Annuaire de l’Universite de Sofia “St.

Kliment Ohridski”, Faculte de Physique

Edition Spéciale, 2012

Bohmian mechanics versus Madelung

quantum hydrodynamics

Roumen Tsekov

Department of Physical Chemistry

Faculty of Chemistry, St. Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia

Румен Цеков. Бомовата механика срещу квантовата хидродина-мика

на Маделунг

Показано е, че Бомовата механика и квантовата хидродинамика на Маделунг са

различни теории и че последната е по-добра онтологична интерпретация на квантовата
механика. Предложена е нова стохастична интерпретация на квантовата механика, която е
основа на квантовата хидродинамика на Маделунг, и нейната връзка с комплексната механика
е изследвана също. Предложена е и нова комплексна хидродинамика, в която напълно е
елиминиран квантовият потенциал на Бом. Тя описва квантовата еволюция на плътността на
вероятността чрез конвективна дифузия с имагинерни коефициенти на пренос.

Roumen Tsekov. Bohmian mechanics versus Madelung quantum hydro-

dynamics

It is shown that the Bohmian mechanics and the Madelung quantum hydrodynamics are dif-
ferent theories and the latter is a better ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics. A new sto-
chastic interpretation of quantum mechanics is proposed, which is the background of the Madelung
quantum hydrodynamics. Its relation to the complex mechanics is also explored. A new complex
hydrodynamics is proposed, which eliminates completely the Bohm quantum potential. It describes
the quantum evolution of the probability density by a convective diffusion with imaginary transport
coefficients.

Keywords: quantum mechanics, de Broglie-Bohm interpretation, Madelung quantum hydro-

dynamics, stochastic interpretation

PACS numbers: 03.65.-w, 03.65.Ta, 03.65.Ud

For contact: Roumen Tsekov, Department of Physical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, St.
Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia, 1 J. Bourchier Blvd., 1164 Sofia, Bulgaria, Phone: +359 2
8161 241, Fax: +359 2 9625 438, E-mail: [email protected]

112
 The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is guilty for the quan-
tum mystery and many strange phenomena such as the Schrödinger cat, paral-
lel quantum and classical worlds, wave-particle duality, decoherence, etc. Many
scientists have tried, however, to put the quantum mechanics back on ontologi-
cal foundations. For instance, Bohm [1] proposed an alternative interpretation of
quantum mechanics, which is able to overcome some puzzles of the Copenhagen
interpretation. He developed further the de Broglie pilot-wave theory and, for this
reason, the Bohmian mechanics is also known as the de Broglie-Bohm theory.
At the time of inception of quantum mechanics Madelung [2] has demonstrated
that the Schrödinger equation can be transformed in hydrodynamic form. This so-
called Madelung quantum hydrodynamics is a less elaborated theory and usually
considered as a precursor of the Bohmian mechanics. The scope of the present
paper is to show that these two theories are different and the Madelung hydrody-
namics is a better interpretation of quantum mechanics than the Bohmian mechan-
ics. A stochastic interpretation is also developed, which is the background of the
Madelung quantum hydrodynamics [3].
The evolution of the wave function ψ of a quantum mechanical system con-
sisting of N particles is described by the Schrödinger equation

i∂ t ψ = (− 2∇ 2 / 2m + U )ψ , (1)

where ∇ is a 3N-dimensional nabla operator and U is a potential. The complex

wave function can be presented generally in the polar form

ψ = ρ exp(iS /  ) , (2)

2
where ρ = ψ is the n-particles distribution density and S / ћ is the wave function
phase. Introducing Eq. (2) in the Schrödinger equation (1) results in two equa-
tions

∂ t ρ = −∇ ⋅ (ρ∇S / m) , (3)

∂ t S + (∇S ) 2 / 2m + U + Q = 0 , (4)

where Q ≡ − 2∇ 2 ρ / 2m ρ is the so-called quantum potential. Bohm [1] has

noticed that in the classical limit Q vanishes and Eq. (4) reduces to the Hamilton-
Jacobi equation. For this reason, he suggested that S is the mechanical action,
which is related to the real velocities of the particles via the relation [1]

113
 R = ∇S / m . (5)

Here R is the 3N-dimensional vector of the particles coordinates. Using expres-

sion (5) and Eq. (4) one can easily derive a quantum Newtonian equation [1]

mR = −∇(U + Q) . (6)

This equation hints already inconsistency of the Bohmian mechanics since

the particles trajectories depend via Q on the probability density to find the par-
ticles at their places, while the logic of a statistical mechanics is just the opposite.
Hence, the de Broglie-Bohm theory is something like a mean-field approximation
of the real quantum dynamics. Some authors try to resolve this philosophical dis-
crepancy by reinterpretation of the definition of quantum probability density [4].
Bohm paid much attention to Eq. (4) and less concern about Eq. (3). It is
easy to check that the solution of the system of Eqs. (3) and (5) is the probability
density r = d(r – R), which is typical for a deterministic motion described par-
ticularly in the Bohmian mechanics via Eq. (6). This Bohmian distribution cannot
describe, however, the probability density from the quantum mechanics since its
dispersion is always zero. Hence, the Bohmian mechanics contradicts to the quan-
tum mechanics. In general any distribution density can be presented in the form
r = < d(r – R) >, where the brackets indicate statistical average over the realiza-
tions of the particles trajectories. The stochasticity of R could originate either
from unknown initial conditions, how Bohm proposed [1], or from some inherent
fluctuations [3]. Taking a time derivative of this expression leads straightforward
to the continuity equation

∂ t ρ = −∇ ⋅ (ρV ) , (7)

where the 3N-dimensional velocity-vector is given by V ≡< R δ(r − R ) > / ρ . This

hydrodynamic-like velocity obviously is not simply the particles velocity but an
averaged product representing the flow in the probability space. As seen, Eq. (7)
is general and not specifically related to the quantum mechanics. Comparing now
Eq. (3) and Eq. (7) one concludes that S is the hydrodynamic-like velocity poten-
tial, not the mechanical action as suggested by Bohm. Hence, the correct alterna-
tive of Eq. (5) reads

V = ∇S/m. (8)

Let us check now if Eq. (4) can be also explained in this scheme. Using Eq.

114
(8) it can be transformed easily to a macroscopic force balance for the hydrody-
namic-like velocity

m∂ tV + mV ⋅ ∇V = −∇(U + Q) . (9)

Therefore, Eq. (4) is not a quantum Hamilton-Jacobi equation as Bohm sug-

gested. The system of Eqs. (7) and (9) was proposed for a single particle by Made-
lung [2] first and is known in the Science as the Madelung quantum hydrodynam-
ics. Now the probability density is not driving the individual particles via Q but
their hydrodynamic-like velocity, which is similar to the thermal diffusion. In the
latter case the driving force is the gradient of the local Boltzmann entropy, while
the quantum potential is proportional to the local Fisher entropy [5].
In contrast to the Bohmian mechanics, the Madelung quantum hydrodynam-
ics describes only the averaged statistical characteristics r and V but not the par-
ticles trajectory R. Since the latter is stochastic and the vacuum is a non-dissipa-
tive environment one can propose the following stochastic quantum Newtonian
equation

mR = −∇U + f Q , (10)

where fQ is a random force originating from some vacuum fluctuations [3]. Its
average value is zero to satisfy the Ehrenfest theorem. According to the modern
physics all the interaction in the world are mediated by virtual particles and Eq.
(10) states that the latter behave randomly as well. The quantum potential is the
macroscopic image of the microscopic force fQ. Hence, in a mean-field approach
one can replace fQ by –∇Q to get Eq. (6). The phase-space probability density can
be generally presented via W ≡< δ( p − mR )δ(r − R ) > . Differentiating W in time
and expressing the particles acceleration from Eq. (10) yields

∂ tW + p ⋅ ∇W / m − ∇U ⋅ ∂ pW + ∂ p ⋅ < f Q δ( p − mR )δ(r − R ) >= 0 . (11)

In the classical limit the last quantum term vanishes and Eq. (11) reduces to
the Liouville equation. If one assumes now that the unspecified quantum force
term is given by

2k
∞
(i / 2)
< f Q δ( p − mR )δ(r − R ) >= −∑ ∇ 2 k +1U ⋅ ∂ 2pkW . (12)
k =1 ( 2k + 1)!

115
 Eq. (11) becomes the Wigner-Liouville equation [6], from which the Mad-
elung quantum hydrodynamics can be deduced straightforward [7]. According to
Eq. (12) the quantum stochastic force is not correlated to the particle position
since <fQd(r – R)> = 0. One of the advantages of the Bohmian mechanics is a dem-
onstration of quantum non-locality, which is due to the fact that Q is a function of
the positions of all the particles in the system. At a first look Eq. (10) seems local
and one could pretend that it violates the Bell theorem. However, the stochastic
forces acting on different particles are obviously correlated since the same quan-
tum potential appears in the non-local Madelung hydrodynamics as well. Hence,
the present stochastic interpretation does not only reproduce the quantum non-lo-
cality but shows the physical reason for the entanglement: the spatial correlations
of the vacuum fluctuations.
An alternative way to describe the present stochastic quantum dynamics is
the complex mechanics [8, 9]. According to this theory quantum particles obey
also the Newtonian equation mZ = −∇U ( Z ) but their coordinates Z(t) are com-
plex functions. The real part R = ZRe represents the observable physical trajecto-
ries. Since the initial value of the metaphysical imaginary part ZIm is unknown,
the complex mechanics description possesses a stochastic character. For instance,
the effect of vacuum fluctuations can be attributed to ZIm. It is easy to show that
the phase-space probability density W obeys in complex mechanics the Liouville
equation

∂ tW + p ⋅ ∇W / m − ∂ p ⋅ < Re[∇U (r + iZ Im )]δ( p − mR )δ(r − R ) >= 0 . (13)

Expanding now the potential energy U in a power series of the imaginary part
ZIm one can rewrite Eq. (13) in the more decisive form

∞
1 2 k +1
∂ tW + p ⋅ ∇ W / m − ∂ p ⋅ ∑ ∇ U ⋅ < (iZ Im ) 2 k δ( p − mR )δ(r − R ) > = 0 (14)
k =0 2 k !
Thus, an alternative expression for the fluctuation force term from Eq. (11)
reads

∞
1 2 k +1
< f Q δ( p − mR )δ(r − R ) >= −∑ ∇ U ⋅ < (iZ Im ) 2 k δ( p − mR )δ(r − R ) > (15)
k =1 2k !

The structure of this equation is similar to Eq. (12). Hence, by proper model-
ing of the statistical properties of ZIm one could derive the Wigner-Liouville equa-
tion, i.e. the quantum mechanics.

116
 An interesting alternative of the Madelung quantum hydrodynamics is the
complex hydrodynamics with an irrotational complex hydrodynamic velocity

ω ≡ i∇ ln ψ / m = V + i∇ ln ρ / 2m (16)

introduced via the quantum momentum operator [8]. Substituting this expression,
the continuity Eq. (7) changes to a complex convective diffusion equation

∂ t ρ + ∇ ⋅ (ρω) = D∇ 2ρ (17)

with imaginary diffusion coefficient D ≡ i / 2m . The latter is well-known in

the physical literature [10, 11], since the Schrödinger equation for a free particle
∂tψ = D∇2ψ formally coincides with a diffusion equation. Using further Eq. (16),
the Madelung hydrodynamic force balance (9) acquires the form of a complex
Navier-Stokes equation

∂ t ω + ω ⋅ ∇ω = −∇U / m + ν∇ 2 ω (18)

with constant pressure and kinematic viscosity ν ≡ −i / 2m . Thus, the weird
quantum potential disappears completely and, hence, the Schrödinger equation re-
duces to classical diffusion and hydrodynamics but with complex transport coeffi-
cients. As is seen, the vacuum possesses purely imaginary diffusion and viscosity
constants. They are complex-conjugated and their geometrically averaged value
νD =  / 2m equals to the Nelson universal diffusion constant [12]. Equations
(17) and (18) open also a door to dissipative quantum mechanics [3] via including
real parts of the complex transport coefficients as well.
The inconsistency of the Bohmian mechanics could be elucidated on the ex-
ample of the classical Brownian motion, where the particles motion is described
by the Langevin equation [13]

mR + bR = −∇U + f L . (19)

Here b is the friction coefficient and fL is the stochastic Langevin force. Following
Eq. (19) the probability density evolution is governed by two hydrodynamic-like
equations [3]

∂ t ρ = −∇ ⋅ (ρV ) , m∂ tV + mV ⋅ ∇V + bV = −∇(U + k BT ln ρ) (20)

Hence, according to thermodynamics the macroscopic image of the Langevin

117
force is the gradient of the thermal free energy. Using Eq. (8) these equations can
be easily transformed to

∂ t ρ = −∇ ⋅ (ρ∇S / m) , ∂ t S + (∇S ) 2 / 2m + U + k BT ln ρ = −bS / m . (21)

Following the Bohm logic, one can interpret the second equation as a dis-
sipative thermal Hamilton-Jacobi equation, where the thermal chemical potential
plays the role of Q. Employing now the de Broglie-Bohm guiding equation (5)
one can derive a thermal Newtonian equation

mR + bR = −∇(U + k BT ln ρ) (22)

being analogical of Eq. (6). Obviously Eq. (22) is not correct. It represents a
mean-field deterministic approximation of the real stochastic Brownian dynamics
rigorously described by Eq. (19). The main philosophical problem of the Bohmian
mechanics is that it considers the quantum mechanics as a classical one, while it
is, in fact, a kind of statistical mechanics.
Finally, in the case of the quantum Brownian motion both the quantum and
Langevin stochastic forces are simultaneously acting and Eq. (19) advances to
[3]

mR + bR = −∇U + f Q + f L . (23)

In the case of Bohmian approximation, one can replace the quantum stochas-
tic force in Eq. (23) by the Bohm quantum force –∇Q to obtain a density func-
tional Bohm-Langevin equation [14]

mR + bR = −∇(U + Q) + f L . (24)

Acknowledgements. The paper is dedicated to the 100th anniversary of A.B. Datsev, a student
of G. Manev and L. de Broglie, whose lectures on quantum mechanics [15] introduced me first in the
University of Sofia to the de Broglie-Bohm theory and nonlinear Schrödinger equations.

118
 References

[1] Bohm, D. Phys. Rev., 1952, 85, 166.

[2] Madelung, E. Z. Phys., 1927, 40, 322.
[3] Tsekov, R. New Adv. Phys., 2009, 3, 35.
[4] Callender, C. Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. B, 2007, 38, 351.
[5] Reginatto, M. Phys. Rev. A, 1998, 58, 1775.
[6] Wigner, E. Phys. Rev., 1932, 40, 749.
[7] Sonego, S. Found. Phys., 1991, 21, 1135.
[8] Yang, C. D. Prog. Nonlinear Sci., 2010, 1, 1.
[9] John, M. V. Ann. Phys., 2010, 325, 2132.
[10] Fürth, R. Z. Phys., 1933, 81, 143.
[11] Comisar, G. G. Phys. Rev. 1965, 138, B1332.
[12] Nelson, E. Phys. Rev., 1966, 150, 1079.
[13] Langevin, P. C. R. Acad. Sci. (Paris), 1908, 146, 530.
[14] Tsekov, R. Int. J. Theor. Phys., 2009, 48, 630.
[15] Datsev, A. B. Quantum Mechanics. Science and Art, Sofia, 1963, in Bulgarian.

119