Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Information

Many recent results suggest that quantum theory is about information, and that quantum theory is best understood as arising from principles concerning information and information processing. At the same time, by far the simplest version of quantum mechanics, Bohmian mechanics, is concerned, not with information but with the behavior of an objective microscopic reality given by particles and their positions. What I would like to do here is to examine whether, and to what extent, the importance of information, observation, and the like in quantum theory can be understood from a Bohmian perspective. I would like to explore the hypothesis that the idea that information plays a special role in physics naturally emerges in a Bohmian universe.Comment: 25 pages, 2 figure

Can Everett be Interpreted Without Extravaganza?

Everett's relative states interpretation of quantum mechanics has met with problems related to probability, the preferred basis, and multiplicity. The third theme, I argue, is the most important one. It has led to developments of the original approach into many-worlds, many-minds, and decoherence-based approaches. The latter especially have been advocated in recent years, in an effort to understand multiplicity without resorting to what is often perceived as extravagant constructions. Drawing from and adding to arguments of others, I show that proponents of decoherence-based approaches have not yet succeeded in making their ontology clear.Comment: Succinct analysis forthcoming in Found. Phy

Typicality vs. probability in trajectory-based formulations of quantum mechanics

Bohmian mechanics represents the universe as a set of paths with a probability measure defined on it. The way in which a mathematical model of this kind can explain the observed phenomena of the universe is examined in general. It is shown that the explanation does not make use of the full probability measure, but rather of a suitable set function deriving from it, which defines relative typicality between single-time cylinder sets. Such a set function can also be derived directly from the standard quantum formalism, without the need of an underlying probability measure. The key concept for this derivation is the {\it quantum typicality rule}, which can be considered as a generalization of the Born rule. The result is a new formulation of quantum mechanics, in which particles follow definite trajectories, but which is only based on the standard formalism of quantum mechanics.Comment: 24 pages, no figures. To appear in Foundation of Physic

Realism about the Wave Function

A century after the discovery of quantum mechanics, the meaning of quantum mechanics still remains elusive. This is largely due to the puzzling nature of the wave function, the central object in quantum mechanics. If we are realists about quantum mechanics, how should we understand the wave function? What does it represent? What is its physical meaning? Answering these questions would improve our understanding of what it means to be a realist about quantum mechanics. In this survey article, I review and compare several realist interpretations of the wave function. They fall into three categories: ontological interpretations, nomological interpretations, and the \emph{sui generis} interpretation. For simplicity, I will focus on non-relativistic quantum mechanics.Comment: Penultimate version for Philosophy Compas

Seven Steps Towards the Classical World

Classical physics is about real objects, like apples falling from trees, whose motion is governed by Newtonian laws. In standard Quantum Mechanics only the wave function or the results of measurements exist, and to answer the question of how the classical world can be part of the quantum world is a rather formidable task. However, this is not the case for Bohmian mechanics, which, like classical mechanics, is a theory about real objects. In Bohmian terms, the problem of the classical limit becomes very simple: when do the Bohmian trajectories look Newtonian?Comment: 16 pages, LaTeX, uses latexsy

Classical and Non-Relativistic Limits of a Lorentz-Invariant Bohmian Model for a System of Spinless Particles

A completely Lorentz-invariant Bohmian model has been proposed recently for the case of a system of non-interacting spinless particles, obeying Klein-Gordon equations. It is based on a multi-temporal formalism and on the idea of treating the squared norm of the wave function as a space-time probability density. The particle's configurations evolve in space-time in terms of a parameter {\sigma}, with dimensions of time. In this work this model is further analyzed and extended to the case of an interaction with an external electromagnetic field. The physical meaning of {\sigma} is explored. Two special situations are studied in depth: (1) the classical limit, where the Einsteinian Mechanics of Special Relativity is recovered and the parameter {\sigma} is shown to tend to the particle's proper time; and (2) the non-relativistic limit, where it is obtained a model very similar to the usual non-relativistic Bohmian Mechanics but with the time of the frame of reference replaced by {\sigma} as the dynamical temporal parameter

On Epstein's trajectory model of non-relativistic quantum mechanics

In 1952 Bohm presented a theory about non-relativistic point-particles moving along deterministic trajectories and showed how it reproduces the predictions of standard quantum theory. This theory was actually presented before by de Broglie in 1926, but Bohm's particular formulation of the theory inspired Epstein to come up with a different trajectory model. The aim of this paper is to examine the empirical predictions of this model. It is found that the trajectories in this model are in general very different from those in the de Broglie-Bohm theory. In certain cases they even seem bizarre and rather unphysical. Nevertheless, it is argued that the model seems to reproduce the predictions of standard quantum theory (just as the de Broglie-Bohm theory).Comment: 12 pages, no figures, LaTex; v2 minor improvement

Does quantum nonlocality irremediably conflict with Special Relativity?

We reconsider the problem of the compatibility of quantum nonlocality and the requests for a relativistically invariant theoretical scheme. We begin by discussing a recent important paper by T. Norsen [arXiv:0808.2178] on this problem and we enlarge our considerations to give a general picture of the conceptually relevant issue to which this paper is devoted.Comment: 18 pages, 1 figur