1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: % 1 juli, 2004

3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4: %\documentstyle[11pt,epsfig,epsf,rotating]{article}

5: \documentstyle[amsmath,twoside,fleqn,mont,epsfig,epsf]{article}

6: % beachte: bei mont.sty steht maketitle *nach* abstract !!!

7: 

8: \topmargin=-1cm

9: \oddsidemargin=0cm

10: \textwidth=16cm

11: \textheight=24cm

12: \textfloatsep=2.2ex

13: 

14: %

15: %   to do

16: %  

17: %  ESSW argument

18: %  

19: %

20: %

21: %

22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

23: \newcommand{\db}{de$\,$Broglie}

24: \newcommand{\dbb}{de$\,$Broglie-Bohm theory}

25: \newcommand{\qeh}{quantum equilibrium hypothesis}

26: \newcommand{\qm}{quantum mechanics}

27: 

28: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

29: \begin{document}

30: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

31: \title{Why isn't every physicist a Bohmian?}

32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

33: \author{Oliver Passon\\

34: Zentralinstitut f\"ur angewandte Mathematik\\

35: Forschungszentrum J\"ulich\\

36: 52425 J\"ulich, Germany\\

37: email: O.Passon@fz-juelich.de }

38: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

39: %\maketitle

40: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

41: \begin{abstract}

42: This note collects, classifies and evaluates common criticism against the \dbb, including Ockham's razor, asymmetry in the \dbb, 

43: the ``surreal trajectory'' problem, the underdetermination of the \dbb\ and the question of relativistic and quantum field theoretical

44: generalizations of the \dbb. We argue that none of these objections provide a rigorous disproof, they rather highlight

45: that even in science theories can not solely be evaluated based on their empirical confirmation. 

46: \end{abstract}

47: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

48: \maketitle

49: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

50: 

51: %\tableofcontents 

52: %\pagebreak

53: %\parindent0em \parskip1.5ex plus0.5ex minus0.5ex

54: 

55: \section{Introduction}

56: In a previous article \cite{how_to} we have argued that the \dbb\ can play an important role in teaching 

57: quantum mechanics since it provides an alternative view-point and illustrates the peculiar features of quantum phenomena.

58: Of course most adherents of the \dbb\ would assign a more ambitious meaning to the theory  and do rather claim its 

59: superiority to the ordinary formulation (or interpretation) of quantum mechanics.

60: In this note we will examine some common objections raised against the \dbb.

61: 

62: In answering the question posed in the title one should first remark that the ongoing debate on the foundations of 

63: quantum mechanics has produced a vast number of different schools and interpretations. 

64: Presumably, the majority of physicists has lost track of this complex debate 

65: about the measurement problem, hidden variables, EPR, Bell etc. In a similar context this was strikingly 

66: expressed by David Mermin:

67: \begin{quote}

68: Contemporary physicists come in two varieties. Type 1 physicists are bothered

69: by EPR and Bell's Theorem. Type 2 (the majority) are not, but one has to

70: distinguish two subvarieties. Type 2a physicists explain why they are not

71: bothered. Their explanations tend either to miss the point entirely

72: (like Born's to Einstein) or to contain physical assertions that can be shown

73: to be false.  Type 2b are not bothered and refuse to explain why.

74: (quoted from \cite{straumann})

75: \end{quote}

76: Even if one takes this remark with a pinch of salt, Mermin's observation that many physicists do not have a well founded 

77: standpoint in  this affair seems to be correct.

78: 

79: Another reason for being rather indifferent to the \dbb\ is evidently the following. This theory can be viewed as 

80: a way to solve the conceptual problems of quantum mechanics. Those who are satisfied with the answers given by the standard 

81: interpretation (e.g. David Mermin \cite{love}) or who favor other non-standard interpretations (like many-worlds, 

82: consistent histories, Floyd's trajectory interpretation or the like) are consequently not attracted by the \dbb.

83: 

84: However, our concern is with criticism and objections which are explicitly directed against the \dbb.

85: It is rather popular among adherents of the \dbb\ to blame mainly historical and sociological reasons for the contempt 

86: of their theory \cite{marabeller,cushing_qm,holland}. We do not negate that these reasons may have played some role, 

87: although such a claim is hard to verify explicitly. In any case such a position renders the criticism as completely 

88: irrational and makes a sober discussion difficult.

89: In fact there has been response to e.g. Bohm's paper from 1952. 

90: Wayne Myrvold, who has analyzed early objections against the \dbb, writes \cite{early} :

91: \begin{quote} 

92: Bohm's theory did not meet with the acceptance in the physics community that Bohm had hoped for. It was not, however, 

93: ignored; several prominent physicists, among which were Einstein, Pauli, and Heisenberg, wrote articles expressing their 

94: reasons for not accepting Bohm's theory.  

95: \end{quote}

96: In what follows we will also explore these early objections\footnote{In fact, not all of the early reactions were hostile.

97: For example in 1953 Joseph Keller from the 

98: New York University published a Physics Review paper in which he analyzed the role of probability in Bohm's 

99: interpretation \cite{keller}. He qualified Bohm's work as an ``interesting interpretation'' of quantum mechanics.}. 

100: 

101: The objections against the \dbb\ can roughly be divided into two classes\footnote{These classes are not completely disjoint and 

102: serve also the purpose to structure the presentation.}. 

103: The first applies  meta-theoretical considerations i.e. invokes criteria 

104: like symmetry or simplicity to discard the \dbb. Section~\ref{meta} is devoted to these arguments.

105: The other class of criticism seeks for a more textual or theory-immanent debate, like challenging the

106: consistency or the ability of the \dbb\ to be generalized. This debate will be reviewed in Section~\ref{textual}.

107: %However, our paper is intended to give an overview about this sophisticated discussion and many important aspects will be only briefly 

108: %touched on. 

109: 

110: For completeness we will give a brief summary of the \dbb\ in Sec.~\ref{nut}. A thorough discussion of the \dbb\ can be 

111: found e.g. in \cite{duerr,undivided,cushing_qm,holland,passon}.

112: 

113: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

114: \section{The \dbb\label{nut}}

115: 

116: The \dbb\ describes a non-relativistic $N$-particle system by its wavefunction, $\psi$, and the position, $Q_i$, of the  corresponding

117: quantum objects (e.g. electrons, atoms or the like).

118: The wavefunction, which is derived from the ordinary Schr\"odinger equation, guides the particle motion 

119: via the so-called guidance equation:

120: \begin{eqnarray}  

121: \label{ge}

122: \frac{dQ_i}{dt}=\frac{1}{m_i}\nabla_i S(Q_1,\cdots,Q_N)

123: \end{eqnarray}

124: Here $m_i$ denotes the mass of particle $i$, $\nabla_i$ is the nabla operator applied to its 

125: coordinates and $S$ the phase of the wavefunction in the polar representation $\psi=Re^{\frac{i}{\hbar}S}$. 

126: 

127: Since the guidance condition~\ref{ge} is a first-order equation, one initial condition fixes the motion uniquely.

128: Given a $\rho=|\psi|^2$ distribution as initial positions Equ.~\ref{ge} will reproduce all

129: predictions of ordinary quantum mechanics in terms of position distributions. Since all measurements can be 

130: expressed in terms of position (e.g. pointer positions) this amounts to full accordance with all predictions of

131: ordinary quantum mechanics.  Thereby the \dbb\ assigns a distinguished role to position and does not independently 

132: assign possessed-values to other observables. This ensures that the Kochen-Specker ``no-go'' theorem does not apply to the \dbb. 

133: What might be regarded as the values of quantum observables like spin, momentum or the like get established only in the context of 

134: a corresponding measurement-like experiment. From the viewpoint of the \dbb\ this ``contextuality'' amounts essentially to the 

135: observation, that the outcome of an experiment depends on the way it is performed. 

136: 

137: 

138: As mentioned above the \dbb\ reproduces all predictions of ordinary quantum theory 

139: provided that the initial positions of particles described by the wavefunction $\psi$ are 

140: $|\psi|^2$ distributed. The motivation of this so-called \qeh\ has been explored for example in \cite{dgz,valentini}. 

141: Most important, the quantum mechanical continuity equation (Equ.~\ref{ce}) ensures that this condition is 

142: consistent i.e. any system will stay $|\psi|^2$ distributed if the \qeh\ holds initially. 

143: \begin{eqnarray}

144: \label{ce}

145: \frac{\partial |\psi|^2 }{\partial t}+\nabla  \left ( |\psi|^2 \cdot \frac{\nabla S}{m} \right ) = 0.

146: \end{eqnarray}

147: It follows that in a universe being in quantum equilibrium it is not possible to control the initial positions beyond the  

148: $|\psi|^2$ distribution. Hence the \dbb\  does not allow for an experimental

149: violation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle \cite{valentini}.

150: While ordinary quantum mechanics assumes that probability enters on a fundamental level, the

151: \dbb\ is deterministic and probability enters only as an expression of ignorance. However, given the \qeh\ this ignorance

152: holds in principle. Thus the fundamental determinism is turned into predictive indeterminism.

153: 

154: The important feature of Equ.\ref{ge} is its non-locality. The guidance equation links the motion of every particle to the 

155: configuration of the whole system, no matter how distant its different parts are. Technically expressed this follows from 

156: the fact, 

157: that the wavefunction $\psi$ (hence its phase $S$) at a given time is a function on the configuration space ${\rm I\!R}^{3N}$.

158: It is exactly this non-locality which allows the \dbb\ to violate the Bell inequalities \cite{bell_ungl} 

159: as demanded by experiment\footnote{Note, that the two ``no-go'' theorems of Bell and Kochen-Specker actually strengthen the 

160: position of the \dbb. The first shows that ``hidden variable'' theories have to be non-local in order to agree with the 

161: predictions of \qm. The second rules out that a mapping of all observables to possessed values can be achieved. 

162: Hence, the corresponding properties of the \dbb\ (namely the non-locality and contextuality) are no shortcomings but 

163: necessities.}. However, this non-locality vanishes if the wavefunction factorizes in the contributions of the 

164: different particles. 

165: 

166: The guidance condition~\ref{ge} can be motivated in different ways and its precise status gives rise to different 

167: interpretations of the \dbb. 

168: The starting point of Bohm's original presentation of the theory\footnote{We refer to this theory as \dbb\ since 

169: Louis de$\,$Broglie presented similar ideas already in 1927 \cite{debroglie}. David Bohm's work in 1952 was done independently.} in 

170: 1952 \cite{bohm1} was the 

171: decomposition of the Schr\"odinger equation for the wavefunction $\psi=Re^{\frac{i}{\hbar}S}$ into a set of two equations 

172: for the real functions $R$ and $S$. The resulting equation for $S$ has a structure similar to the classical Hamilton-Jacobi 

173: equation for the action $S$, which implies $p=\nabla S$. The only difference is the appearance of an extra term which Bohm 

174: named ``quantum potential'':

175: \begin{eqnarray}  

176: \label{qp}

177: U_{\mathrm{quant}}= - \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\nabla^2 R}{R}

178: \end{eqnarray}

179: Bohm (and later also e.g. Hiley \cite{bh} and Holland \cite{holland}) regard the quantum potential as the key ingredient 

180: of the \dbb\ and  derive all its novelty from it. The guidance equation~\ref{ge} is only viewed as a  ``special assumption'' 

181: \cite{bohm2} or a ``consistent subsidiary condition'' \cite{bohm3}.

182: 

183: In contrast to this position another school of the \dbb\ regards the guidance condition as the fundamental equation and avoids

184: emphasizing the quantum potential. The main proponents of this school are  D\"urr et al. \cite{duerr,nor,dgz,duerr97} 

185: who have named their version of the \dbb\ ``Bohmian mechanics''. This view was anticipated by John Bell in his work on the \dbb\

186: \cite{speakable}. 

187: %\footnote{D\"urr at al. follow are strongly influenced by Bell's presentation 

188: %of the \dbb\ \cite{speakable}. Hiley \cite{hiley} has even suggested that the name ``Bell mechanics''  would have reflected the 

189: %actual situation more accurately.}. 

190: In fact the guidance equation can 

191: be motivated without appeal to the Hamilton-Jacobi equation from symmetry arguments alone \cite{dgz}. According to this 

192: position the quantum potential deserves no special attention and is rather viewed as an artefact which enters the discussion 

193: when the classical limit of the theory is treated. 

194: 

195: One should not mistake this discussion as only quibbling over a mathematical ambiguity in the formulation of the theory. 

196: In fact these different interpretations of Equ.\ref{ge} are related to a substantial difference of view on e.g. the role of 

197: ``observables'' 

198: other than position or the meaning of the wavefunction. Our discussion of objections against the \dbb\ is in part complicated  

199: by this debate 

200: on the interpretation. If some criticism applies more strongly or solely to one specific interpretation of the \dbb, it does not 

201: undermine the concept as a whole. Likewise the different interpretations provide different replies to the objections.

202: The different interpretation of the \dbb\ will be disentangled elsewhere \cite{int_of_bm}.

203: 

204: Since the rest of our note will be concerned with the objections against the \dbb\ we should balance the discussion

205: by some brief remarks on its merits.  The supporters of the \dbb\  emphasize its ``clear ontology'' i.e. that the   

206: vague notion of ``complementarity'' and wave-particle duality becomes dispensable. Within the \dbb\ one can consistently entertain 

207: the notion of particle trajectories. However, this should not be misunderstood as adherence to classical prejudices but

208: provides an elegant solution of the measurement problem. The superposition of the wavefunction at the end of a measurement 

209: causes no difficulty since the actual position of the system corresponds to the actual outcome.

210: In addition the \dbb\ provides means to deal non-ambiguously  with the question of tunneling time or time-of-arrival 

211: \cite{gruebl,leavens,leavens2}. Some authors also suggest that the \dbb\ has conceptual advantages over quantum mechanics in connecting 

212: quantum mechanics to other theories such as chaos theory and classical mechanics \cite{cushing_bowman} or when dealing with CP 

213: violation \cite{home}.

214: 

215: %A rare expression in favor of the \dbb\ can be found in the writing of Bell \cite{schwinger}:

216: %\begin{quote}

217: %Bohmian Mechanics is  equivalent experimentally to ordinary non-relativistic quantum

218: %mechanics -- and it is rational, it is clear, and it is exact, and it agrees

219: %with experiment, and I think it is a scandal that students are not told about

220: %it. 

221: %Why are they not told about it? I have to guess here there are mainly

222: %historical reasons, but one of the reasons is surely that this theory takes

223: %almost all the {\em romance} out of quantum mechanics. This scheme is a living

224: %counterexample to most of the things that we tell the public on the great

225: %lessons of twentieth century science.

226: %\end{quote}

227: 

228: 

229: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

230: \section{The meta-theoretical debate \label{meta}}

231: 

232: Most authors accept that the \dbb\ and ordinary non-relativistic quantum mechanics make 

233: identical predictions i.e. that no experiment can decide which one to prefer\footnote{In fact every now and then such an 

234: experiment is proposed nevertheless. The attempts to construct circumstances in which the predictions of the \dbb\ and 

235: quantum mechanics disagree are actually pointless since the \dbb\ reproduces all predictions of ordinary quantum mechanics by definition.

236: Above all, the Schr\"odinger-equation is part of the \dbb\ and the individual trajectories can not be controlled 

237: beyond the quantum equilibrium.} . 

238: Even Wolfgang Pauli admitted in a letter to Bohm from December 1951:

239: \begin{quote}

240: I do not see any longer the possibility of any logical contradiction as long

241: as your results agree completely with those of the usual wave mechanics and as

242: long as no means is given to measure the values of your hidden parameters

243: (...). \cite[letter 1313]{briefwechsel})

244: \end{quote}

245: But this was only a minimal concession to Bohm. In the absence of any new prediction 

246: the \dbb\ was accused of being not physics but ``metaphysics'' \cite{pauli52}. Heisenberg 

247: questioned whether the \dbb\ should be regarded as a new theory at all:

248: \begin{quote}

249: From the fundamentally {\em positivistic} (it would perhaps be better to say 

250: {\em purely physical}) standpoint, we are thus concerned not with

251: counter-proposals to the Copenhagen interpretation, but with its exact

252: repetition in a different language.  

253: (quoted after \cite{early})  

254: \end{quote} 

255: The Heisenberg pupil von Weizs\"acker reports on a 

256: course in the winter term 1953/54 in which they discussed also Bohm's work 

257: \cite{aufbau}: 

258: \begin{quote}

259: Unsere \"Uberzeugung, da\ss\  alle diese Versuche falsch seien, wurde durch das

260: Seminar best\"arkt. Aber wir konnten uns nicht verhehlen, dass der tiefste Grund

261: unserer \"Uberzeugung ein quasi \"asthetischer war. Die Quantentheorie

262: \"ubertraf alle Konkurrenten in der f\"ur eine ``abgeschlossene Theorie''

263: kennzeichnenden einfachen Sch\"onheit.\footnote{This course strengthened our conviction 

264: that all this trials were false. But we could not conceal to ourselves that the deeper 

265: cause for this belief was quasi ``aesthetical''. Quantum mechanics surpassed

266: all competitors by its simple beauty which characterizes a ``complete theory''.

267: (translation by the author)}

268: \end{quote}

269: 

270: However, the above quoted passages alone do not constitute any reason to reject the

271: \dbb. In the absence of any 

272: ``logical contradiction'' (Pauli) and while objecting to the mere ``repetition in a 

273: different language''  (Heisenberg) one needs to specify why the ordinary quantum theory 

274: actually ``surpasses all competitors'' (v. Weizs\"acker). Or to put it differently: 

275: additional criteria need to be formulated which help to distinguish these theories.

276: 

277: In what follows we collect and evaluate a number of these additional criteria which 

278: have been suggested by the above mentioned authors and others to underpin their rejection. 

279: %``metaphysics-objection''.

280: We classify them as ``meta-theoretical'' since they are largely based on requirements which are supposed

281: to apply to physics theories in general.

282: 

283: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

284: \subsection{Ockham's razor}

285: The obvious objection against the \dbb\ is that it does not make any new predictions while 

286: postulating the particle-position as a new entity.

287: %\footnote{As mentioned before, the \dbb\ allows to deal non-ambiguously  with 

288: %the question of tunneling time or time-of-arrival \cite{gruebl,leavens,leavens2}. In this respect one may argue that the 

289: %\dbb\ does enrich the explanatory power. However, it is rather doubtful if this predictions...}

290: If two theories are equivalent the one should be 

291: preferred which needs fewer premises. Likewise additional premises which do not 

292: enrich the explanatory power should be removed by invoking ``Ockham's razor''. 

293: Given this widely accepted principle, it appears natural by some to discard the \dbb\ since the 

294: particle trajectories seem to be exactly such an extra premise. However, this conclusion can be 

295: challenged by the following consideration: 

296: the \dbb\ supplements ordinary quantum mechanics by an equation-of-motion for the 

297: quantum-particles, but eliminates the postulates 

298: which are related to the measurement process (not to mention 

299: how (un-)compelling these postulates are). 

300: Furthermore the \dbb\ provides a completely new interpretation of quantum phenomena in 

301: which e.g. probability plays no fundamental role. In other words: the descriptive content

302: is identical but one can question whether these theories are equivalent at all.

303: Hence, it is questionable whether the precondition for applying Ockham's razor is met.

304: 

305: 

306: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

307: \subsection{Asymmetry in the \dbb\label{as}}

308: Pauli and Heisenberg based their rejection of the \dbb\ mainly on its asymmetry with 

309: respect to position and momentum \cite{early}. In the absence of any new prediction they 

310: did not accept this sacrifice. 

311: %Since symmetry arguments are 

312: %at the heart of modern physics they should not be disregarded as merely aesthetical.

313: %But likewise symmetry is no end in itself. 

314: 

315: The reply to this objection is twofold: (i) The \dbb\ gives position a different ontological status than all other ``observables'' 

316: \cite{nor} in order to achieve a clear ontology and to solve conceptual problems of the ordinary formulation of \qm. 

317: After all symmetry is no end in itself. (ii) Moreover, the Hamiltonian in orthodox quantum theory is not invariant under general  

318: unitary transformations, though it is under the usual space time symmetries. Thus even there it is not 

319: the case that all observables are on the same footing.

320: 

321: %Furthermore it may be questioned

322: %whether the ordinary relation between position and momentum reflects 

323: %a symmetry of the physical system or merely a symmetry of the phase space. In any event 

324: %this symmetry is less relevant than e.g. Lorentz invariance which relates objects which 

325: %are experimentally indistinguishable. 

326: 

327: %One may compare the situation with the violation of 

328: %parity within the weak interaction. Agreed, in view of the experimental confirmation of 

329: %parity-violation this comparison seems to be misleading. But it illustrates that a symmetry which is regarded as self-evident 

330: %in classical physics can be violated on the quantum level.

331: 

332: However, in reply to this criticism Hiley and Brown \cite{hiley00,hiley_neu} explore the possibility 

333: to formulate a Bohm-like theory in other than the position representation. 

334: Bohm himself took this objection very seriously and was lead to the following modest claim:  

335: \begin{quote} 

336: Heisenberg shows that he perhaps did not appreciate that the only purpose 

337: of this phase of the work was to show that an alternative to the Copenhagen 

338: interpretation is at least logically possible. 

339: (D. Bohm, quoted from \cite{early}) 

340: \end{quote} 

341: 

342: In fact the \dbb\ shows another asymmetry, namely with respect to the wavefunction. 

343: While the wavefunction acts on the particle position, the particles do not react on 

344: the $\psi$-field. It is determined independently by the Schr\"odinger equation.

345: It is true that this constitutes a peculiar feature of the \dbb. 

346: In reply to this objection D\"urr et al. \cite{duerr97} have suggested that the role of the wavefunction within the \dbb\ 

347: should be regarded  as analogous to the role of the Hamiltonian in classical mechanics. They state \cite{duerr97}:

348: \begin{quote}

349: We propose that the reason, on the universal level, that there is no action

350: of configurations upon wavefunctions, as there seems to be between all

351: other elements of physical reality, is that the wavefunction of the

352: universe is not an element of physical reality. We propose that the wave

353: function belongs to an altogether different category of existence than that

354: of substantive physical entities, and that its existence is nomological rather

355: than material. We propose, in other words, that the wavefunction is a

356: component of physical law rather than of the reality described by the law.

357: \end{quote}

358: In \cite{gold2002} this idea is applied in the context of quantum gravity. 

359: %However, prior to a final assessment, this speculation needs some further elaboration. 

360: 

361: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

362: \subsection{Return to classical physics? \label{return}}

363: A rather unspecific but never the less common objection against the \dbb\ is its supposed return to classical notions. For example 

364: Englert states in \cite{rezension} about the purpose of the \dbb\ and its trajectories: 

365: \begin{quote}

366: Mit Berufung auf diese Bahnen sind atomare Vorg\"ange dann deterministisch, und das erspart uns die Trauerarbeit, die uns der 

367: Verlust des deterministischen Newton-Maxwellschen Weltbildes abverlangt.\footnote{With appeal to these trajectories the atomic 

368: sequence of events gets deterministic and the  mourning-labor about the loss of the Newton-Maxwell world view gets dispensable. 

369: (translation by 

370: the author)}

371: \end{quote}

372: This claim of  ``backwardness'' is in itself no strong argument against the \dbb. One needs to add (and explain) at least why this 

373: ``return'' is supposed to be  artificial or needless. However, this argument remains weak, since the \dbb\ possesses so many traits 

374: which are common to quantum mechanics and completely unclassical (e.g. wavefunction on the configuration space, nonlocality etc.pp.) 

375: that it does a 

376: disservice to anyone seeking for a ``return to a Newton-Maxwell 

377: world view''. Agreed, the features of determinism and `objectivity'\footnote{In the sense of `observer independence'} are `classical', 

378: but in this respect the \dbb\ is as classical as the theory of relativity. 

379: 

380: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

381: \subsection{Departure from established principles}

382: While Section~\ref{return} mentioned the objection of ``backwardness'' the \dbb\ 

383: meets also with the contrary criticism. Here the bizarre features of the \dbb\ are the subject of 

384: discomfort\footnote{Some of the objections which have been mentioned in Sec.~\ref{as} do fit into this category as well.}.

385: 

386: According to the \dbb\ the wavefunction produces an actual physical effect on the particle motion. 

387: In this respect it may be compared to other physical fields like 

388: electro-magnetic or gravitational fields. This view was for example held by Bell \cite{speakable}[p.128]. 

389: %\begin{quote}

390: %No one can understand this theory ({\em i.e. the \dbb}) until he is willing to think of $\psi$ as a real 

391: %objective field rather than just a `probability amplitude'. Even though it propagates not in 3-space but in 3N-space.

392: %\cite{speakable}[p.128]. 

393: %\end{quote}

394: This introduces peculiar notions into physics indeed. 

395: First of all the quantum mechanical wavefunction is defined on the configuration space of the system. 

396: This is in sharp contrast to any other physical field. The non-locality is closely related 

397: to this feature and will be the subject of Sec.~\ref{n-l}.

398: As mentioned above (see Sec.~\ref{as}) D\"urr et al. \cite{duerr97} have proposed that the role of the wavefunction 

399: within the \dbb\ should be rather compared to the role of the Hamiltonian in classical mechanics. 

400: The Hamiltonian is a function on the phase space, that is of greater dimension and even more abstract than 

401: configuration space. Following this suggestion certainly weakens this allegation. Interestingly, in this reading of the \dbb\

402: the role of $\psi$ is similar to the widespread (``orthodox'') view of the wavefunction as a computational tool. 

403: 

404: Viewing the wavefunction as ``nomological'' rather than ``physical real'' helps also to reply to the objection

405: that the \dbb\ introduces myriads of ``empty waves'' into the picture of physical reality. These are the branches of the wavefunction 

406: which do not contain the particle on its trajectory hence do not correspond to the actual state of the system.

407: Although one can argue that due to decoherence effects these empty branches  

408: do typically not affect the actual system any more\footnote{It seems to be possible to construct circumstances in which empty 

409: waves do have subtle effects \cite{hardy,vaidman}. This discussion is closely related to the ``surreal trajectory'' debate and will 

410: be reviewed in Sec.~\ref{essw-d}.}, this feature remains unaesthetic. However, as mentioned above, viewing the wavefunction as 

411: analog to the Hamiltonian invalidates this allegation.

412: 

413: Finally, no matter whether based on a physical real or nomological wavefunction, does the dynamics of the \dbb\

414: posses a very unclassical trait. The effect on the particle motion via the wavefunction is independent of its amplitude. This 

415: can be seen for example when the quantum-potential formulation is 

416: used. Since $\psi$ appears in the numerator and the denominator of expression \ref{qp}, $\psi$ and $c \cdot \psi$ lead to the 

417: same effect. Bohm and Hiley have therefore compared the $\psi$-field to radio waves which 

418: guide an object like a ship on automatic pilot. Here too, the effect of the 

419: radio waves is independent of their intensity and depends on their form \cite{bh} only. 

420: Bohm and Hiley have coined the expression ``active information'' for this sort of 

421: influence and suggest that the quantum potential is a source of this kind of information.

422: Whether this radio-wave analogy is just a metaphor or leads to any deeper insight  remains to be seen. 

423: A critical assessment of especially Bohm's metaphors can be found in \cite{guarini}.

424: 

425: Another intriguing property of Bohmian-trajectories gave rise to a specific

426: objection from Einstein. Since he was one of the famous antagonists of the Copenhagen 

427: interpretation it is interesting to note that he did not endorse the \dbb\ likewise. 

428: In a {\em Festschrift} in honor of Max Born in the year 1953, Einstein discussed a system for which 

429: the \dbb\ predicts a vanishing velocity. Einstein discussed a particle in a 

430: box as a specific example but the same behavior appears in any system which is described by 

431: a real wavefunction like e.g. the energy eigenstates of the 

432: harmonic oscillator. According to Einstein this vanishing velocity  ``contradicts the well-founded 

433: requirement, that in case of a macrosystem (i.e. for highly excited states) the motion should agree approximately with 

434: the motion following from classical mechanics'' \cite{early}. 

435: 

436: However, any measurement on the particle  would need a change in the arrangement (e.g. one side of the box would have to be removed). 

437: The predicted outcome of any such {\em measurement} of e.g. the particle-momentum would be the same as in ordinary quantum mechanics. 

438: More generally, the Einstein-objection illustrates, that within the \dbb\ the representation of any system is provided by the 

439: {\em pair} of wavefunction and position, $(\psi,Q_i)$. To focus on properties of one element only can be misleading\footnote{Einstein's

440: rejection of the \dbb\ is 

441: clearly not only related to the problem discussed above.  By now famous is his remark in a letter to Born in 1952 about 

442: the \dbb\ being ``too cheap'' \cite[letter from 12.5.1952]{bornbriefwechsel}. Squires writes in the same context, that 

443: Einstein ``was not interested in attempts to `cure' the theory; rather he wanted to look elsewhere, to start 

444: again'' \cite{squires2}. Squires makes an other insightful remark about the \dbb\ and Einstein's probable reason to reject 

445: it: ``And it is certainly true that we would not have discovered statistical mechanics by adding small corrections to 

446: thermodynamics, or by adding hidden variables that were in some way `guided' by the free energy, or some other thermodynamic 

447: quantity'' \cite{squires2}.}.   

448: 

449: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

450: \subsection{Underdetermination in the \dbb}

451: 

452: The \dbb\ reproduces the statistical predictions of ordinary quantum mechanics and underpins them with deterministic and continuous 

453: particle-trajectories. It is tempting to regard the Bohm-trajectories as the actual motion of the quantum-objects.

454: %They seem to provide a realistic description of the actual process. E.g. Taylor states \cite{taylor}[p.19]:

455: %\begin{quote}

456: %(...) standard quantum mechanics appears as pure magic while Bohmian mechanics is the mechanism behind the show.

457: %\end{quote}

458: 

459: However, Deotto and Ghirardi \cite{deotto} have shown, that the \dbb\ is underdetermined i.e. the quantum mechanical current can be 

460: ``gauged'' by a divergenceless vector field ${\bf j}^{\prime}={\bf j}+{\bf a}$ with $\nabla {\bf a}=0$. 

461: The corresponding  guidance condition ${\bf v^{\prime}}={\bf j}^{\prime}/|\psi|^2$  yields the same statistical predictions, while

462: the individual trajectories differ from the standard \dbb. Hence it is problematic to regard the Bohm-trajectories derived from 

463: Equ.~\ref{ge} as  representing the ``actual motion'' of the quantum particles.

464: 

465: In order to sustain the ``ontological status'' of the Bohm trajectories one has to formulate additional criteria which 

466: restrict the possible value of the vector field ${\bf a}$. E.g. D\"urr et al. \cite{dgz}  motivate the guidance equation \ref{ge} from 

467: symmetry and simplicity constraints. The argument in \cite{hollandundphi} is based on the assumption that the corresponding problem 

468: for relativistic 

469: spin $\frac{1}{2}$ particles has been solved uniquely \cite{holland99}. Holland and Philippidis then derive the guidance equation for 

470: the non-relativistic limit and result in a equation which contains an additional spin-dependent term. Hence, for spin 0 particles the 

471: original form is recovered. 

472: 

473: However, this ambiguity of the \dbb\ does not undermine its conceptual value. If the above motivations for the specific guidance 

474: condition ( Equ.~\ref{ge}) are felt unconvincing, the \dbb\ still provides a proof of principle that the deterministic interpretation 

475: of quantum mechanics is possible. Since the measurement of individual trajectories is beyond the principle reach of experiments 

476: one should not put too much emphasize on their particular form anyway. 

477: 

478: 

479: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

480: \subsection{The status of the \qeh}

481: %Interestingly the \dbb\ is a deterministic theory which has the same descriptive content as the probabilistic quantum theory. 

482: %The fundamental determinism is turned into predictive indeterminism  since the act of measurement disturbs the position in an 

483: %uncontrollable way. However, the predictions of quantum mechanics get only reproduced given that the initial positions of a system 

484: %which is described by the wavefunction $\psi$ are $|\psi|^2$ distributed. 

485: As mentioned in Sec.~\ref{nut}, the \dbb\ reproduces all predictions of ordinary quantum theory 

486: provided that the initial positions of particles described by the wavefunction $\psi$ are 

487: $|\psi|^2$ distributed. One may include this assumption in the very 

488: definition of the \dbb. Equation \ref{ce} ensures that this postulate is consistent 

489: i.e. any system will stay $|\psi|^2$ distributed when the \qeh\ holds initially. 

490: 

491: However, introducing the \qeh\ as a postulate provokes the objection that thereby the 

492: wavefunction gets two distinct and logically independent meanings: (i) as the guiding 

493: field and (ii) as a probability distribution for the particle position. This double role for the wavefunction looks suspicious and 

494: unaesthetic. Further more it would remain obscure how random behavior enters into the deterministic \dbb. Finally the 

495: very meaning of such a postulate would be not clear at all. 

496: 

497: It was therefore among the early efforts of Bohm 

498: to clarify the status of the \qeh\ and to possibly derive rather than postulate it. 

499: The paper \cite{bohm2} from 1953 was devoted to this question but could derive the \qeh\ 

500: only for a limited class of systems \cite{cushing_qm,val-sim}. This problem gave rise to 

501: the development of a modified version of the theory in 1954 including the effect of 

502: a stochastic disturbance \cite{bv}. A dynamical explanation of the \qeh\ within the original version of the \dbb\ was also

503: attempted by Valentini  \cite{valentini}.  

504: 

505: A different approach was developed by D\"urr et al. \cite{dgz}. Their analysis is an elaboration of work of John Bell

506: and is ultimately rooted in the approach of Ludwig Boltzmann to statistical mechanics.

507: The starting point is that regarding the \dbb\ as a fundamental theory implies that the behavior of subsystems is determined by the 

508: ``wavefunction of the universe'', $\Psi(q)$, and the corresponding 

509: configuration.

510: %\footnote{The term ``wavefunction of the universe'' should not be understood literally. $\Psi(q)$ denotes a hypothetical

511: %``Bohmian universe'' in order to deal with a closed system in which no property can be attributed to the influence of the 

512: %environment.}. 

513: One is therefore not free to simply postulate that subsystems have wavefunctions and are governed by the \dbb. 

514: However, applying the \qeh\  to $\Psi(q)$ seems to be physically meaningless since we do not have a sample of universes. 

515: Thus the following two questions need to be addressed: (i) how to assign a wavefunction to a subsystem and (ii) what is the meaning 

516: of the \qeh\ when applied to $\Psi(q)$. Finally one can ask how to relate these points i.e. how to

517: justify the \qeh\ for empirical distributions\footnote{By them we mean relative frequencies obtained from repeated experiments 

518: on subsystems.}.  

519: 

520: Question (i) leads D\"urr et al. to the introduction of the {\em effective} wavefunction.   

521: Let $q=(x,y)$ be a decomposition of the configuration of the universe into the variable $x$ of a subsystem and $y$ 

522: for the rest. D\"urr et al. define the {\em effective} wavefunction, $\psi$, of the subsystem as part of the following decomposition:

523: \begin{eqnarray}

524: \Psi(x,y)=\psi(x)\Phi(y)+\Psi^{\perp}(x,y)

525: \end{eqnarray}

526: The wavefunction $\psi(x)$ represents the subsystem provided that

527: the $y$-support of $\Phi(y)$ and $\Psi^{\perp}(x,y)$ is macroscopically distinct and that the actual value of $y$ lies in the 

528: support of $\Phi(y)$. A typical situation of this kind occurs during a measurement on the system described by $x$ with a 

529: measuring device that has, at the end of the measurement, a definite value in the support of $\Phi(y)$.

530: 

531: Regarding (ii)  D\"urr et al. argue, that the meaning of the quantum equilibrium distribution $|\Psi(q)|^2$ on the universal level 

532: is {\em not} probabilistic since we do not have a sample of universes. Instead, it provides a so-called  measure of 

533: {\em typicality}. The notion of  {\em typicality} (though not the word) was introduced by Boltzmann in justifying the 

534: second law of thermodynamics. This statement holds because an ``overwhelming majority'' of initial conditions leads to a behavior in 

535: accordance with the second law \cite{lebowitz}. However, the meaning of ``overwhelming majority'' i.e. a measure on the corresponding set, needs 

536: to be specified. One important requirement for this measure is that it should be ``equivariant'' i.e. the notion of typicality 

537: should be independent of time. And in fact, the continuity equation \ref{ce} ensures that the measure  $|\Psi(q)|^2$ is equivariant. 

538: %\begin{quote} 

539: %(...) statements valid for the overwhelming majority of configurations 

540: %in the sense provided by the quantum equilibrium measure are true for a 

541: %typical configuration. 

542: %\end{quote}

543: 

544: Finally, and that is the central result of \cite{dgz}, D\"urr et al. can prove that within a ``typical'' universe the \qeh\ holds 

545: for all subsystems. Hence the typical Bohmian universe -- although deterministic -- gives the {\em appearance} of randomness in 

546: agreement with \qm.

547: 

548: This justification of the \qeh\ has been questioned e.g. by Dickson \cite{dickson}. He notes that D\"urr at al. have not 

549: shown that  $|\Psi(q)|^2$ provides the {\em only} equivariant measure. Further more Dickson questions that 

550: equivariance is a preferred property of measures over the initial distributions at all.  He states \cite{dickson}[p. 123]:

551: \begin{quote}

552: Equivariance is a {\em dynamical} property of a measure, whereas the question `Which initial distribution is the correct one?' 

553: involves no dynamics, nor it is clear why dynamical properties of a measure are relevant. 

554: \end{quote}

555: This objection challenges the claim that the \qeh\ can be derived rather than postulated. However, it should be noted that for 

556: the justification of classical thermodynamic the question of how to derive apparent randomness from deterministic laws is

557: just as controversial.

558: 

559: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

560: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

561: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

562: \section{The theory immanent debate \label{textual}}

563: Until now we were mainly concerned with meta-theoretical objections which might be viewed as partially subjective. 

564: Consequently, some of the above mentioned feature of the \dbb\ have been either used to reject this theory or to praise 

565: its radical novelty.

566: 

567: An other strategy to disclaim the \dbb\ has been to seek for a more textual debate, e.g. 

568: challenging its consistency or its ability to be generalized. One might say that these arguments try to refute the \dbb\ 

569: from ``inside'', hence we have classified them as ``theory-immanent''. Most important is the question whether a 

570: trajectory-interpretation is sustainable in the relativistic domain. 

571: 

572: A clear-cut  disproof of the \dbb\ would be an experiment in which the 

573: predictions of the \dbb\ and ordinary quantum mechanics differ while the latter 

574: is confirmed. In fact every now and then such an experiment is proposed. 

575: The attempts to construct circumstances in which the predictions of the \dbb\ and 

576: quantum mechanics disagree are actually pointless since the \dbb\ reproduces  all predictions of ordinary quantum mechanics

577: by definition. Above all, the 

578: Schr\"odinger-equation is part of the \dbb\ and the individual trajectories can not be controlled 

579: beyond the quantum equilibrium. This attempts will not be 

580: considered further and the interested reader may consult 

581: \cite{pointless,pointless2,answer}. 

582: 

583: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

584: \subsection{The ``surreal trajectory'' objection \label{essw-d}}

585: In 1992 Englert, Scully, S\"ussmann and Walther (ESSW) challenged the \dbb. They claimed that  Bohm trajectories are not realistic, 

586: but ``surrealistic''.

587: 

588: The corresponding authors analyze the famous delayed-choice double-slit experiment

589: invented by Wheeler \cite{wheeler} and discussed in the context of the \dbb\ by Bell \cite{speakable}. 

590: Before we turn to the actual ESSW argument we will first discuss the original set-up.

591: 

592: The delayed-choice double-slit experiment (see Fig.~\ref{ds}) consists of a double slit arrangement in which 

593: one can freely choose to detect either interference patterns in the region I or particles in the detectors $C_1$ or 

594: $C_2$ \footnote{i.e. one can insert a screen in region I in order to detect the interference pattern. 

595: This  choice can be made after the ``particles'' have passed the slits already, hence the name {\em delayed-choice}.}.

596: The whole arrangement is set up in such a way that by symmetry arguments the trajectories of the \dbb\ are not allowed to cross 

597: the midplane behind the two-slit screen. They show the ``unclassical'' behavior, that the Bohm-trajectories of the particles hitting the 

598: upper part behind the screen have traversed the upper slit and vice versa. 

599: 

600: %The actual experiment has been performed \cite{hellmuth} and shows no difference 

601: %between normal and delayed-choice mode\footnote{Strictly speaking the experiments 

602: %have been performed with photons which are not subject of non-relativistic quantum 

603: %theory or the \dbb. We do not question whether the corresponding experiments would 

604: %yield the same result when carried out with e.g. electrons. But it should be noted, 

605: %that the \dbb\ does not assign trajectories to photons.}. This can be explained either 

606: %within standard quantum mechanics invoking the complementarity of wave- and 

607: %particle-picture or within the \dbb\ in which  deterministic particle trajectories 

608: %run from the source to the corresponding detection devices. 

609: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5

610: \begin{figure}[t]

611: \begin{center}

612: \centerline{\epsfxsize=2.5in\epsfbox{delayed.eps}}

613: \vspace{-1.cm}

614: \caption[*]{\label{ds} {\em Delayed-choice double slit experiment. One may either detect particles in the detectors $C_i$

615: or observe interference in region I  by insertion of a screen.}}

616: \end{center}

617: \vspace{-0.8cm}

618: \end{figure}

619: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

620: One may modify the arrangement by supplying it

621: with additional detectors directly behind the two-slit screen in order to investigate 

622: which slit has been traversed. In such a modified version the interference pattern 

623: would not occur. Additionally the \db-Bohm trajectories would be allowed to cross the midplane

624: since, given the degrees of freedom related to the detector, it is no symmetry plane anymore

625: (see \cite{speakable}[p.111] for the details of this argument.).

626: 

627: The above mentioned extra-detectors directly behind the screen were

628: assumed to be ``ordinary detectors'', i.e. devices which show a

629: macroscopic change of state (e.g. pointer positions). We now turn to

630: the actual ESSW argument.  According to these authors a problem for

631: the \dbb\ emerges when these extra detectors are chosen to be advanced

632: quantum optical devices, so-called ``which-way detectors''. These

633: respond on the transition of single particles without affecting the

634: translational part of the wavefunction\footnote{E.g. within a

635: micromaser excited Rydberg atoms can radiate off one photon without

636: any other significant change of state.}. Again, in the presence of

637: these devices, we expect the interference pattern to be destroyed. The

638: special feature of these ``one-bit detectors'' is that even their

639: excitation does not alter the symmetry (i.e.

640: $\psi_1(x,y,z)=\psi_2(x,y,-z)$, with $z=0$ being the midplane). Hence

641: the \db-Bohm trajectories are still forced to ``bounce off'' the

642: midplane. However, the probabilities $|\psi_1|^2$ or $|\psi_2|^2$ are

643: in general not confined to one half of the screen.

644: According to ESSW one arrives at the paradoxical situation that 

645: the upper which-way detector fires while  the screen is hit below the midplane. 

646: ESSW conclude:

647: \begin{quote}

648: The Bohm trajectory is here macroscopically at variance with the actual, that

649: is: observed track. Tersely: Bohm trajectories are not realistic, they are

650: surrealistic.

651: \end{quote} 

652: This paper has created a lively debate on the ``surreal trajectory problem'' \cite{barrett,dhs,dfgz,hcm,motc,scully}

653: and we do not aim at a complete review. 

654: One objection against the conclusion of ESSW has been their use of the term 

655: ``actual track'' in connection with quantum mechanics.

656: ESSW try to defend the orthodox interpretation -- but the notion of a ``particle path'' 

657: is denied within this interpretation. What is meant by ``actual track'' 

658: is not obvious here. However, ESSW claim that even the observed tracks in a 

659: bubble-chamber are at variance with the Bohm-trajectories. This would be a serious 

660: objection against the \dbb\ indeed.

661: 

662: The essential flaw in the reasoning of ESSW is that they consider devices

663: which are not linked to any macroscopic change of state. This feature is 

664: crucial because it ensures that their symmetry argument applies.

665: But given that within the \dbb\ only a change in position (or of the wavefunction)

666: constitutes a physical fact, such a which-way detector is not regarded as a reliable 

667: detector for the actual position of the particle on its Bohmian path. 

668: %Above all: given the assumption of ESSW that the center-of-mass motion is not changed, the state remains in a superposition 

669: %and is {\em not} left in a position-eigenstate after leaving the which-way detector. Even within conventional quantum 

670: %mechanics one may question whether it is possible to infer on anything passing through the detector. 

671: The additional claim of ESSW, that even the tracks in a 

672: bubble-chamber differ from  the predicted Bohm-trajectories, is therefore unfounded, since a bubble-chamber does 

673: convert the excitation into a macroscopic displacement.  

674: 

675: But the situation which has 

676: been considered by ESSW is a bit more subtle: The authors assume that a macroscopic 

677: read-out could be connected {\em after} the particle has been finally detected. 

678: However, it remains true that within the \dbb\ the  which-way device is not regarded as a detector. 

679: A delayed read-out can not turn it into a more trustworthy device.  The arrangement which has been considered by Englert et al. can 

680: be viewed as a special case in which

681: ``empty waves'' \cite{hardy} show an effect if they are still coherent. In fact, the non-locality of the \dbb\ makes it 

682: possible to explain how the which-way detector can be excited even without any trajectory passing through it \cite{dhs,hcm}.

683: A detailed discussion of how to resolve the ``surreal trajectory problem'' 

684: within the \dbb\ can also be found in \cite{barrett}. 

685: 

686: Along similar lines also other arguments have been advanced in order to show that ``the Bohmian position does not help to understand the 

687: result of a measurement'' \cite{ahavaid}. Especially Aharonov et al. \cite{ahavaid,aes,aes2} have 

688: explored Bohm trajectories in the case of ``weak'' and ``protective'' measurements\footnote{A ``weak measurement'' \cite{wm} is designed 

689: to change the corresponding system only minimally. A ``protective measurement'' is both, weak and adiabatic \cite{aes}.} 

690: in order to challenge any ``realistic interpretations of 

691: Bohm trajectories'' \cite{aes}. Similar to the original ESSW argument these authors construct circumstances in which non-local effects

692: are exerted i.e.  alleged measuring devices are triggered while the Bohm trajectories do not pass through them. They conclude that 

693: their analysis 

694: \begin{quote}

695: (...) implies that the Bohm trajectories are forever hidden. If you cannot rely on local interactions to determine the `actual position' 

696: of the particle, then you cannot determine it at all. The concept of position itself becomes shaky. \cite{aes}

697: \end{quote}

698: However, Aharonov et al. do not claim the inconsistency of the \dbb:

699: \begin{quote}

700: The examples considered in this work do not show that the Bohm's causal interpretation is inconsistent. It shows that Bohmian 

701: trajectories behave not as we would expect from a classical type model. \cite{ahavaid} 

702: \end{quote}

703: Furthermore Aharonov and Vaidman admit, that ``these difficulties follow from our particular approach to the Bohm theory in which the 

704: wave is not considered to be a `reality'.''

705: 

706: Recapitulating, we note that these investigations have given fascinating insight into detailed aspects of quantum mechanics in general 

707: and the \dbb\ in particular. They clearly demonstrate that (especially given the exotic measuring devices considered above) the 

708: trajectories behave completely unclassical and that the \dbb\ is as unintuitive as the usual quantum theory. However, most adherents 

709: of the \dbb\ never argued that point.

710: 

711: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

712: \subsection{Fractal wavefunctions}

713: A recent argument against trajectory-based interpretations of quantum mechanics in general and the \dbb\ in particular was 

714: advanced by Hall \cite{hall}. He considers so-called fractal  wavefunctions for which the expression ${\cal{H}}\psi$ is 

715: divergent\footnote{There are examples for which the expectation value $\langle {\cal{H}} \rangle$ is finite nevertheless 

716: \cite{hall}.} while the equation  $[ {\cal{H}}-i\hbar\partial_t]\psi=0$ is satisfied still\footnote{The corresponding states are said 

717: to be solutions of the Schr\"odinger equation in the ``weak'' sense \cite{weak}.}. 

718: Given that the usual  Schr\"odinger equation  does not hold for these states, Hall argues that the modified Hamilton-Jacobi equation 

719: can not be derived. Further more, $\nabla \psi$ is not defined and the guidance equation of the \dbb\ fails to provide trajectories for 

720: these states. 

721: 

722: Given that the corresponding states and their unitary evolution are well defined Hall claims that trajectory-based interpretations 

723: are at least {\em formally} incomplete. Provided that these states could be actually prepared they may even demonstrate the 

724: {\em physical} incompleteness.  

725: 

726: In reply to this criticism one may note that the wavefunctions considered by Hall are unphysical. More relevant in this context is the  

727: question of global existence of Bohmian trajectories. This issue was settled in \cite{eunde}. Only recently Tumulka and Teufel  

728: \cite{simple} have simplified and extended this proof to the Bohm-Dirac theory. If a wavefunction satisfies the 

729: conditions for global existence and uniqueness, then it is ensured that it can not evolve into e.g. a fractal state \cite{pc}. 

730: Hence, Hall's claim about a possible ``physical incompleteness'' seems to be unfounded and his claim of  ``formal incompleteness'' 

731: amount to no more  than a specific definition of ``formal''. 

732: 

733: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

734: \subsection{Non-locality and relativistic generalization \label{n-l}}

735: The by far most common objection against the \dbb\  is based on its non-locality and its apparent conflict 

736: with relativity. We will try to disentangle these questions in turn. 

737: 

738: The \dbb\ is explicitly non-local, i.e. the motion of each particle is in general a 

739: function of the coordinates of the whole system, no matter whether they are space-like separated. This non-locality vanishes only 

740: if the wavefunction factorizes in the contributions of the different 

741: quantum objects.

742: Whether this is viewed as an unacceptable feature depends on the attitude towards 

743: the problem of non-locality in quantum mechanics in general. In ordinary quantum mechanics the problem of non-locality appears 

744: in at least two places: (i) violation of Bell-inequalities and (ii) reduction of the wavefunction.

745: 

746: Following the work of Bell \cite{bell_ungl} and the 

747: experimental confirmation of quantum mechanics in EPR-Bell experiments \cite{aspect} it 

748: became widely (but not universally \cite{tellus,muynck}) accepted that quantum mechanics itself is 

749: ``non-local''. Following this opinion the non-locality allegation against the \dbb\ seems to be even completely

750: groundless. However, the precise meaning of the term ``non-local'' is far from being unique and 

751: their exists a vast literature on that topic (see e.g. \cite{cushing}). A thorough 

752: discussion of that issue is far beyond the scope of the present paper. However, one 

753: can reasonably state, that the ``non-locality'' of the \dbb\ is more explicit 

754: (i.e. dynamical) than the ``non-separability'' of ordinary quantum mechanics\footnote{

755: According to fairly common usage, ''separability'' means that the {\em state} of an 

756: extended system can be written as a product of local states while ``locality'' expresses 

757: that no {\em interaction} propagates faster than light.}. 

758: Anyhow, for both, ordinary quantum mechanics and the \dbb, it is ensured that the ``non-locality'' or ``non-separability''

759: can not be used for superluminal signalling. But whether this is enough for full compatibility

760: between quantum mechanics and special relativity has been challenged e.g. by Ballentine \cite{ballentine}:

761: \begin{quote} 

762: However it is not clear that the requirements of special 

763: relativity are exhausted by excluding superluminal signals. Nor is 

764: it clear how one can have superluminal influences (so as to 

765: violate Bell's inequality and satisfy quantum mechanics) that in 

766: principle can not be used as signals. ($\cdots$) Whether or not there 

767: is a deeper incompatibility between quantum mechanics and 

768: relativity is not certain. 

769: \end{quote} 

770: 

771: Another indication for  ``non-locality'' in quantum mechanics is given 

772: if one  adopts the collapse of the  wavefunction to be a real physical process\footnote{In fact, in the context of the ``measurement

773:  problem'' the collapse of the wavefunction gives rise to other problems as well.}.

774: After all the collapse is supposed to reduce the wavefunction instantaneously and requires thereby a preferred 

775: frame-of-reference\footnote{An obvious solution to this problem is to suppose that the collapse occurs only along the backward 

776: light cone of the measurement interaction \cite{bloch,hellwig}. See e.g. \cite{barrett04} for a discussion of the problems one 

777: faces in this approach.} \cite{cushing_qm,maudlin}. Maudlin argues that the collapse postulate 

778: in combination with entangled states leads necessarily to a preferred foliation of 

779: space-time \cite[p.297]{maudlin}. 

780: %This conclusion has been challenged by 

781: %Myrvold \cite{peaceful} who claims a ``peaceful coexistence'' between relativity and 

782: %the collapse postulate. 

783: While the Dirac equation provides a Lorentz covariant generalization of the Schr\"odinger equation

784: the satisfactory generalization of the measurement theory into the relativistic domain is still wanting.

785: Ironically this specific source of non-locality does not arise in the \dbb\ since here the 

786: collapse of the wavefunction becomes dispensable. However, as mentioned above, non-locality  figures prominently in the \dbb\ 

787: which makes the reconciliation with relativity challenging as well.

788: 

789: \subsubsection{The Bohm-Dirac theory}

790: Non-locality clearly provides a challenge for a satisfactory relativistic generalization of quantum mechanics or the \dbb.

791: However, relativistic generalizations of the \dbb\ do exist. E.g. for a Dirac particles Bohm \cite{undivided} has 

792: proposed the following guiding equation (the corresponding framework may be called ``Bohm-Dirac theory''):

793: \begin{eqnarray} 

794: \label{dirac}

795: {\mathbf v} = { \psi^{\dagger} {\bf {\mathbf \alpha}} \psi\over |\psi|^2}

796: \end{eqnarray}

797: Here $\psi$ is a solution of the Dirac equation, $\psi^{\dagger}$ its conjugate and ${\mathbf \alpha}$ a 3-vector with components 

798: that are build from the Pauli matrices:

799: \begin{eqnarray} 

800: \alpha_i=\left ( \begin{array}{cc}         0  & \sigma_i      \\

801:                                      \sigma_i & 0          \end{array} \right )  

802: \end{eqnarray}

803: The generalization to the many-particle case is straightforward \cite{undivided}[p.274].

804: Thus, the generalization itself is not problematic. But it is an essential property of the many-particle generalization that it  

805: requires a preferred reference-frame i.e. the many-particle analogue of Equ.~\ref{dirac} considers all particles at the {\em same} time. 

806: The predictions do nonetheless  agree with the standard theory and most important the preferred reference-frame can be made 

807: unobservable.

808: 

809: 

810: In fact, as shown in \cite{detal}, it is even possible to restore Lorentz invariance for the Bohm-Dirac theory by introducing 

811: additional structure. D\"urr et al. introduce an arbitrary space-like preferred slicing of space-time, determined by a Lorentz 

812: invariant law. An other strategy is pursued by Berndl et al. \cite{rela} who suggest a preferred joint parameterization 

813: (i.e. synchronization). This works provide an important step towards a Lorentz invariant \dbb\ and a counter 

814: example to the common 

815: claim that non-locality and Lorentz invariance are in strict opposition. However, these authors admit that they have not reached yet what 

816: Bell called ``serious Lorentz invariance'' \cite{speakable}[p.179f]. Furthermore the corresponding models  consider only entangled but 

817: {\em noninteracting} Dirac particles.

818: The relativistic generalization of the \dbb\ is also addressed in \cite{chris,GoTu03,squires}. A thorough discussion of the relation 

819: between non-locality and relativity can be found in \cite{dickson}.

820: 

821: Summing up, we have seen that non-locality and the relativistic generalization provide a challenge not only for the \dbb\ but 

822: also for ordinary quantum mechanics\footnote{Since the ultimate cause for non-locality is that the wavefunction of a $N$-particle 

823: system is defined on the configuration space, ${\rm I\!R}^{3N}$, it is not surprising that this ``non-locality'' is not a 

824: particular problem of the \dbb\ but for quantum mechanics in general.}. The violation of the Bell-inequality implies that the 

825: relation between quantum mechanics and special relativity is more subtle than customarily assumed. The concept of wavefunction 

826: collapse points at similar problems. 

827:  However, the \dbb\ does allow for a relativistic generalization when either the requirement of Lorentz invariance is relaxed 

828: to apply only to the observations or by introducing additional structure into the theory.

829: %These problems give reason to reconsider 

830: %the requirement of relativity and a rejection of the \dbb\ based on its non-locality seems to be premature.

831: 

832: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

833: \subsection{The \dbb\ and quantum field theory}

834: 

835: Finally (and related to the last paragraph) there is the widespread suspicion that the concepts of the \dbb\ can not be sustained in

836: the realm of quantum field theories (see e.g. the letter to the editor in \cite{lte}[p. 1227] together with the reply).

837: However, several works on that issue have shown that there seems to be no principle problem to 

838: incorporate the concepts and reproduce the predictions of quantum field theories. In what follows we only sketch some of the corresponding

839: results. 

840: 

841: Similar to the situation of relativistic generalizations there are several different approaches to this question. The work on that issue 

842: can roughly be divided into two camps. The first (e.g. Bohm, Hiley and Holland \cite{undivided,holland}) introduces the notion of  

843: (bosonic-)field variables as being fundamental together with the particle position for fermions. These models provide  

844: laws for the evolution of these fields. However, boson like e.g. the photon do not possess a trajectory. 

845: 

846: The other camp (e.g. Bell \cite{speakable}[p.173] and D\"urr et al. \cite{qft1,qft2}) sustains the particle-ontology also within quantum 

847: field theoretical extensions of the \dbb. To this end D\"urr et al. associate the interaction part of the Hamiltonian with

848: jump-processes like the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs. 

849: %In this model the notion of e.g. a photon trajectory can be developed.

850: 

851: While important questions remain open (see for example the discussion at the end of \cite{qft1}) it seems 

852: premature to reject the \dbb\ on this basis.

853: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

854: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

855: \section{Summary}

856: We have collected common criticism against the \dbb. Most of them have the merit to 

857: illustrate the peculiar features of this theory but they do not provide a rigorous disproof.

858: 

859: One strategy has been to formulate additional requirements\footnote{The requirements are 

860: ``additional'' to the basic demand that the theory is in accordance with the 

861: experimental results.} which are not met by the \dbb. It remains subjective

862: whether this is viewed as a profound shortcoming or the radical novelty of this 

863: theory. After all, quantum mechanics has likewise introduced many bizarre notions into physics. 

864: However, while it is subjective how desirable these additional requirements are, they are clearly not irrational. 

865: 

866: A different strategy is to address the consistency of the \dbb\ and its ability to be generalized. The most substantial concern is 

867: the question of its relativistic and quantum field theoretical generalization. However, several models for such generalizations do exist

868: in which either the preferred foliation of space-time is unobservable or even Lorentz-invariance can be (at least formally)

869: sustained. Although important questions remain open it seems premature to reject the \dbb\ on this account.

870: Above all, these objections should be compared to those which have been advanced against other interpretations of \qm, in particular

871: against the orthodox view. 

872: 

873: 

874: The merit of this discussion is to reveal that even in science a theory can not only be 

875: judged by its empirical confirmation\footnote{This controversy serves as a prime example for  Quine's thesis of underdetermination 

876: of theory by data \cite{quine}.}. In the absence of any experimental test that can 

877: distinguish between standard quantum mechanics and the \dbb\ one may either leave this 

878: question undecidable or has to invoke e.g. ``meta-theoretical'' criteria like the one presented in Sec.~\ref{meta}. 

879: This is completely sound but should be stated explicitly. We fully agree with Hiley who states:

880: \begin{quote}

881: Unfortunately there is a great deal of unnecessary emotion generated when

882: ``alternative interpretations'' to quantum mechanics are discussed. By now we have so

883: many interpretations, that it must be clear to all that there is some basic ambiguity 

884: as to what the formalism is telling us about the nature of quantum processes and their 

885: detailed relation to those occurring in the classical domain. 

886: %The fact that we have 

887: %very little idea of how to quantize gravity should provide a salutary warning to anyone 

888: %claiming that we have fully understood the nature of quantum processes. I believe the 

889: %difficulties the formalism presents is an indication that we need a very deep revision 

890: %of our physical concepts (...) 

891: \cite{hiley}

892: \end{quote}

893: This ``unnecessary emotions'' (in part on both sides) complicate a sober discussion. 

894: %But, as Hiley has stated elsewhere about supporters of the \dbb:

895: %\begin{quote} 

896: %Equally some supporters of the approach, no doubt in reaction, tend to over exaggerate its claims. 

897: %Somehow the middle way (...) seems to have been missed.

898: %\cite{hiley_neu}

899: %\end{quote}

900: 

901: %It proves unfortunate that the discussion about the \dbb\ is inextricable entangled with the controversial debate about the 

902: %interpretation of quantum mechanics in general. In this discussion a confusing mixture of personal convictions and proven facts

903: %can be found. After all, the \dbb\ would have significance also as one out of several consistent 

904: %interpretations of quantum mechanics. Therefore a discussion of the \dbb\ could be detached (at least in a first step) from 

905: %the attitude towards the foundation of quantum mechanics in general. 

906: %In contrast, some supporters of the \dbb\ motivate

907: %this theory as ``the most naively obvious embedding imaginable of Schr\"odingers's equation into a completely coherent physical 

908: %theory'' \cite{duerr}. Agreed, the guidance equation follows naturally from the quantum formalism. However, whether it is ``most 

909: %naively obvious'' can be barely proven. The additional implicit claim that ordinary quantum mechanics provides no ``coherent'' 

910: %theory is both, strong and superfluous when discussing the \dbb.

911: %

912: %In contrast, some supporters of the \dbb\ do not shy away from rather bold statements. E.g. D\"urr states \cite{buch}[p. 155] 

913: %\begin{quote}

914: %(...) in Bohmscher Mechanik kann es kein ``Messproblem'' geben, da es sich um eine physikalische (Theorie) handelt. Sie beschreibt 

915: %alles. Sie kann falsch sein. Aber das ist sie nicht\footnote{(...) within Bohmian mechanics there can be no measurement problem, 

916: %because it is a physical (theory). It describes everything. It could be wrong. But it is not. (translation by the author)}.

917: %\end{quote}

918: %I think most reader will agree that the statement ``It could be wrong. But it is not.'' is only rarely found in scientific discussions.

919: %It would be highly desirable to have a discussion in which neither the objectors of the \dbb\ take refuge

920: %to polemic arguments nor the supporters of this theory claim its undoubted superiority. 

921: 

922: 

923: It would be highly desirable to have an open minded discussion in the spirit of appreciation for the different interpretations.

924: Examples for this can be found e.g. in the camp of the \dbb, like Goldstein's work about decoherent histories \cite{page} or Tumulka's

925:  contribution to the GRW program \cite{rodi}. Similar the ``many-worlder'' Vaidman has made illuminative contributions to implications of

926: the \dbb\ in \cite{vaidman}, to pick just a few examples. However,  also the ``orthodox'' view deserves a fair discussion as expressed by 

927: Bell in the following less known quote:

928: \begin{quote}

929: I am not like many people I meet at conferences on the foundation of quantum

930: mechanics (\ldots{}) who have not really studied the orthodox theory [and] devote

931: their lives criticizing it (\ldots{}) I think that means they have not really

932: appreciated the strength of the ordinary theory. I have a very healthy respect

933: for it. (quoted from \cite{quantumreflection})

934: \end{quote}

935: 

936: 

937: \subsection*{Acknowledgement}

938: I am particularly indebted to Prof. Sheldon Goldstein for his very helpful comments and suggestions. The paper benefited greatly from 

939: them. Thanks also to Travis Norsen, Raymond Mackintosh, Itamar Pitowsky, Ned Floyd, Alan Forrester, Gerhard Gr\"ossing, 

940: Hans Dieter Zeh, Hrvoje Nikolic, Matthew Donald, Francesco Cannata, Stephan Tzenov, Giorgio Kaniadakis, Marek Czachor, Josiph Rangelov 

941: and Abel Miranda.   

942: 

943: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

944: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

945: %\bibitem{adler} Adler, St., {\em Why Decoherence has not solved the Measurement Problem: A Response to P. W. Anderson},  Stud. in Hist. and

946: %    Phil. of Mod. Sci. 34 (2003) 135 and quant-ph/0112095.

947: 

948: \bibitem{wm}  Aharonov, Y., Albert, D., Casher, A. and Vaidman, L., {\em Surprising quantum effects }, Phys. Lett. A 124 (1987) 199. 

949: 

950: \bibitem{ahavaid} Aharonov, Y. and Vaidman, L., {\em About Position Measurements

951:   which do not show the Bohmian Particle Position}, in \cite{appraisal} and quant-ph/9511005.

952: 

953: \bibitem{aes}  Aharonov, Y., Englert, B.-G. and Scully, M. O., {\em Protective measurements and Bohm trajectories}, Phys. Lett. 

954:   A 263 (1999) 137. 

955: 

956: \bibitem{aes2}  Aharonov, Y., Erez, N. and Scully, M. O., {\em Time and Ensemble Average in Bohmian Mechanics} Phys. Scri.  69 

957:   (2004) 81 and quant-ph/0412068.

958: 

959: \bibitem{aspect} Aspect, A., Grangier, P. and Roger, G., {\em Experimental 

960: Realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment. A New

961: Violation of Bell's Inequalities}, Phys. Rev. Let. {\bf 49}, 91 (1982). 

962: 

963: \bibitem{ballentine} Ballentine, L. E.,{\em Quantum Mechanics}, Prentice-Hall 

964: Inc., Englewood Cliffs 1990. 

965: 

966: \bibitem{barrett} Barrett, J., {\em The Persistence of Memory: Surreal 

967: trajectories in Bohm's Theory}, Philosophy of Science (2000), 67(4), 680

968: and quant-ph/0002046.

969: 

970: \bibitem{barrett04}  Barrett, J., {\em Relativistic Quantum Mechanics Through Frame-Dependent Constructions}, forthcoming in Philosophy of 

971: Science (2004).

972: 

973: \bibitem{bell_ungl} Bell, J. S., {\em On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox},

974:   Physics, Vol. 1, No. 3 (1964), reprint in  \cite{speakable}. 

975: 

976: \bibitem{schwinger} Bell, J. S., {\em Towards An Exact Quantum Mechanics}, in

977:   {\em Essays in honor of J. Schwinger 70th birthday}, Ed. S. Deser and R. J.

978:   Finkelstein, World Scientific, Singapore 1989.

979: 

980: %\bibitem{bell_how_to} Bell, J. S., {\em How to Teach Special Relativity}, Progress

981: %  in Scientific Culture, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1976). Reprint in \cite{speakable}.

982: 

983: \bibitem{speakable} Bell, J. S., {\em Speakable and unspeakable in quantum

984:   mechanics}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1987. 

985: 

986: \bibitem{marabeller} Beller, M., {\em Quantum Dialogue -- The Making of a

987:   Revolution}, The University of Chicago Press 1999.

988: 

989: \bibitem{eunde} Berndl, K., D\"urr, D., Goldstein, S., Peruzzi, G. and Zanghi, N., {\em On the Global Existence of Bohmian Mechanics}, 

990:   Comm. Math. Phys. {\bf 173}, 647-673 (1995), und quant-ph/9503013 (1995).  

991: 

992: \bibitem{duerr}  Berndl, K., Daumer, M., D\"urr, D., Goldstein, S.  and Zanghi, N., 

993:   {\em A Survey of Bohmian Mechanics},  Il Nuovo Cimento 110B (1995), 737-750

994:   and quant-ph/9504010. 

995: 

996: \bibitem{debroglie}  de\,Broglie, L., {\em La structure atomique de la mati\`ere 

997:     et du rayonnement et la m\'echanique ondulatoire} (1927), nachgedruckt in

998:     {\em La Physique Quantique restera-t-elle Indet\'erministe?}, Gauthier

999:     Villars, Paris 1953.   

1000: 

1001: \bibitem{rela} Berndl, K., D\"urr, D., Goldstein, S. and Zanghi, N., {\em

1002:     EPR-Bell Nonlocality, Lorentz Invariance and Bohmian Quantum Theory},

1003:     Phys. Rev. A  53 (1996) 2062 and quant-ph/9510027. 

1004: 

1005: 

1006: \bibitem{bloch} Bloch, I., {\em Some Relativistic Oddities in the Quantum Theory in Terms of Observation}, Phys. Rev. 156(5) (1967) 1377.

1007: 

1008: \bibitem{bohm1} Bohm, D., {\em A suggested interpretation of the quantum

1009:   theory  in terms of ``hidden'' variables}, Phys. Rev. {\bf 85}, 166(I)

1010:   and 180(II) (1952), reprint in \cite{zurek}.

1011: \bibitem{bohm3} Bohm, D., {\em Reply to a Criticism to a Causal Re-Interpretation 

1012: of the Quantum Theory}, Phys. Rev. {\bf 87}, (1952) 389.

1013: 

1014: \bibitem{bohm2} Bohm, D., {\em Proof That Probability Density Approaches

1015:     $|\psi|^2$ in Causal Interpretation of the Quantum Theory}, Phys. Rev. {\bf 89}

1016:     (1953) 458.

1017: 

1018: \bibitem{bv} Bohm, D. and Vigier, J.-P., {\em Model of the Causal Interpretation of 

1019:   Quantum Theory in Terms of a Fluid with Irregular Fluctuations}, Phys. Rev. {\bf 96} (1954) 

1020:   208.

1021: 

1022: \bibitem{bh} Bohm, D. and Hiley, B. J., {\em An ontological basis for the quantum 

1023: theory},  Phys. Rep. 144 No.6 (1987) 321.

1024: 

1025: \bibitem{undivided} Bohm, D. and Hiley, B. J., {\em The Undivided Universe},

1026:   London, Routledge 1993. 

1027: 

1028: \bibitem{hiley00} Brown, M. R. and Hiley, B. J., {\em Schr\"odinger revisited: an 

1029: algebraic approach}, (2000) quant-ph/0005026.

1030: 

1031: \bibitem{cushing} Cushing, J. T.  and McMullins, E. (Ed.), {\em Philosophical Consequences 

1032:   of Quantum Theory}, University of Notre Dame Press,

1033:   Indiana, 1987.

1034: 

1035: \bibitem{cushing_qm} Cushing, J. T., {\em Quantum Mechanics --

1036:     Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony}, University of

1037:   Chicago Press (1994).

1038: 

1039: \bibitem{appraisal} Cushing, J. T., Fine, A. and Goldstein, S. (Ed.), 

1040:   {\em Bohmian mechanics and quantum theory: an appraisal},  Kluwer Academic 

1041:   Publishers, Dordrecht (1996).

1042: 

1043: \bibitem{cushing_bowman} Cushing; J. T. and Bowman, G., {\em Bohmian Mechanics and Chaos}, in J. Butterfield and C. Pagonis (eds.) 

1044: {\em From Physics to Philosophy}, Cambridge University Press (1999). 

1045: 

1046: \bibitem{nor} Daumer, M., D\"urr, D., Goldstein, S.  and Zanghi, N., {\em Naive 

1047:     Realism about Operators},  Erkenntnis 45, 379-397 (1996) and

1048:     quant-ph/9601013. 

1049: 

1050: \bibitem{deotto} Deotto, E. and Ghirardi, G. C., {\em Bohmian Mechanics Revisited}, Found. of Phys., Vol . 28, No. 1, 1998.

1051: 

1052: \bibitem{dhs} Dewdney, C., Hardy, L. and Squires, E. J., {\em How late 

1053:   measurements of quantum trajectories can fool a detector}, Phys. Lett. A184 

1054:   (1993), 6.

1055: 

1056: \bibitem{chris} Dewdney, C. and Horton, G., {\em Relativistically invariant 

1057:   extension of the de Broglie-Bohm theory of quantum mechanics}, J. Phys. A,

1058:   Math. Gen. {\bf 35}, 10117 (2002), and quant-ph/0202104 (2002). 

1059: 

1060: \bibitem{dickson} Dickson, W. M., {\em Quantum chance and non-locality in the interpretations of quantum mechanics}, Cambridge 

1061:   University Press 1998.

1062: 

1063: \bibitem{qft1} D\"urr, D., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R. and Zanghi, N., {\em Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory} Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 

1064:   090402 (2004) quant-ph/0303156. 

1065: 

1066: \bibitem{qft2} D\"urr, D., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R. and Zanghi, N., {\em Trajectories and Particle Creation and Annihilation in Quantum 

1067:   Field Theory}, Journal of Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36 (2003) 4143-4149 and  quant-ph/0208072.

1068: 

1069: \bibitem{dgz} D\"urr, D., Goldstein, S. and Zanghi, N. (1992)

1070:   {\em Quantum equilibrium and the Origin of Absolute Uncertainty}, Journal of 

1071:   Statistical Physics, {\bf 67} 843.

1072: 

1073: \bibitem{dfgz} D\"urr, D., Fusseder, W.,  Goldstein, S. and Zanghi, N., {\em

1074:   Comments on ``Surrealistic Bohm Trajectories''}, Z. Naturforsch. 48a (1993) 

1075:   1161. and its reply Z. Naturforsch. 48a (1993) 1163.

1076: 

1077: \bibitem{duerr97} D\"urr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zanghi, N., {\em Bohmian Mechanics and the Meaning of the Wave Function},

1078:   in Cohen, R. S., Horne, M., and Stachel, J., eds., {\em Experimental Metaphysics -- Quantum Mechanical Studies for 

1079:   Abner Shimony}, Volume 1, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 193, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers (1997).

1080: 

1081: 

1082: \bibitem{detal} D\"urr, D., Goldstein, S., M\"unch-Berndl, K. and Zanghi, N., {\em Hypersurface Bohm-Dirac models}, 

1083: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 60}, 2729 (1999), and quant-ph/9801070 (1998). 

1084: 

1085: \bibitem{buch}  D\"urr, D., {\em Bohmsche Mechanik als Grundlage der Quantenmechanik}, Springer, Heidelberg 2001.

1086: 

1087: \bibitem{bornbriefwechsel} A. Einstein, H. und M. Born, 

1088:   {\em Briefwechsel 1916-1955}, Nymphenburger Verlagshandlung, M\"unchen 1969. 

1089: 

1090: \bibitem{essw} Englert, B.-G.,  Scully, M. O., S\"ussmann, G.  and Walther, H., {\em Surrealistic Bohm trajectories}, 

1091:   Z. Naturforsch. 47a (1992), 1175. 

1092: 

1093: \bibitem{rezension}  Englert, B.-G., in the book review of \cite{buch}, Phys. Bl. 11 (2001).

1094: 

1095: 

1096: \bibitem{page} Goldstein, S. and Page, D., {\em  Linearly Positive Histories: Probabilities for a Robust Family of Sequences of Quantum Events}

1097:   Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3715-3719 (1995) and gr-qc/9403055.

1098: 

1099: \bibitem{qtwo} Goldstein, S., {\em Quantum Theory without Observers}, Phys. Today 51, (March) 42, (April) 38 (1998).

1100: 

1101: \bibitem{GoTu03} Goldstein, S. and Tumulka, R., {\em Opposite arrows of

1102:   time can reconcile relativity and nonlocality}, Class. Quantum

1103:   Grav. {\bf 20}, 557 (2003), and quant-ph/0105040.

1104: 

1105: \bibitem{gold2002} Goldstein, S. and Teufel, S., {\em Quantum Spacetime without Observers: Ontological Clarity and the Conceptual 

1106:   Foundations of Quantum Gravity}, in {\em Physics meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale}, edited by C. Callender and N. Huggett, 

1107:   275-289, Cambridge University Press (2001), preprint version: quant-ph/9902018  

1108: 

1109: \bibitem{pc} Sheldon Goldstein, private communication, 2005.

1110: 

1111: \bibitem{pointless} 

1112:   Ghose, P., {\em Incompatibility of the de Broglie-Bohm Theory with Quantum Mechanics}, 

1113:   quant-ph/0001024 (2000).\\

1114:   Ghose, P., {\em An Experiment to Distinguish Between de Broglie-Bohm and Standard 

1115:     Quantum Mechanics}, quant-ph/0003037 (2000).\\

1116:   Ghose, P., {\em On the Incompatibility of Standard Quantum Mechanics and the de 

1117:     Broglie-Bohm Theory}, quant-ph/0103126 (2001).

1118: 

1119: \bibitem{quantumreflection} Gottfried, K., {\em Quantum Reflections}, J. Ellis und D. Amanti (Eds.), Cambridge University Press, 

1120:   Cambridge 1991. 

1121: 

1122: \bibitem{pointless2} 

1123: Golshani, M. and Akhavan, O., {\em A two-slit experiment which distinguishes between 

1124:   standard and Bohmian quantum mechanics}, quant-ph/0009040 (2000).\\

1125: Golshani, M. and Akhavan, O., {\em Experiment can decide between standard and Bohmian 

1126: quantum mechanics}, quant-ph/0103100 (2001).\\

1127: Golshani, M. and Akhavan, O., {\em Bohmian prediction about a two double-slit experiment 

1128: and its disagreement with standard quantum mechanics}, quant-ph/0103101 (2001).

1129: 

1130: \bibitem{lte} Gordon, L., {Does there exist a relativistic Bohm theory}, letter to the editor, Am. J. Phys. {\bf 64} (10) (1996) 1227. 

1131: 

1132: \bibitem{guarini} Guarini, M., {\em Bohm's Metaphors, Causality and the Quantum Potential}, Erkenntnis {\bf 59} (2003) 77.

1133: 

1134: \bibitem{hall} Hall, M. J. W., {\em Incompleteness of trajectory-based interpretations of quantum mechanics}, J. Phys. {\bf A} 

1135:   Math. Gen. 37 (2004) 9549 and quant-ph/0406054.

1136: 

1137: \bibitem{hardy} Hardy, L., {\em On the existence of empty waves in quantum theory}, Phys. Lett. {\bf A} 167 (1992) 11.

1138:  

1139: %\bibitem{hellmuth} Hellmuth, T.  et al., {\em Delayed-choice experiments in quantum 

1140: %interference}, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 35} (1987) 2532.

1141: 

1142: \bibitem{hellwig} Hellwig, K. E. and Kraus, K., {\em Formal Description of Measurements in Local Quantum Field Theory}, Phys. Rev. D 1(2) 

1143:   (1970) 566.

1144: 

1145: \bibitem{hiley} Hiley, B. J., {\em Active Information and Teleportation}, in {\em 

1146: Epistemological and Experimental Perspectives on Quantum Physics}, eds. D. Greenberger 

1147: et al. Kluwer, Netherlands, 1999.

1148: 

1149: \bibitem{hcm} Hiley, B. J., Callaghan, R. E. and Maroney, O. J. E.

1150:   {\em Quantum trajectories, real, surreal or an approximation to a deeper 

1151:   process?}, quant-ph/0010020 (2000).

1152: 

1153: \bibitem{hiley_neu} Hiley, B. J., {\em From the Heisenberg Picture to Bohm: a New Perspective on Active Information and its 

1154:   relation to Shannon Information}, in {\em Quantum Theory: Reconsideration of Foundations} Proc. Int. Conf. Vexjo, Sweden, 

1155:   June 2001.

1156: 

1157: \bibitem{holland} Holland, P. R., {\em The Quantum Theory of Motion}, Cambridge

1158:   University Press, 1993.

1159: 

1160: \bibitem{holland99} Holland, P., {\em Uniqueness of paths in quantum mechanics}, Phys. Rev. A 60 (1999) 4326.

1161: 

1162: \bibitem{hollandundphi} Holland, P. and Philippidis, Ch., {Implications of Lorentz covariance for the guidance equation in two-slit 

1163: quantum interference}, Phys. Rev. A67, 062105 (2003). 

1164: 

1165: \bibitem{home} D. Home, D. and Majumdar, A.S., {\em On the importance of the Bohmian approach for interpreting CP-violation experiments}, 

1166: Found.Phys. 29 (1999) 721.

1167: 

1168: \bibitem{keller} Keller, J., {\em Bohm's Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ``Hidden'' Variables}, Phys. Rev. 

1169: {\bf 89} (1953) 1040.

1170: 

1171: \bibitem{gruebl} Kreidl, S., Gr\"ubl, G. and Embacher, H. G., {\em Bohmian arrival time without trajectories}, J. Phys. 

1172: A: Math. Gen. 36 (2003) 8851-8865.

1173: 

1174: \bibitem{leavens} Leavens, C. R., {\em Transversal times for rectangular 

1175:   barriers  within Bohm's causal interpretation of quantum mechanics}, 

1176:   Solid State Communications, Vol. 76, 253 (1990).

1177: 

1178: \bibitem{leavens2} Leavens, C. R. and Aers, G. C., {\em Bohm Trajectories and the Tunneling Time 

1179:   Problem}, in {\em Scanning Tunneling Microscopy III}, R. Wiesendanger and 

1180:   H.-J. G\"untherodt (Ed.), Springer, Berlin 1993, 105.  

1181: 

1182: \bibitem{lebowitz} Lebowitz, J. L., {\em Boltzmann's Entropy and Time's Arrow}, Physics today 46:9 32-38 (1993).

1183: 

1184: \bibitem{maudlin} Maudlin, T., {\em Space-time in the quantum world} in \cite{appraisal}

1185: 

1186: \bibitem{tellus} Mermin, N. D., {\em What is quantum mechanics trying to 

1187: tell us?}, American Journal of Physics {\bf 66}, 753 (1998), and

1188: quant-ph/9801057 (1998).  

1189: 

1190: \bibitem{love} Mermin, N. D., {\em Copenhagen Computation: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Bohr}, IBM Journal of Research 

1191:   and Development Volume 48, Number 1, 2004 and quant-ph/0305088 

1192: 

1193: 

1194: \bibitem{muynck} W. M. de Muynck, {\em Interpretations of quantum mechanics,

1195:     and interpretations of violation of Bell's inequality}, in: {\em

1196:     Foundation of Probability  and Physics}, , A. Khrennikov (Ed.), 

1197:      World Scientific 2001, 95. 

1198: 

1199: %\bibitem{peaceful} Myrvold, W. C., {\em On peaceful coexistence: is the collapse postulate 

1200: %incompatible with relativity?}, Studies in History and Philosophy of modern Physics 

1201: %33 (2002) 435. 

1202: 

1203: \bibitem{early} Myrvold, W. C., {\em On Some Early Objections to Bohm's Theory}, 

1204: International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 17, No. 1, (2003) 7. 

1205: 

1206: 

1207: \bibitem{how_to} Passon, O., {\em How to teach Quantum Mechanics}, Eur. J. of Phys. {\bf 25} 765-769 (2004) and quant-ph/0404128.

1208: 

1209: \bibitem{passon} Passon, O., {\em Bohmsche Mechanik}, Verlag Harri Deutsch, Frankfurt 2004.

1210: 

1211: \bibitem{int_of_bm} Passon, O., {\em On the interpretation of the \dbb}, in preparation.

1212: 

1213: \bibitem{pauli52} Pauli, W., {\em  Remarques sur le probl\`eme des param\`etres cach\'es dans la m\'echanique quantique et sur 

1214: la th\'eorie   de l'onde pilote} in: Louis de Broglie: Physicien et Penseur, Paris \'Edition Albin Michel, pp 33-42 (1952).   

1215: 

1216: \bibitem{briefwechsel} Pauli, W., {\em Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel mit

1217:  Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg u.a.} Band IV (Teil I, II und III),

1218:  Herausgegeben von Karl v. Meyenn, Springer (1996).

1219: 

1220: \bibitem{quine} Quine, W. V., {\em On empirically equivalent systems of the 

1221:     world}, Erkenntnis {\bf 9} (1975). 

1222: 

1223: %\bibitem{sanz} Sanz, A. S., {\em A Bohmian approach to quantum fractals}, quant-ph/0412050 (2004).

1224: 

1225: %\bibitem{shy} Shimony, A., {\em Metaphysical problems in the foundations of quantum 

1226: %mechanics}, Int. Phil. Quarterly, 18, (1978) 3.

1227: 

1228: %\bibitem{abner} Shimony, A., {\em Search for a worldview which can accommodate

1229: %    our knowledge of microphysics} in \cite{cushing}

1230: 

1231: \bibitem{squires} Squires, E. J., {\em Lorentz-invariant Bohmian Mechanics}, 

1232:   quant-ph/9508014 (1995). 

1233: 

1234: \bibitem{squires2} Squires, E. J., {\em Essay review: The unresolved quantum dilemma}, Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. Vol.27, No.3 

1235: (1996) 389.

1236: 

1237: \bibitem{scully} Scully, M. O., {Do Bohm Trajectories Always Provide a Trustworthy Physical Picture of Particle Motion?}, Phys. 

1238:   Scri. 76 (1998) 41. 

1239: 

1240: \bibitem{straumann} Straumann, N., {\em Quantenmechanik}, Springer, Berlin

1241:   Heidelberg  2002.

1242: 

1243: \bibitem{answer}

1244: Struyve, W. and De Baere, W., {\em Comments on some recently proposed experiments that 

1245: should distinguish Bohmian mechanics from quantum mechanics}, quant-ph/0108038 (2001).

1246: 

1247: %\bibitem{taylor} Taylor, J. O., {\em Connections with Bohmian mechanics}, PhD thesis, Rutgers university (2003).

1248: 

1249: \bibitem{motc} Terra Cunha, M. O., {\em What is Surrealistic about Bohm

1250: Trajectories}, quant-ph/9809006 (1998).

1251: 

1252: \bibitem{simple} Teufel, S. and Tumulka, R., {\em Simple Proof for Global

1253:     Existence of Bohmian Trajectories}, math-ph/0406030 (2004), to appear in Communications in Mathematical Physics (2005).

1254: 

1255: \bibitem{rodi} Tumulka, R., {\em A Relativistic Version of the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber Model}, quant-ph/0406094 (2004).

1256: 

1257: \bibitem{vaidman} Vaidman, L., {\em The Reality in Bohmian Quantum Mechanics or Can You 

1258:   Kill with an Empty Wave Bullet?}, quant-ph/0312227 (2003) and Found. Phys. {\bf 35} (2005) 299.

1259: 

1260: \bibitem{valentini} Valentini, A., {\em Signal-locality, uncertainty, and the

1261:     subquantum H-theorem }, part I: Physics Letters A 156, No.1-2, (1991), 5.

1262:      part II: Physics Letters A 158, No.1-2, (1991), 1.

1263: 

1264: \bibitem{val-sim}  Valentini, A. and Westman, H., {\em Dynamical Origin of

1265:     Quantum Probabilities}, quant-ph/0403034 (2004).

1266: 

1267: \bibitem{aufbau} v. Weizs\"acker, C. F., {\em Der Aufbau der Physik}, dtv, M\"unchen (1988).

1268: 

1269: \bibitem{wheeler} Wheeler, J. A., {\em The `past' and the `delayed choice' double slit experiment},  Mathematical Foundations of Quantum 

1270: Theory, A.R. Marlow (ed), New York,  Academic (1978) pp. 9-48, reprinted in part in \cite{zurek}.

1271: 

1272: 

1273: \bibitem{zurek} Wheeler, J. A.  and Zurek, W. H. (ed.), {\em Quantum Theory of Measurement}, Princeton University 

1274:   Press, Princeton NJ, 1983. 

1275: 

1276: \bibitem{weak} W\'ojcik D., Bialynicki-Birula I. and Zyczkowski K., {\em Time Evolution of Quantum Fractals}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 5022.

1277: 

1278: %\bibitem{zeh} Zeh, H. D., {\em Why Bohm's Quantum theory},  Foundations of Physics Letters 12 (1999) 197 and

1279: %quant-phy/9812059.

1280: 

1281: 

1282: 

1283: \end{thebibliography}

1284: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1285: \end{document}

1286: 

1287: 

1288: 

1289: