory to modelize
the quantum world, but in an ideological view, it might
be slightly unsatisfactory. Together with the Schrödinger
equation, there are several postulates needed to be fully
in accordance with what we can observe. DBB however
presents a pretty elegant way of explaining quantum
phenomena, by basing on only two fundamental equa-
tions. There are no postulates needed. Contrarily to
SQM, DBB is a deterministic theory. DBB is not so
well known, since most of its predictions coincide with
SQM, so for experimentators there is little interest in
this theory. But from a philosophical point of view, DBB
is worth being investigated - also because it solves the
SQM paradoxes.
Where Standard Quantum Mechanics conserves prin-
of their positions Qi and a function Ψ that is expressed
by (2), the Schrödinger equation. According to DBB, a
system is not completely described by its wavefunction :
There are the particles’ position which are introduced as
a further variable. The wave function Ψ can be considered
as guiding the particle (or rather it’s position Q)through
space time, therefore, we also speak about Ψ as the pilot
wave. We can see from the above equations that Ψ is re-
quired to be differentiable. This set of equations applies
also to spin (if we extend the Schrödinger equation to
the Schrödinger-Pauli equation.)In the case of identical
particles, the equations’ characteristics do not fundamen-
tally change from what we know form SQM. If in SQM
their wavefunctions differ from each other(symmetric for
bosons and antisymmetric for fermions), so they do in
DBB, but equation (1) applies to all of them[1].
In equation (1), dQ dt is not defined, if the denominator
i

ciples such as the conservation of energy and momentum of the right-hand side goes to zero. This is the case if
that are familiar to us from the Newtonian world vision, Ψ({Qj (t)}N 1 , t) = 0, ie, if the wave-function has a node.
the DBB decides to go with trajectories as conversant But this case can be avoided : It could be proven that for
concept. In SQM, as a consequence, there is nothing like every wave function Ψ that fulfills the above-mentioned
a well-determined trajectory, but we are confronted with requirements and for most of the initial configurations,
a weird wave function of which we do not have any intui- Qj is differentiable everywhere and hence Ψ runs not into
tive feeling, but whose absolute value squared reveals to a node[1]. Ψ is interpreted as the wave-function of all the
be the probablitity density of position. Contrarily, DBB universe. One of the most important features of DBB, a
makes it possible to stay with trajectories, they can be deterministic theory, is to avoid statistical interpretation
considered as observables [1], but energy and momentum of mathematical results. Every object basically moves on
are not conserved anymore if we take the classical defini- well determined trajectories, contrarily to classical quan-
tion of those quantities. tum mechanics.
Analogically to Newtonian mechanic that is based
upon Newton’s second law and SQM upon the Schrödin- In Bohmian Mechanics, it is important to distinguish
ger equation, the fundamental equations for DBB are the between Ψ, the wave function of the complete universe
two following ones : and ψ, the wave function of a subsystem of the universe.
Those two functions do not always behave similarily. It
dQi h̄ ∇i Ψ({Qj (t)}N is crucial to understand that measurements can only be
1 , t)
= Im N
(1) made over ψ, but never over Ψ. ”Measurements” in Bo-
dt mi Ψ(Qj (t) , t)
i hemian mechanics are similar to the inuitive notion of the
word differ in their interpretation from SQM : Where in
N SQM, the particle is forced by measurement to take a
∂Ψ X
value or to be at a certain place, in DBB, the particle
ih̄ =− ∇2i Ψ + V (qi )Ψ (2)
∂t i behaves in the same manner wether there is a measure-
J. Phy334 1, 0001 (2007). JOURNAL OF PHY334
ment or not.
QUANTUM EQUILIBRIUM HYPOTHESE
Considering an ensemble of n particles with respec-
tive position q, it is, in the dynamical analysis of the
system, straight forward to examine the probability dis-
tribution of the position, i.e., to look for an expression
for the probability to find a particle at a certain place at
a certain time. The corresponding probability density is
called ρ(q, t) . ρ(q, t) needs of course to satisfy the conti-
nuity equation :
∂ρ X i ∇i Ψ
=− ∇i (ρ Im ) (3)
∂t i
h̄ Ψ arriving wavefunction enters the holes, which gives raise
It can be shown that if at a time t0 , the so-called quantum
equilibrium hypothesis is true, ie
ρ(q, t0 ) = |ψ(q, to )|2 (4)
than it is true for all times t [5]
ρ(q, t) = |ψ(q, t)|2 (5)
Still, it is not evident that equation 5 holds, especially
for the wavefunction of the universe. Nevertheless, all in-
formation that we can possibly gather is obtained from
a subsystem ψ and for this case, one can assume [1]that
equation (4) is applicable to this subsystem ψ and hence
equation (5) is also true. In other words, the initial
distribution of the particles’ position looks like an in-
dependent, random distribution. Equation (5) is called
the ”Quantum equilibrium hypothese”. Eventhough this
yields to identical statistical predicitions for both theo-
ries, the causal interpretation behind equation 5 differs :
While in SQM, a probabilistic theory, this gives us the
probability to measure a particle at a certain position,
in the (deterministic) DBB the same quantity expresses
the probability that a particle is at this specific position.
I would like to insist, once more, on the fact that in DBB
interpretation, we only have a probabilistic aspect due to
a lack of information : we do not know the initial confi-
guration of the system ; it is not, as in SQM , a property
of matter. The acceptance of quantum equilibirum hypo-
thesis makes DBB equivalent to SQM for its observable
predictions[4]. Thus SQM and DBB are both simply two
different causal interpretation of the same phenomena.
COLLAPS OF THE WAVE FUNCTION
According to the SQM interpretation, a particle can be
described before the measuring process by a wavefunc-
tion that satisfies the Schrödinger wave equation. But as
soon at is comes to measurement, this is not true any-
more : The wave equation is said to collapse. In DBB, the
2
30 novembre 2007
wave function of the universe, Ψ, never collapses. When a
quantity is measured, this action always takes place in a
subsystem of Ψ, described by the wave function ψ. DBB
makes it possible to derive the collapse of a wave func-
tion ψ due to measurement logically equations (1),(2).
This is a positive aspect of this theory, knowing that the
collapes of the wave function has been admitted by the
Copenhague Convention and most physicists, but is not
a logical consequence of SQM.
Let us consider a system, that could be in n different
states. The states are supposed not to overlap [1] In or-
der to perform a measurement over this system, we use
an apparatus that displays the result ”system is in state
i”. Let us imagine this apparatus as a box with n holes
(they represent the possible states to be measured : the
to the displayed result). When now the appartus and the
observed system interact (and we must get a result), be-
cause the wave configurations are disjoint, the system’s
wavefunction can only ”enter” one hole - thus, the sys-
tem is in the state k after measurement (this corresponds
to the collaps in SQM) [7]The other n-1 wavefunctions
do still exist after measurement, but they are so called
”empty”. Eventhough they still obey to the Schrödinger
wave equation, they do not have any influence on the
system anymore.
TRAJECTORY
As mentioned above, the particles’ position and hence
their trajectory are used as a variable of the system.
Their introduction as a variable is necessary ; in order
to avoid that the wavefunction ceases to behave to the
Schrödinger equation [8], there are some so called ”hid-
den variables” needed - and in Bohmian Mechanics they
are chosen to be the particles’ position. The Bohmian
trajectories are observables, strictly speaking. Neverthe-
less, it is not possible to perform succesive measurement
over a particle in order to obtain its trajectory because
the measurement process disturbs the particle’s beha-
viour[? , Tumulka] What we interpret as ”Trajectory”
in the Bohmian way, Q(t) is different from what is clas-
sially understood by this term. In classical mechanics, the
trajectory is defined by position and velocity, whereas in
Bohmian mechanics, velocity is not an independent va-
riable since it is linked to the phase of the wave function
[7] I follow here the more qualitative approach of Ref [6], pages 8 f
. In [1], there is a more mathematical explanation, given over a
set of only two possible states
[8] and this is, logically speaking, very reasonable ; we normally
consider nature laws as valid over all time. But if we had to
handle with a wavefunction’s collapse, this would mean that this
laws ”change” for the instant when measurement is applied.
J. Phy334 1, 0001 (2007). JOURNAL OF PHY334 30 novembre 2007

by the Schrödinger Equation. these days, we are not able to judge if the Schrödinger
A concrete example is the ground state of the hydrogen equation is true - or if Bohmian paths exist. The ques-
atom. For this particular case, we know the exact solu- tion is more of philosophical nature. Ideologically, Boh-
tion of the Schrödinger equation . It is a purely real wave mian Mechanics provides some features that might seem
function. Thus, the imaginary part of the wave function more ”beautiful” to physicists : In order to establish the
is zero and so is the time derivative of the trajectory Q. theory, there are only two equations needed. No further
Hence, in the Bohmian description, the electron is not postulates are necessary. In addition, the paradoxes ari-
moving around the proton, but stays on the same place sing in SQM are solved in Bohmian Mechanics [1]. This
because the right-hand-side of equation (1) is zero. makes DBB Theory very tempting, because it explains
The Newtonian limit of DBB does not lead to Newtonian the same world but needs no artificial restrictions on it.
trajectories in general. If the wave packet of interest is re-
latively small, Newtonain and DBB path look alike, but
they differ generally. DBB paths are always well defined.
[1] R. Tumulka, American Journal of Physics 72(9) 1220-
1226 (2004).
TESTING DBB ?
[2] G. Brida, E. Cagliero, G. Falzetta, M.Genovese, M. Gra-
megna, C. Novero J.Phys.B.At.Mol.Opt.Phys. 35 , 4751
One of the challenging axpects of DBB theory is the (2002)
fact that its prediction are the same as the ones made [3] P.Ghose , arXiv :quant-ph/0003037v3 (published online)
by SQM. As a consequence, it is impossible to prove ex- [4] W. Struyve, W. De Baere, ”Quantum theorum theory :
Reconsideration of Foundations”, Växjö University Press,
perimentally which of the two theories is more adequate.
Växjö 355 (2001)
Recently, there have been some attempts to test SQM [5] D.Dürr, S.Goldstein, N.Zanghı̀, Jounral of Statistical Phy-
against DBB Theory. One of the suggestions came from sics 67 843-907 (1992)
Ghose [3] The experiment is a variation of the famous [6] W.Struyve, ”The de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave interpreta-
double-slit experiment : two photons pass at the same tion of quantum theory” Ph.D. thesis, Ghent University
time the double slit. There is one detector in each semi- (2004)
plan behind the slit. DBB predicts that in this case the
trajectories of each photon stay in the respective semi-
plane, whereas SQM allows the photons to be in the
whole plane. (superposition of wave functions). In SQM,
it is clearly possible that each of the two photons is allo-
wed to penetrate the other’s semi-plane. In contrast, the
additional assumption of the hidden variable Q made by
DBB Theory leads to a different result. Since in DBB it
is not possible that the trajectories cross [1] each other
( because the two photons are identical), they are not
allowed to be found in the other semi-plane, as shown by
Ghose [3]. This means, that placing a detector of photon
couples in one semi-plane would with probability give a
zero result. The experiment has been performed by Brida
et al [2], confirming SQM. Still, this does not mean that
Bohmian mechanics is less appropriate to describe na-
ture, since a further investigation of the topic has shown
that [4] the assumptions made in order to derive this
theoretical prediction were partially false. Basically, the
quantum equilibrium hypothesis had not been respected
and thus led to two different predicitions for the two theo-
ries. Applying the quantum equilibrium hypothesis, the
predictions become the same [4] and so there is no expe-
rimental distinction of the two theories possible. This is
true in the general case. SQM and basic DBB do always
have the same experimental results because of the above
mentioned quantum equilibrium hypothesis.
There may be little interest in revealing wether SQM or
DBB Theory describes nature more adequate, since they
predict both the same behaviour. With the knowledge of