text:
De Broglie–Bohm theory

The de Broglie–Bohm theory, also known as the pilot wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, Bohm's interpretation, and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. It postulates that in addition to the wavefunction, an actual configuration of particles exists, even when unobserved. The evolution over time of the configuration of all particles is defined by a guiding equation. The evolution of the wave function over time is given by the Schrödinger equation. The theory is named after Louis de Broglie (1892–1987) and David Bohm (1917–1992).

The theory is deterministic and explicitly nonlocal: the velocity of any one particle depends on the value of the guiding equation, which depends on the configuration of all the particles under consideration.

Measurements are a particular case of quantum processes described by the theory—for which it yields the same quantum predictions as other interpretations of quantum mechanics. The theory does not have a "measurement problem", due to the fact that the particles have a definite configuration at all times. The Born rule in de Broglie–Bohm theory is not a postulate. Rather, in this theory, the link between the probability density and the wave function has the status of a theorem, a result of the a separate postulate, the "quantum equilibrium hypothesis", which is additional to the basic principles governing the wave function. There are several equivalent mathematical formulations of the theory.

Overview
De Broglie–Bohm theory is based on the following postulates:
 * There is a configuration $$q$$ of the universe, described by coordinates $$q^k$$, which is an element of the configuration space $$Q$$. The configuration space is different for different versions of pilot-wave theory. For example, this may be the space of positions $$\mathbf{Q}_k$$ of $$N$$ particles, or, in case of field theory, the space of field configurations $$\phi(x)$$. The configuration evolves (for spin=0) according to the guiding equation $$m_k \frac{d q^k}{dt}(t) = \hbar \nabla_k \operatorname{Im} \ln\psi(q,t) = \hbar \operatorname{Im}\left(\frac{\nabla_k \psi}{\psi}\right)(q, t) = \frac{m_k \mathbf{j}_k}{\psi^*\psi} = \operatorname{Re}\left(\frac{\mathbf{\hat P}_k\Psi}{\Psi}\right), $$ where $$\mathbf{j}$$ is the probability current or probability flux, and $$\mathbf{\hat P}$$ is the momentum operator. Here, $$\psi(q,t)$$ is the standard complex-valued wavefunction from quantum theory, which evolves according to Schrödinger's equation $$i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\psi(q,t) = - \sum_{i=1}^{N} \frac{\hbar^2}{2m_i} \nabla_i^2 \psi(q,t) + V(q)\psi(q,t).$$This completes the specification of the theory for any quantum theory with Hamilton operator of type $H =\sum \frac{1}{2m_i}\hat{p}_i^2 + V(\hat{q})$.
 * The configuration is distributed according to $$|\psi(q,t)|^2$$ at some moment of time $$t$$, and this consequently holds for all times. Such a state is named quantum equilibrium. With quantum equilibrium, this theory agrees with the results of standard quantum mechanics.

Even though this latter relation is frequently presented as an axiom of the theory, Bohm presented it as derivable from statistical-mechanical arguments in the original papers of 1952. This argument was further supported by the work of Bohm in 1953 and was substantiated by Vigier and Bohm's paper of 1954, in which they introduced stochastic fluid fluctuations that drive a process of asymptotic relaxation from quantum non-equilibrium to quantum equilibrium (ρ → |ψ|2).

Double-slit experiment

The double-slit experiment is an illustration of wave–particle duality. In it, a beam of particles (such as electrons) travels through a barrier that has two slits. If a detector screen is on the side beyond the barrier, the pattern of detected particles shows interference fringes characteristic of waves arriving at the screen from two sources (the two slits); however, the interference pattern is made up of individual dots corresponding to particles that had arrived on the screen. The system seems to exhibit the behaviour of both waves (interference patterns) and particles (dots on the screen).

If this experiment is modified so that one slit is closed, no interference pattern is observed. Thus, the state of both slits affects the final results. It can also be arranged to have a minimally invasive detector at one of the slits to detect which slit the particle went through. When that is done, the interference pattern disappears.

The Copenhagen interpretation states that the particles are not localised in space until they are detected, so that, if there is no detector on the slits, there is no information about which slit the particle has passed through. If one slit has a detector on it, then the wavefunction collapses due to that detection.

In de Broglie–Bohm theory, the wavefunction is defined at both slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory that passes through exactly one of the slits. The final position of the particle on the detector screen and the slit through which the particle passes is determined by the initial position of the particle. Such initial position is not knowable or controllable by the experimenter, so there is an appearance of randomness in the pattern of detection. In Bohm's 1952 papers he used the wavefunction to construct a quantum potential that, when included in Newton's equations, gave the trajectories of the particles streaming through the two slits. In effect the wavefunction interferes with itself and guides the particles by the quantum potential in such a way that the particles avoid the regions in which the interference is destructive and are attracted to the regions in which the interference is constructive, resulting in the interference pattern on the detector screen.

To explain the behavior when the particle is detected to go through one slit, one needs to appreciate the role of the conditional wavefunction and how it results in the collapse of the wavefunction; this is explained below. The basic idea is that the environment registering the detection effectively separates the two wave packets in configuration space.

The pilot wave
The de Broglie–Bohm theory describes a pilot wave $$\psi(q,t) \in \mathbb{C}$$ in a configuration space $$Q$$ and trajectories $$q(t) \in Q$$ of particles as in classical mechanics but defined by non-Newtonian mechanics. At every moment of time there exists not only a wavefunction, but also a well-defined configuration of the whole universe (i.e., the system as defined by the boundary conditions used in solving the Schrödinger equation).

The de Broglie–Bohm theory works on particle positions and trajectories like classical mechanics but the dynamics are different. In classical mechanics, the accelerations of the particles are imparted directly by forces, which exist in physical three-dimensional space. In de Broglie–Bohm theory, the quantum "field exerts a new kind of "quantum-mechanical" force". Bohm hypothesized that each particle has a "complex and subtle inner structure" that provides the capacity to react to the information provided by the wavefunction by the quantum potential. Also, unlike in classical mechanics, physical properties (e.g., mass, charge) are spread out over the wavefunction in de Broglie–Bohm theory, not localized at the position of the particle.

The wavefunction itself, and not the particles, determines the dynamical evolution of the system: the particles do not act back onto the wave function. As Bohm and Hiley worded it, "the Schrödinger equation for the quantum field does not have sources, nor does it have any other way by which the field could be directly affected by the condition of the particles [...] the quantum theory can be understood completely in terms of the assumption that the quantum field has no sources or other forms of dependence on the particles". P. Holland considers this lack of reciprocal action of particles and wave function to be one "[a]mong the many nonclassical properties exhibited by this theory". Holland later called this a merely apparent lack of back reaction, due to the incompleteness of the description.

In what follows below, the setup for one particle moving in $$\mathbb{R}^3$$ is given followed by the setup for N particles moving in 3 dimensions. In the first instance, configuration space and real space are the same, while in the second, real space is still $$\mathbb{R}^3$$, but configuration space becomes $$\mathbb{R}^{3N}$$. While the particle positions themselves are in real space, the velocity field and wavefunction are on configuration space, which is how particles are entangled with each other in this theory.

Extensions to this theory include spin and more complicated configuration spaces.

We use variations of $$\mathbf{Q}$$ for particle positions, while $$\psi$$ represents the complex-valued wavefunction on configuration space.

Guiding equation
For a spinless single particle moving in $$\mathbb{R}^3$$, the particle's velocity is

 * $$\frac{d\mathbf{Q}}{dt}(t) = \frac{\hbar}{m} \operatorname{Im}\left(\frac{\nabla \psi}{\psi}\right)(\mathbf{Q}, t).$$

For many particles labeled $$\mathbf{Q}_k$$ for the $$k$$-th particle their velocities are

 * $$\frac{d\mathbf{Q}_k}{dt}(t) = \frac{\hbar}{m_k} \operatorname{Im}\left(\frac{\nabla_k \psi}{\psi}\right)(\mathbf{Q}_1, \mathbf{Q}_2, \ldots, \mathbf{Q}_N, t).$$

The main fact to notice is that this velocity field depends on the actual positions of all of the $$N$$ particles in the universe. As explained below, in most experimental situations, the influence of all of those particles can be encapsulated into an effective wavefunction for a subsystem of the universe.

Schrödinger's equation
The one-particle Schrödinger equation governs the time evolution of a complex-valued wavefunction on $$\mathbb{R}^3$$. The equation represents a quantized version of the total energy of a classical system evolving under a real-valued potential function $$V$$ on $$\mathbb{R}^3$$:

 * $$i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\psi = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2\psi + V\psi.$$

For many particles, the equation is the same except that $$\psi$$ and $$V$$ are now on configuration space, $$\mathbb{R}^{3N}$$:

 * $$i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\psi = -\sum_{k=1}^{N}\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_k}\nabla_k^2\psi + V\psi.$$

This is the same wavefunction as in conventional quantum mechanics.

Relation to the Born rule
In Bohm's original papers, he discusses how de Broglie–Bohm theory results in the usual measurement results of quantum mechanics. The main idea is that this is true if the positions of the particles satisfy the statistical distribution given by $$|\psi|^2$$. And that distribution is guaranteed to be true for all time by the guiding equation if the initial distribution of the particles satisfies $$|\psi|^2$$.

For a given experiment, one can postulate this as being true and verify it experimentally. But, as argued by Dürr et al., one needs to argue that this distribution for subsystems is typical. The authors argue that $$|\psi|^2$$, by virtue of its equivariance under the dynamical evolution of the system, is the appropriate measure of typicality for initial conditions of the positions of the particles. The authors then prove that the vast majority of possible initial configurations will give rise to statistics obeying the Born rule (i.e., $$|\psi|^2$$) for measurement outcomes. In summary, in a universe governed by the de Broglie–Bohm dynamics, Born rule behavior is typical.

The situation is thus analogous to the situation in classical statistical physics. A low-entropy initial condition will, with overwhelmingly high probability, evolve into a higher-entropy state: behavior consistent with the second law of thermodynamics is typical. There are anomalous initial conditions that would give rise to violations of the second law; however in the absence of some very detailed evidence supporting the realization of one of those conditions, it would be quite unreasonable to expect anything but the actually observed uniform increase of entropy. Similarly in the de Broglie–Bohm theory, there are anomalous initial conditions that would produce measurement statistics in violation of the Born rule (conflicting the predictions of standard quantum theory), but the typicality theorem shows that absent some specific reason to believe one of those special initial conditions was in fact realized, the Born rule behavior is what one should expect.

It is in this qualified sense that the Born rule is, for the de Broglie–Bohm theory, a theorem rather than (as in ordinary quantum theory) an additional postulate.

It can also be shown that a distribution of particles which is not distributed according to the Born rule (that is, a distribution "out of quantum equilibrium") and evolving under the de Broglie–Bohm dynamics is overwhelmingly likely to evolve dynamically into a state distributed as $$|\psi|^2$$.

The conditional wavefunction of a subsystem
In the formulation of the de Broglie–Bohm theory, there is only a wavefunction for the entire universe (which always evolves by the Schrödinger equation). Here, the "universe" is simply the system limited by the same boundary conditions used to solve the Schrödinger equation. However, once the theory is formulated, it is convenient to introduce a notion of wavefunction also for subsystems of the universe. Let us write the wavefunction of the universe as $$\psi(t, q^\text{I}, q^\text{II})$$, where $$q^\text{I}$$ denotes the configuration variables associated to some subsystem (I) of the universe, and $$q^\text{II}$$ denotes the remaining configuration variables. Denote respectively by $$Q^\text{I}(t)$$ and $$Q^\text{II}(t)$$ the actual configuration of subsystem (I) and of the rest of the universe. For simplicity, we consider here only the spinless case. The conditional wavefunction of subsystem (I) is defined by

 * $$\psi^\text{I}(t, q^\text{I}) = \psi(t, q^\text{I}, Q^\text{II}(t)).$$

It follows immediately from the fact that $$Q(t) = (Q^\text{I}(t), Q^\text{II}(t))$$ satisfies the guiding equation that also the configuration $$Q^\text{I}(t)$$ satisfies a guiding equation identical to the one presented in the formulation of the theory, with the universal wavefunction $$\psi$$ replaced with the conditional wavefunction $$\psi^\text{I}$$. Also, the fact that $$Q(t)$$ is random with probability density given by the square modulus of $$\psi(t,\cdot)$$ implies that the conditional probability density of $$Q^\text{I}(t)$$ given $$Q^\text{II}(t)$$ is given by the square modulus of the (normalized) conditional wavefunction $$\psi^\text{I}(t,\cdot)$$ (in the terminology of Dürr et al. this fact is called the fundamental conditional probability formula).

Unlike the universal wavefunction, the conditional wavefunction of a subsystem does not always evolve by the Schrödinger equation, but in many situations it does. For instance, if the universal wavefunction factors as

 * $$\psi(t, q^\text{I} ,q^\text{II}) = \psi^\text{I}(t, q^\text{I}) \psi^\text{II}(t, q^\text{II}),$$

then the conditional wavefunction of subsystem (I) is (up to an irrelevant scalar factor) equal to $$\psi^\text{I}$$ (this is what standard quantum theory would regard as the wavefunction of subsystem (I)). If, in addition, the Hamiltonian does not contain an interaction term between subsystems (I) and (II), then $$\psi^\text{I}$$ does satisfy a Schrödinger equation. More generally, assume that the universal wave function $$\psi$$ can be written in the form

 * $$\psi(t, q^\text{I}, q^\text{II}) = \psi^\text{I}(t, q^\text{I}) \psi^\text{II}(t, q^\text{II}) + \phi(t, q^\text{I}, q^\text{II}),$$

where $$\phi$$ solves Schrödinger equation and, $$\phi(t, q^\text{I}, Q^\text{II}(t)) = 0$$ for all $$t$$ and $$q^\text{I}$$. Then, again, the conditional wavefunction of subsystem (I) is (up to an irrelevant scalar factor) equal to $$\psi^\text{I}$$, and if the Hamiltonian does not contain an interaction term between subsystems (I) and (II), then $$\psi^\text{I}$$ satisfies a Schrödinger equation.

The fact that the conditional wavefunction of a subsystem does not always evolve by the Schrödinger equation is related to the fact that the usual collapse rule of standard quantum theory emerges from the Bohmian formalism when one considers conditional wavefunctions of subsystems.

Relativity
Pilot-wave theory is explicitly nonlocal, which is in ostensible conflict with special relativity. Various extensions of "Bohm-like" mechanics exist that attempt to resolve this problem. Bohm himself in 1953 presented an extension of the theory satisfying the Dirac equation for a single particle. However, this was not extensible to the many-particle case because it used an absolute time.

A renewed interest in constructing Lorentz-invariant extensions of Bohmian theory arose in the 1990s; see Bohm and Hiley: The Undivided Universe and references therein. Another approach is given by Dürr et al., who use Bohm–Dirac models and a Lorentz-invariant foliation of space-time.

Thus, Dürr et al. (1999) showed that it is possible to formally restore Lorentz invariance for the Bohm–Dirac theory by introducing additional structure. This approach still requires a foliation of space-time. While this is in conflict with the standard interpretation of relativity, the preferred foliation, if unobservable, does not lead to any empirical conflicts with relativity. In 2013, Dürr et al. suggested that the required foliation could be covariantly determined by the wavefunction.

The relation between nonlocality and preferred foliation can be better understood as follows. In de Broglie–Bohm theory, nonlocality manifests as the fact that the velocity and acceleration of one particle depends on the instantaneous positions of all other particles. On the other hand, in the theory of relativity the concept of instantaneousness does not have an invariant meaning. Thus, to define particle trajectories, one needs an additional rule that defines which space-time points should be considered instantaneous. The simplest way to achieve this is to introduce a preferred foliation of space-time by hand, such that each hypersurface of the foliation defines a hypersurface of equal time.

Initially, it had been considered impossible to set out a description of photon trajectories in the de Broglie–Bohm theory in view of the difficulties of describing bosons relativistically. In 1996, Partha Ghose presented a relativistic quantum-mechanical description of spin-0 and spin-1 bosons starting from the Duffin–Kemmer–Petiau equation, setting out Bohmian trajectories for massive bosons and for massless bosons (and therefore photons). In 2001, Jean-Pierre Vigier emphasized the importance of deriving a well-defined description of light in terms of particle trajectories in the framework of either the Bohmian mechanics or the Nelson stochastic mechanics. The same year, Ghose worked out Bohmian photon trajectories for specific cases. Subsequent weak-measurement experiments yielded trajectories that coincide with the predicted trajectories. The significance of these experimental findings is controversial.

Chris Dewdney and G. Horton have proposed a relativistically covariant, wave-functional formulation of Bohm's quantum field theory and have extended it to a form that allows the inclusion of gravity.

Nikolić has proposed a Lorentz-covariant formulation of the Bohmian interpretation of many-particle wavefunctions. He has developed a generalized relativistic-invariant probabilistic interpretation of quantum theory, in which $$|\psi|^2$$ is no longer a probability density in space, but a probability density in space-time. He uses this generalized probabilistic interpretation to formulate a relativistic-covariant version of de Broglie–Bohm theory without introducing a preferred foliation of space-time. His work also covers the extension of the Bohmian interpretation to a quantization of fields and strings.

Roderick I. Sutherland at the University in Sydney has a Lagrangian formalism for the pilot wave and its beables. It draws on Yakir Aharonov's retrocasual weak measurements to explain many-particle entanglement in a special relativistic way without the need for configuration space. The basic idea was already published by Costa de Beauregard in the 1950s and is also used by John Cramer in his transactional interpretation except the beables that exist between the von Neumann strong projection operator measurements. Sutherland's Lagrangian includes two-way action-reaction between pilot wave and beables. Therefore, it is a post-quantum non-statistical theory with final boundary conditions that violate the no-signal theorems of quantum theory. Just as special relativity is a limiting case of general relativity when the spacetime curvature vanishes, so, too is statistical no-entanglement signaling quantum theory with the Born rule a limiting case of the post-quantum action-reaction Lagrangian when the reaction is set to zero and the final boundary condition is integrated out.

Spin
To incorporate spin, the wavefunction becomes complex-vector-valued. The value space is called spin space; for a spin-1/2 particle, spin space can be taken to be $$\Complex^2$$. The guiding equation is modified by taking inner products in spin space to reduce the complex vectors to complex numbers. The Schrödinger equation is modified by adding a Pauli spin term:

$$\begin{align} \frac{d\mathbf{Q}_k}{dt}(t) &= \frac{\hbar}{m_k} \operatorname{Im}\left(\frac{(\psi,D_k \psi)}{(\psi,\psi)}\right)(\mathbf{Q}_1, \ldots, \mathbf{Q}_N, t), \\ i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\psi &= \left(-\sum_{k=1}^{N}\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_k}D_k^2 + V - \sum_{k=1}^{N} \mu_k \frac{\mathbf{S}_k}{\hbar s_k} \cdot \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{q}_k)\right) \psi, \end{align}$$

where
 * $$m_k, e_k,\mu_k$$ — the mass, charge and magnetic moment of the $$k$$–th particle
 * $$\mathbf{S}_k$$ — the appropriate spin operator acting in the $$k$$–th particle's spin space
 * $$s_k$$ — spin quantum number of the $$k$$–th particle ($$s_k = 1/2$$ for electron)
 * $$\mathbf{A}$$ is vector potential in $$\R^{3}$$
 * $$\mathbf{B}=\nabla\times\mathbf{A}$$ is the magnetic field in $$\R^{3}$$
 * $D_k = \nabla_k - \frac{ie_k}{\hbar}\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{q}_k)$ is the covariant derivative, involving the vector potential, ascribed to the coordinates of $$k$$–th particle (in SI units)
 * $$\psi$$ — the wavefunction defined on the multidimensional configuration space; e.g. a system consisting of two spin-1/2 particles and one spin-1 particle has a wavefunction of the form $$\psi: \R^9 \times \R \to \Complex^2 \otimes \Complex^2 \otimes \Complex^3,$$ where $$\otimes$$ is a tensor product, so this spin space is 12-dimensional
 * $$(\cdot,\cdot)$$ is the inner product in spin space $$\Complex^d$$: $$(\phi, \psi) = \sum_{s=1}^d \phi_s^* \psi_s.$$

Stochastic electrodynamics
Stochastic electrodynamics (SED) is an extension of the de Broglie–Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics, with the electromagnetic zero-point field (ZPF) playing a central role as the guiding pilot-wave. Modern approaches to SED, like those proposed by the group around late Gerhard Grössing, among others, consider wave and particle-like quantum effects as well-coordinated emergent systems. These emergent systems are the result of speculated and calculated sub-quantum interactions with the zero-point field.

Quantum field theory
In Dürr et al., the authors describe an extension of de Broglie–Bohm theory for handling creation and annihilation operators, which they refer to as "Bell-type quantum field theories". The basic idea is that configuration space becomes the (disjoint) space of all possible configurations of any number of particles. For part of the time, the system evolves deterministically under the guiding equation with a fixed number of particles. But under a stochastic process, particles may be created and annihilated. The distribution of creation events is dictated by the wavefunction. The wavefunction itself is evolving at all times over the full multi-particle configuration space.

Hrvoje Nikolić introduces a purely deterministic de Broglie–Bohm theory of particle creation and destruction, according to which particle trajectories are continuous, but particle detectors behave as if particles have been created or destroyed even when a true creation or destruction of particles does not take place.

Curved space
To extend de Broglie–Bohm theory to curved space (Riemannian manifolds in mathematical parlance), one simply notes that all of the elements of these equations make sense, such as gradients and Laplacians. Thus, we use equations that have the same form as above. Topological and boundary conditions may apply in supplementing the evolution of Schrödinger's equation.

For a de Broglie–Bohm theory on curved space with spin, the spin space becomes a vector bundle over configuration space, and the potential in Schrödinger's equation becomes a local self-adjoint operator acting on that space. The field equations for the de Broglie–Bohm theory in the relativistic case with spin can also be given for curved space-times with torsion.

In a general spacetime with curvature and torsion, the guiding equation for the four-velocity $$u^i$$ of an elementary fermion particle is$$u^i=\frac{e^i_\mu \bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu \psi}{\bar{\psi}\psi}, $$where the wave function $$\psi$$ is a spinor, $$\bar{\psi}$$ is the corresponding adjoint, $$\gamma^\mu$$ are the Dirac matrices, and $$e^i_\mu$$ is a tetrad. If the wave function propagates according to the curved Dirac equation, then the particle moves according to the Mathisson-Papapetrou equations of motion, which are an extension of the geodesic equation. This relativistic wave-particle duality follows from the conservation laws for the spin tensor and energy-momentum tensor, and also from the covariant Heisenberg picture equation of motion.

Exploiting nonlocality
De Broglie and Bohm's causal interpretation of quantum mechanics was later extended by Bohm, Vigier, Hiley, Valentini and others to include stochastic properties. Bohm and other physicists, including Valentini, view the Born rule linking $$R$$ to the probability density function $$\rho = R^2$$ as representing not a basic law, but a result of a system having reached quantum equilibrium during the course of the time development under the Schrödinger equation. It can be shown that, once an equilibrium has been reached, the system remains in such equilibrium over the course of its further evolution: this follows from the continuity equation associated with the Schrödinger evolution of $$\psi$$. It is less straightforward to demonstrate whether and how such an equilibrium is reached in the first place.

Antony Valentini has extended de Broglie–Bohm theory to include signal nonlocality that would allow entanglement to be used as a stand-alone communication channel without a secondary classical "key" signal to "unlock" the message encoded in the entanglement. This violates orthodox quantum theory but has the virtue of making the parallel universes of the chaotic inflation theory observable in principle.

Unlike de Broglie–Bohm theory, Valentini's theory the wavefunction evolution also depends on the ontological variables. This introduces an instability, a feedback loop that pushes the hidden variables out of "sub-quantal heat death". The resulting theory becomes nonlinear and non-unitary. Valentini argues that the laws of quantum mechanics are emergent and form a "quantum equilibrium" that is analogous to thermal equilibrium in classical dynamics, such that other "quantum non-equilibrium" distributions may in principle be observed and exploited, for which the statistical predictions of quantum theory are violated. It is controversially argued that quantum theory is merely a special case of a much wider nonlinear physics, a physics in which non-local (superluminal) signalling is possible, and in which the uncertainty principle can be violated.

Results
Below are some highlights of the results that arise out of an analysis of de Broglie–Bohm theory. Experimental results agree with all of quantum mechanics' standard predictions insofar as it has them. But while standard quantum mechanics is limited to discussing the results of "measurements", de Broglie–Bohm theory governs the dynamics of a system without the intervention of outside observers (p. 117 in Bell ).

The basis for agreement with standard quantum mechanics is that the particles are distributed according to $$|\psi|^2$$. This is a statement of observer ignorance: the initial positions are represented by a statistical distribution so deterministic trajectories will result in a statistical distribution.

Measuring spin and polarization
According to ordinary quantum theory, it is not possible to measure the spin or polarization of a particle directly; instead, the component in one direction is measured; the outcome from a single particle may be 1, meaning that the particle is aligned with the measuring apparatus, or −1, meaning that it is aligned the opposite way. An ensemble of particles prepared by a polarizer to be in state 1 will all measure polarized in state 1 in a subsequent apparatus. A polarized ensemble sent through a polarizer set at angle to the first pass will result in some values of 1 and some of −1 with a probability that depends on the relative alignment. For a full explanation of this, see the Stern–Gerlach experiment.

In de Broglie–Bohm theory, the results of a spin experiment cannot be analyzed without some knowledge of the experimental setup. It is possible to modify the setup so that the trajectory of the particle is unaffected, but that the particle with one setup registers as spin-up, while in the other setup it registers as spin-down. Thus, for the de Broglie–Bohm theory, the particle's spin is not an intrinsic property of the particle; instead spin is, so to speak, in the wavefunction of the particle in relation to the particular device being used to measure the spin. This is an illustration of what is sometimes referred to as contextuality and is related to naive realism about operators. Interpretationally, measurement results are a deterministic property of the system and its environment, which includes information about the experimental setup including the context of co-measured observables; in no sense does the system itself possess the property being measured, as would have been the case in classical physics.

Measurements, the quantum formalism, and observer independence
De Broglie–Bohm theory gives the same results as (non-relativisitic) quantum mechanics. It treats the wavefunction as a fundamental object in the theory, as the wavefunction describes how the particles move. This means that no experiment can distinguish between the two theories. This section outlines the ideas as to how the standard quantum formalism arises out of quantum mechanics.

Collapse of the wavefunction
De Broglie–Bohm theory is a theory that applies primarily to the whole universe. That is, there is a single wavefunction governing the motion of all of the particles in the universe according to the guiding equation. Theoretically, the motion of one particle depends on the positions of all of the other particles in the universe. In some situations, such as in experimental systems, we can represent the system itself in terms of a de Broglie–Bohm theory in which the wavefunction of the system is obtained by conditioning on the environment of the system. Thus, the system can be analyzed with Schrödinger's equation and the guiding equation, with an initial $$|\psi|^2$$ distribution for the particles in the system (see the section on the conditional wavefunction of a subsystem for details).

It requires a special setup for the conditional wavefunction of a system to obey a quantum evolution. When a system interacts with its environment, such as through a measurement, the conditional wavefunction of the system evolves in a different way. The evolution of the universal wavefunction can become such that the wavefunction of the system appears to be in a superposition of distinct states. But if the environment has recorded the results of the experiment, then using the actual Bohmian configuration of the environment to condition on, the conditional wavefunction collapses to just one alternative, the one corresponding with the measurement results.

Collapse of the universal wavefunction never occurs in de Broglie–Bohm theory. Its entire evolution is governed by Schrödinger's equation, and the particles' evolutions are governed by the guiding equation. Collapse only occurs in a phenomenological way for systems that seem to follow their own Schrödinger's equation. As this is an effective description of the system, it is a matter of choice as to what to define the experimental system to include, and this will affect when "collapse" occurs.

Operators as observables
In the standard quantum formalism, measuring observables is generally thought of as measuring operators on the Hilbert space. For example, measuring position is considered to be a measurement of the position operator. This relationship between physical measurements and Hilbert space operators is, for standard quantum mechanics, an additional axiom of the theory. The de Broglie–Bohm theory, by contrast, requires no such measurement axioms (and measurement as such is not a dynamically distinct or special sub-category of physical processes in the theory). In particular, the usual operators-as-observables formalism is, for de Broglie–Bohm theory, a theorem. A major point of the analysis is that many of the measurements of the observables do not correspond to properties of the particles; they are (as in the case of spin discussed above) measurements of the wavefunction.

In the history of de Broglie–Bohm theory, the proponents have often had to deal with claims that this theory is impossible. Such arguments are generally based on inappropriate analysis of operators as observables. If one believes that spin measurements are indeed measuring the spin of a particle that existed prior to the measurement, then one does reach contradictions. De Broglie–Bohm theory deals with this by noting that spin is not a feature of the particle, but rather that of the wavefunction. As such, it only has a definite outcome once the experimental apparatus is chosen. Once that is taken into account, the impossibility theorems become irrelevant.

There have also been claims that experiments reject the Bohm trajectories in favor of the standard QM lines. But as shown in other work, such experiments cited above only disprove a misinterpretation of the de Broglie–Bohm theory, not the theory itself.

There are also objections to this theory based on what it says about particular situations usually involving eigenstates of an operator. For example, the ground state of hydrogen is a real wavefunction. According to the guiding equation, this means that the electron is at rest when in this state. Nevertheless, it is distributed according to $$|\psi|^2$$, and no contradiction to experimental results is possible to detect.

Operators as observables leads many to believe that many operators are equivalent. De Broglie–Bohm theory, from this perspective, chooses the position observable as a favored observable rather than, say, the momentum observable. Again, the link to the position observable is a consequence of the dynamics. The motivation for de Broglie–Bohm theory is to describe a system of particles. This implies that the goal of the theory is to describe the positions of those particles at all times. Other observables do not have this compelling ontological status. Having definite positions explains having definite results such as flashes on a detector screen. Other observables would not lead to that conclusion, but there need not be any problem in defining a mathematical theory for other observables; see Hyman et al. for an exploration of the fact that a probability density and probability current can be defined for any set of commuting operators.

Hidden variables
De Broglie–Bohm theory is often referred to as a "hidden-variable" theory. Bohm used this description in his original papers on the subject, writing: "From the point of view of the usual interpretation, these additional elements or parameters [permitting a detailed causal and continuous description of all processes] could be called 'hidden' variables." Bohm and Hiley later stated that they found Bohm's choice of the term "hidden variables" to be too restrictive. In particular, they argued that a particle is not actually hidden but rather "is what is most directly manifested in an observation [though] its properties cannot be observed with arbitrary precision (within the limits set by uncertainty principle)". However, others nevertheless treat the term "hidden variable" as a suitable description.

Generalized particle trajectories can be extrapolated from numerous weak measurements on an ensemble of equally prepared systems, and such trajectories coincide with the de Broglie–Bohm trajectories. In particular, an experiment with two entangled photons, in which a set of Bohmian trajectories for one of the photons was determined using weak measurements and postselection, can be understood in terms of a nonlocal connection between that photon's trajectory and the other photon's polarization. However, not only the De Broglie–Bohm interpretation, but also many other interpretations of quantum mechanics that do not include such trajectories are consistent with such experimental evidence.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
The Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that when two complementary measurements are made, there is a limit to the product of their accuracy. As an example, if one measures the position with an accuracy of $$\Delta x$$ and the momentum with an accuracy of $$\Delta p$$, then $$\Delta x \Delta p \gtrsim h.$$

In de Broglie–Bohm theory, there is always a matter of fact about the position and momentum of a particle. Each particle has a well-defined trajectory, as well as a wavefunction. Observers have limited knowledge as to what this trajectory is (and thus of the position and momentum). It is the lack of knowledge of the particle's trajectory that accounts for the uncertainty relation. What one can know about a particle at any given time is described by the wavefunction. Since the uncertainty relation can be derived from the wavefunction in other interpretations of quantum mechanics, it can be likewise derived (in the epistemic sense mentioned above) on the de Broglie–Bohm theory.

To put the statement differently, the particles' positions are only known statistically. As in classical mechanics, successive observations of the particles' positions refine the experimenter's knowledge of the particles' initial conditions. Thus, with succeeding observations, the initial conditions become more and more restricted. This formalism is consistent with the normal use of the Schrödinger equation.

For the derivation of the uncertainty relation, see Heisenberg uncertainty principle, noting that this article describes the principle from the viewpoint of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Quantum entanglement, Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox, Bell's theorem, and nonlocality
De Broglie–Bohm theory highlighted the issue of nonlocality: it inspired John Stewart Bell to prove his now-famous theorem, which in turn led to the Bell test experiments.

In the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox, the authors describe a thought experiment that one could perform on a pair of particles that have interacted, the results of which they interpreted as indicating that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory.

Decades later John Bell proved Bell's theorem (see p. 14 in Bell ), in which he showed that, if they are to agree with the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics, all such "hidden-variable" completions of quantum mechanics must either be nonlocal (as the Bohm interpretation is) or give up the assumption that experiments produce unique results (see counterfactual definiteness and many-worlds interpretation). In particular, Bell proved that any local theory with unique results must make empirical predictions satisfying a statistical constraint called "Bell's inequality".

Alain Aspect performed a series of Bell test experiments that test Bell's inequality using an EPR-type setup. Aspect's results show experimentally that Bell's inequality is in fact violated, meaning that the relevant quantum-mechanical predictions are correct. In these Bell test experiments, entangled pairs of particles are created; the particles are separated, traveling to remote measuring apparatus. The orientation of the measuring apparatus can be changed while the particles are in flight, demonstrating the apparent nonlocality of the effect.

The de Broglie–Bohm theory makes the same (empirically correct) predictions for the Bell test experiments as ordinary quantum mechanics. It is able to do this because it is manifestly nonlocal. It is often criticized or rejected based on this; Bell's attitude was: "It is a merit of the de Broglie–Bohm version to bring this [nonlocality] out so explicitly that it cannot be ignored."

The de Broglie–Bohm theory describes the physics in the Bell test experiments as follows: to understand the evolution of the particles, we need to set up a wave equation for both particles; the orientation of the apparatus affects the wavefunction. The particles in the experiment follow the guidance of the wavefunction. It is the wavefunction that carries the faster-than-light effect of changing the orientation of the apparatus. Maudlin provides an analysis of exactly what kind of nonlocality is present and how it is compatible with relativity. Bell has shown that the nonlocality does not allow superluminal communication. Maudlin has shown this in greater detail.

Classical limit
Bohm's formulation of de Broglie–Bohm theory in a classical-looking version has the merits that the emergence of classical behavior seems to follow immediately for any situation in which the quantum potential is negligible, as noted by Bohm in 1952. Modern methods of decoherence are relevant to an analysis of this limit. See Allori et al. for steps towards a rigorous analysis.

Quantum trajectory method
Work by Robert E. Wyatt in the early 2000s attempted to use the Bohm "particles" as an adaptive mesh that follows the actual trajectory of a quantum state in time and space. In the "quantum trajectory" method, one samples the quantum wavefunction with a mesh of quadrature points. One then evolves the quadrature points in time according to the Bohm equations of motion. At each time step, one then re-synthesizes the wavefunction from the points, recomputes the quantum forces, and continues the calculation. (QuickTime movies of this for H + H2 reactive scattering can be found on the Wyatt group web-site at UT Austin.) This approach has been adapted, extended, and used by a number of researchers in the chemical physics community as a way to compute semi-classical and quasi-classical molecular dynamics. A 2007 issue of The Journal of Physical Chemistry A was dedicated to Prof. Wyatt and his work on "computational Bohmian dynamics".

Eric R. Bittner's group at the University of Houston has advanced a statistical variant of this approach that uses Bayesian sampling technique to sample the quantum density and compute the quantum potential on a structureless mesh of points. This technique was recently used to estimate quantum effects in the heat capacity of small clusters Nen for n ≈ 100.

There remain difficulties using the Bohmian approach, mostly associated with the formation of singularities in the quantum potential due to nodes in the quantum wavefunction. In general, nodes forming due to interference effects lead to the case where $$R^{-1}\nabla^2R \to \infty.$$ This results in an infinite force on the sample particles forcing them to move away from the node and often crossing the path of other sample points (which violates single-valuedness). Various schemes have been developed to overcome this; however, no general solution has yet emerged.

These methods, as does Bohm's Hamilton–Jacobi formulation, do not apply to situations in which the full dynamics of spin need to be taken into account.

The properties of trajectories in the de Broglie–Bohm theory differ significantly from the Moyal quantum trajectories as well as the quantum trajectories from the unraveling of an open quantum system.

Similarities with the many-worlds interpretation
Kim Joris Boström has proposed a non-relativistic quantum mechanical theory that combines elements of de Broglie-Bohm mechanics and Everett's many-worlds. In particular, the unreal many-worlds interpretation of Hawking and Weinberg is similar to the Bohmian concept of unreal empty branch worlds:

"The second issue with Bohmian mechanics may, at first sight, appear rather harmless, but which on a closer look develops considerable destructive power: the issue of empty branches. These are the components of the post-measurement state that do not guide any particles because they do not have the actual configuration q in their support. At first sight, the empty branches do not appear problematic but on the contrary very helpful as they enable the theory to explain unique outcomes of measurements. Also, they seem to explain why there is an effective 'collapse of the wavefunction', as in ordinary quantum mechanics. On a closer view, though, one must admit that these empty branches do not actually disappear. As the wavefunction is taken to describe a really existing field, all their branches really exist and will evolve forever by the Schrödinger dynamics, no matter how many of them will become empty in the course of the evolution. Every branch of the global wavefunction potentially describes a complete world which is, according to Bohm's ontology, only a possible world that would be the actual world if only it were filled with particles, and which is in every respect identical to a corresponding world in Everett's theory. Only one branch at a time is occupied by particles, thereby representing the actual world, while all other branches, though really existing as part of a really existing wavefunction, are empty and thus contain some sort of 'zombie worlds' with planets, oceans, trees, cities, cars and people who talk like us and behave like us, but who do not actually exist. Now, if the Everettian theory may be accused of ontological extravagance, then Bohmian mechanics could be accused of ontological wastefulness. On top of the ontology of empty branches comes the additional ontology of particle positions that are, on account of the quantum equilibrium hypothesis, forever unknown to the observer. Yet, the actual configuration is never needed for the calculation of the statistical predictions in experimental reality, for these can be obtained by mere wavefunction algebra. From this perspective, Bohmian mechanics may appear as a wasteful and redundant theory. I think it is considerations like these that are the biggest obstacle in the way of a general acceptance of Bohmian mechanics."

Many authors have expressed critical views of de Broglie–Bohm theory by comparing it to Everett's many-worlds approach. Many (but not all) proponents of de Broglie–Bohm theory (such as Bohm and Bell) interpret the universal wavefunction as physically real. According to some supporters of Everett's theory, if the (never collapsing) wavefunction is taken to be physically real, then it is natural to interpret the theory as having the same many worlds as Everett's theory. In the Everettian view the role of the Bohmian particle is to act as a "pointer", tagging, or selecting, just one branch of the universal wavefunction (the assumption that this branch indicates which wave packet determines the observed result of a given experiment is called the "result assumption" ); the other branches are designated "empty" and implicitly assumed by Bohm to be devoid of conscious observers. H. Dieter Zeh comments on these "empty" branches: It is usually overlooked that Bohm's theory contains the same "many worlds" of dynamically separate branches as the Everett interpretation (now regarded as "empty" wave components), since it is based on precisely the same ... global wave function ... David Deutsch has expressed the same point more "acerbically": Pilot-wave theories are parallel-universe theories in a state of chronic denial.

This conclusion has been challenged by Detlef Dürr and Justin Lazarovici: "The Bohmian, of course, cannot accept this argument. For her, it is decidedly the particle configuration in three-dimensional space and not the wave function on the abstract configuration space that constitutes a world (or rather, the world). Instead, she will accuse the Everettian of not having local beables (in Bell's sense) in her theory, that is, the ontological variables that refer to localized entities in three-dimensional space or four-dimensional spacetime. The many worlds of her theory thus merely appear as a grotesque consequence of this omission."

Occam's-razor criticism
Both Hugh Everett III and Bohm treated the wavefunction as a physically real field. Everett's many-worlds interpretation is an attempt to demonstrate that the wavefunction alone is sufficient to account for all our observations. When we see the particle detectors flash or hear the click of a Geiger counter, Everett's theory interprets this as our wavefunction responding to changes in the detector's wavefunction, which is responding in turn to the passage of another wavefunction (which we think of as a "particle", but is actually just another wave packet). No particle (in the Bohm sense of having a defined position and velocity) exists according to that theory. For this reason Everett sometimes referred to his own many-worlds approach as the "pure wave theory". Of Bohm's 1952 approach, Everett said: Our main criticism of this view is on the grounds of simplicity – if one desires to hold the view that $\psi$ is a real field, then the associated particle is superfluous, since, as we have endeavored to illustrate, the pure wave theory is itself satisfactory.

In the Everettian view, then, the Bohm particles are superfluous entities, similar to, and equally as unnecessary as, for example, the luminiferous ether, which was found to be unnecessary in special relativity. This argument is sometimes called the "redundancy argument", since the superfluous particles are redundant in the sense of Occam's razor.

According to Brown & Wallace, the de Broglie–Bohm particles play no role in the solution of the measurement problem. For these authors, the "result assumption" (see above) is inconsistent with the view that there is no measurement problem in the predictable outcome (i.e. single-outcome) case. They also say that a standard tacit assumption of de Broglie–Bohm theory (that an observer becomes aware of configurations of particles of ordinary objects by means of correlations between such configurations and the configuration of the particles in the observer's brain) is unreasonable. This conclusion has been challenged by Valentini, who argues that the entirety of such objections arises from a failure to interpret de Broglie–Bohm theory on its own terms.

According to Peter R. Holland, in a wider Hamiltonian framework, theories can be formulated in which particles do act back on the wave function.

Derivations
De Broglie–Bohm theory has been derived many times and in many ways. Below are six derivations, all of which are very different and lead to different ways of understanding and extending this theory.
 * Schrödinger's equation can be derived by using Einstein's light quanta hypothesis: $$E = \hbar \omega$$ and de Broglie's hypothesis: $$\mathbf{p} = \hbar \mathbf{k}$$.
 * The guiding equation can be derived in a similar fashion. We assume a plane wave: $$\psi(\mathbf{x}, t) = A e^{i(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{x} - \omega t)}$$. Notice that $$i\mathbf{k} = \nabla\psi/\psi$$. Assuming that $$\mathbf{p} = m \mathbf{v}$$ for the particle's actual velocity, we have that $$\mathbf{v} = \frac{\hbar}{m} \operatorname{Im}\left(\frac{\nabla\psi}{\psi}\right)$$. Thus, we have the guiding equation.
 * Notice that this derivation does not use Schrödinger's equation.

 * Preserving the density under the time evolution is another method of derivation. This is the method that Bell cites. It is this method that generalizes to many possible alternative theories. The starting point is the continuity equation $$-\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t} = \nabla \cdot (\rho v^\psi)$$ for the density $$\rho = |\psi|^2$$. This equation describes a probability flow along a current. We take the velocity field associated with this current as the velocity field whose integral curves yield the motion of the particle.
 * A method applicable for particles without spin is to do a polar decomposition of the wavefunction and transform Schrödinger's equation into two coupled equations: the continuity equation from above and the Hamilton–Jacobi equation. This is the method used by Bohm in 1952. The decomposition and equations are as follows:

 * Decomposition: $$\psi(\mathbf{x}, t) = R(\mathbf{x}, t) e^{i S(\mathbf{x}, t) / \hbar}.$$ Note that $$R^2(\mathbf{x}, t)$$ corresponds to the probability density $$\rho(\mathbf{x}, t) = |\psi(\mathbf{x}, t)|^2$$.

 * Continuity equation: $$-\frac{\partial\rho(\mathbf{x}, t)}{\partial t} = \nabla \cdot \left(\rho(\mathbf{x}, t) \frac{\nabla S(\mathbf{x}, t)}{m}\right)$$.

 * Hamilton–Jacobi equation: $$\frac{\partial S(\mathbf{x}, t)}{\partial t} = -\left[\frac{1}{2m}(\nabla S(\mathbf{x}, t))^2 + V - \frac{\hbar ^2}{2m} \frac{\nabla^2R(\mathbf{x}, t)}{R(\mathbf{x}, t)}\right].$$

 * The Hamilton–Jacobi equation is the equation derived from a Newtonian system with potential $$V - \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\nabla^2 R}{R}$$ and velocity field $$\frac{\nabla S}{m}.$$ The potential $$V$$ is the classical potential that appears in Schrödinger's equation, and the other term involving $$R$$ is the quantum potential, terminology introduced by Bohm.

 * This leads to viewing the quantum theory as particles moving under the classical force modified by a quantum force. However, unlike standard Newtonian mechanics, the initial velocity field is already specified by $$\frac{\nabla S}{m}$$, which is a symptom of this being a first-order theory, not a second-order theory.

 * A fourth derivation was given by Dürr et al. In their derivation, they derive the velocity field by demanding the appropriate transformation properties given by the various symmetries that Schrödinger's equation satisfies, once the wavefunction is suitably transformed. The guiding equation is what emerges from that analysis.
 * A fifth derivation, given by Dürr et al. is appropriate for generalization to quantum field theory and the Dirac equation. The idea is that a velocity field can also be understood as a first-order differential operator acting on functions. Thus, if we know how it acts on functions, we know what it is. Then given the Hamiltonian operator $$H$$, the equation to satisfy for all functions $$f$$ (with associated multiplication operator $$\hat{f}$$) is $$(v(f))(q) = \operatorname{Re}\frac{\left(\psi, \frac{i}{\hbar} [H, \hat f] \psi\right)}{(\psi, \psi)}(q)$$, where $$(v, w)$$ is the local Hermitian inner product on the value space of the wavefunction.

 * This formulation allows for stochastic theories such as the creation and annihilation of particles.

 * A further derivation has been given by Peter R. Holland, on which he bases his quantum-physics textbook The Quantum Theory of Motion. It is based on three basic postulates and an additional fourth postulate that links the wavefunction to measurement probabilities:
 * A physical system consists in a spatiotemporally propagating wave and a point particle guided by it.
 * The wave is described mathematically by a solution $$\psi$$ to Schrödinger's wave equation.
 * The particle motion is described by a solution to $$\mathbf{\dot x}(t) = [\nabla S (\mathbf{x}(t), t))]/m$$ in dependence on initial condition $$\mathbf{x}(t = 0)$$, with $$S$$ the phase of $$\psi$$.The fourth postulate is subsidiary yet consistent with the first three:
 * The probability $$\rho(\mathbf{x}(t))$$ to find the particle in the differential volume $$d^3 x$$ at time t equals $$|\psi(\mathbf{x}(t))|^2$$.

History
The theory was historically developed in the 1920s by de Broglie, who, in 1927, was persuaded to abandon it in favour of the then-mainstream Copenhagen interpretation. David Bohm, dissatisfied with the prevailing orthodoxy, rediscovered de Broglie's pilot-wave theory in 1952. Bohm's suggestions were not then widely received, partly due to reasons unrelated to their content, such as Bohm's youthful communist affiliations. The de Broglie–Bohm theory was widely deemed unacceptable by mainstream theorists, mostly because of its explicit non-locality. On the theory, John Stewart Bell, author of the 1964 Bell's theorem wrote in 1982: "Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the 'observer', could be eliminated. ...But why then had Born not told me of this 'pilot wave'? If only to point out what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it? More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing 'impossibility' proofs, after 1952, and as recently as 1978?... Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice?"

Since the 1990s, there has been renewed interest in formulating extensions to de Broglie–Bohm theory, attempting to reconcile it with special relativity and quantum field theory, besides other features such as spin or curved spatial geometries.

De Broglie–Bohm theory has a history of different formulations and names. In this section, each stage is given a name and a main reference.

Pilot-wave theory
Louis de Broglie presented his pilot wave theory at the 1927 Solvay Conference, after close collaboration with Schrödinger, who developed his wave equation for de Broglie's theory. At the end of the presentation, Wolfgang Pauli pointed out that it was not compatible with a semi-classical technique Fermi had previously adopted in the case of inelastic scattering. Contrary to a popular legend, de Broglie actually gave the correct rebuttal that the particular technique could not be generalized for Pauli's purpose, although the audience might have been lost in the technical details and de Broglie's mild manner left the impression that Pauli's objection was valid. He was eventually persuaded to abandon this theory nonetheless because he was "discouraged by criticisms which [it] roused". De Broglie's theory already applies to multiple spin-less particles, but lacks an adequate theory of measurement as no one understood quantum decoherence at the time. An analysis of de Broglie's presentation is given in Bacciagaluppi et al. Also, in 1932 John von Neumann published a paper, that was widely (and erroneously, as shown by Jeffrey Bub ) believed to prove that all hidden-variable theories are impossible. This sealed the fate of de Broglie's theory for the next two decades.

In 1926, Erwin Madelung had developed a hydrodynamic version of Schrödinger's equation, which is incorrectly considered as a basis for the density current derivation of the de Broglie–Bohm theory. The Madelung equations, being quantum Euler equations (fluid dynamics), differ philosophically from the de Broglie–Bohm mechanics and are the basis of the stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Peter R. Holland has pointed out that, earlier in 1927, Einstein had actually submitted a preprint with a similar proposal but, not convinced, had withdrawn it before publication. According to Holland, failure to appreciate key points of the de Broglie–Bohm theory has led to confusion, the key point being "that the trajectories of a many-body quantum system are correlated not because the particles exert a direct force on one another (à la Coulomb) but because all are acted upon by an entity – mathematically described by the wavefunction or functions of it – that lies beyond them". This entity is the quantum potential.

After publishing a popular textbook on Quantum Mechanics that adhered entirely to the Copenhagen orthodoxy, Bohm was persuaded by Einstein to take a critical look at von Neumann's theorem. The result was 'A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden Variables" I and II' [Bohm 1952]. It was an independent origination of the pilot wave theory, and extended it to incorporate a consistent theory of measurement, and to address a criticism of Pauli that de Broglie did not properly respond to; it is taken to be deterministic (though Bohm hinted in the original papers that there should be disturbances to this, in the way Brownian motion disturbs Newtonian mechanics). This stage is known as the de Broglie–Bohm Theory in Bell's work [Bell 1987] and is the basis for 'The Quantum Theory of Motion' [Holland 1993].

This stage applies to multiple particles, and is deterministic.

The de Broglie–Bohm theory is an example of a hidden-variables theory. Bohm originally hoped that hidden variables could provide a local, causal, objective description that would resolve or eliminate many of the paradoxes of quantum mechanics, such as Schrödinger's cat, the measurement problem and the collapse of the wavefunction. However, Bell's theorem complicates this hope, as it demonstrates that there can be no local hidden-variable theory that is compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. The Bohmian interpretation is causal but not local.

Bohm's paper was largely ignored or panned by other physicists. Albert Einstein, who had suggested that Bohm search for a realist alternative to the prevailing Copenhagen approach, did not consider Bohm's interpretation to be a satisfactory answer to the quantum nonlocality question, calling it "too cheap", while Werner Heisenberg considered it a "superfluous 'ideological superstructure' ". Wolfgang Pauli, who had been unconvinced by de Broglie in 1927, conceded to Bohm as follows:

"I just received your long letter of 20th November, and I also have studied more thoroughly the details of your paper. I do not see any longer the possibility of any logical contradiction as long as your results agree completely with those of the usual wave mechanics and as long as no means is given to measure the values of your hidden parameters both in the measuring apparatus and in the observe [sic] system. As far as the whole matter stands now, your 'extra wave-mechanical predictions' are still a check, which cannot be cashed."

He subsequently described Bohm's theory as "artificial metaphysics".

According to physicist Max Dresden, when Bohm's theory was presented at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, many of the objections were ad hominem, focusing on Bohm's sympathy with communists as exemplified by his refusal to give testimony to the House Un-American Activities Committee.

In 1979, Chris Philippidis, Chris Dewdney and Basil Hiley were the first to perform numeric computations on the basis of the quantum potential to deduce ensembles of particle trajectories. Their work renewed the interests of physicists in the Bohm interpretation of quantum physics.

Eventually John Bell began to defend the theory. In "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" [Bell 1987], several of the papers refer to hidden-variables theories (which include Bohm's).

The trajectories of the Bohm model that would result for particular experimental arrangements were termed "surreal" by some. Still in 2016, mathematical physicist Sheldon Goldstein said of Bohm's theory: "There was a time when you couldn't even talk about it because it was heretical. It probably still is the kiss of death for a physics career to be actually working on Bohm, but maybe that's changing."

Bohmian mechanics
Bohmian mechanics is the same theory, but with an emphasis on the notion of current flow, which is determined on the basis of the quantum equilibrium hypothesis that the probability follows the Born rule. The term "Bohmian mechanics" is also often used to include most of the further extensions past the spin-less version of Bohm. While de Broglie–Bohm theory has Lagrangians and Hamilton-Jacobi equations as a primary focus and backdrop, with the icon of the quantum potential, Bohmian mechanics considers the continuity equation as primary and has the guiding equation as its icon. They are mathematically equivalent in so far as the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation applies, i.e., spin-less particles.

All of non-relativistic quantum mechanics can be fully accounted for in this theory. Recent studies have used this formalism to compute the evolution of many-body quantum systems, with a considerable increase in speed as compared to other quantum-based methods.

Causal interpretation and ontological interpretation
Bohm developed his original ideas, calling them the Causal Interpretation. Later he felt that causal sounded too much like deterministic and preferred to call his theory the Ontological Interpretation. The main reference is "The Undivided Universe" (Bohm, Hiley 1993).

This stage covers work by Bohm and in collaboration with Jean-Pierre Vigier and Basil Hiley. Bohm is clear that this theory is non-deterministic (the work with Hiley includes a stochastic theory). As such, this theory is not strictly speaking a formulation of de Broglie–Bohm theory, but it deserves mention here because the term "Bohm Interpretation" is ambiguous between this theory and de Broglie–Bohm theory.

In 1996 philosopher of science Arthur Fine gave an in-depth analysis of possible interpretations of Bohm's model of 1952.

William Simpson has suggested a hylomorphic interpretation of Bohmian mechanics, in which the cosmos is an Aristotelian substance composed of material particles and a substantial form. The wave function is assigned a dispositional role in choreographing the trajectories of the particles.

Hydrodynamic quantum analogs
Experiments on hydrodynamical analogs of quantum mechanics beginning with the work of Couder and Fort (2006) have purported to show that macroscopic classical pilot-waves can exhibit characteristics previously thought to be restricted to the quantum realm. Hydrodynamic pilot-wave analogs have been claimed to duplicate the double slit experiment, tunneling, quantized orbits, and numerous other quantum phenomena which have led to a resurgence in interest in pilot wave theories. The analogs have been compared to the Faraday wave. These results have been disputed: the experiments can reproduce the double-slit results. High precision measurements in the tunneling case point to a different origin of the unpredictable crossing: rather than initial position uncertainty or environmental noise, interactions at the barrier seem to be involved.

Another classical analog has been reported in surface gravity waves.

Surrealistic trajectories
In 1992, Englert, Scully, Sussman, and Walther proposed experiments that would show particles taking paths that differ from the Bohm trajectories. They described the Bohm trajectories as "surrealistic"; their proposal was later referred to as ESSW after the last names of the authors. In 2016, Mahler et al. verified the ESSW predictions. However they propose the surealistic effect is a consequence the nonlocality inherent in Bohm's theory.

title: De Broglie–Bohm theory


text:
Talk:Mornington Crescent (game)

1,2,3 O'Leary
I've heard of a game similar to this called 1,2,3 O'Leary in which the first person to say "1,2,3 O'Leary" is the winner. Utterly pointless and not very funny though. Anyone else heard of this??

Why it's Mornington Crescent
Is it worth explaining that the reason the game centres on Mornington Crescent (and not, say, Finchley Central) is that, for the uninitiated, Mornington Crescent can be a slightly tricky station to reach? Although all Northern Line trains pass through Camden Town and Euston, only those on the Charing Cross branch stop at Mornington Crescent in between, as those on the Bank branch bypass it. I don't, of course, have a source for this; but as a Londoner I've always thought that was pretty obviously part of the joke. GrindtXX (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It's probably because, up to 1966, Edgware trains passed through Mornington Crescent without stopping. You could only get there on a High Barnet train. If you did not know this, or forgot it, you were in for a difficult time. Even after 1966, the station was closed from 9pm and at weekends, so all trains were non-stopping at those times. Again this could easily catch you out, and it continued until the 1990s rebuild. So Mornington Crescent had folkloric status as this place you couldn't get to. Khamba Tendal (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was marked with a dagger on the underground map, the only station so labelled. This was to warn people about the odd times, but a generation grew up wondering why this one station was so special.

213.205.241.17 (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Factually Incorrect to Claim There Are No Rules
There are many rules to Mornington Crescent. I can provide links to them, in print and online. But that's been done several times already. Must I do it again? It is factually incorrect to claim the game has no rules. It is true that the rules have next to no bearing on who wins, but claiming the game has no rules is just as incorrect as claiming Calvinball has no rules. Calvinball has no fixed rules, save that you can never play it the same way twice. That doesn't mean it has no rules. Mornington Crescent is similar. Mornington Crescent is a social game, like punning with friends. Consequently the main rules that govern proper play are social rules, not arbitrary game constraints such as having to roll a six before you start. Two other examples of games 'without rules' that do in fact have rules: playing tug-of-war with a dog or playing peek-a-boo with a baby. No-one has written down the rules to either of those games, and yet all normal people know how to play them. A po-faced insistence that Mornington Crescent doesn't have rules when in fact it does, they're not just the ones the game promulgates, is a significant misrepresentation, but I'm not going to try to correct it unless I can be reasonably sure the change isn't going to be promptly reverted by someone insisting that Mornington Crescent's rules somehow don't qualify as 'proper' rules, without ever properly explaining why not. I can fulfil the letter of the requirement that MC has rules and provide copious examples of such, and I can demonstrate the spirit of the requirement. What more is necessary? And why are the opinions of people who think they understand the game being given greater weight than those who actually do? 82.69.54.207 (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Bang on Badgerchap (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't get reverted if you can cite a reliable source. Wikiepdia is about venerability not truth. Totteridge and Whetstone - your move. Cnbrb (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Broadly speaking, there are no rules because the game the players purport to be playing does not exist. A.N. Wilson, in his memoir Iris Murdoch As I Knew Her (Hutchinson, London, 2003, ISBN 978-0099723103, p.244), recalls that, when he was lunching with the novelist and academic philosopher Dame Iris Murdoch at her favourite restaurant, Dino's on Gloucester Road, London in 1989, she asked him, 'Andrew, you're a clever chap, so tell me: what *are* the rules of Mornington Crescent?' According to Wilson, he replied:- '“But Iris, the point of the game is that there isn’t a point.” She shook her head and laughed. “No, no. They quite often stop the game and discuss the rules.” “But that’s the joke.” “But they never explain what the rules ARE.”' (See also V. Purton, An Iris Murdoch Chronology, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2007, ISBN 978-1-349-52308-5, p.190.) Reviews of Wilson's book often picked up on that particular conversation, and on Murdoch's comical failure to get the point. See, for instance:- https://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/sep/03/biography.features11 This means, of course, that not only had Dame Iris not got the joke, but her husband John Bayley (writer), Warton Professor of English at Oxford, can't have got it either. I'm not sure what that tells you about Murdoch, or Bayley, or Oxford academics in general (I am sure, actually), but it certainly tells you what a good joke Mornington Crescent is. There aren't any rules except that the players take turns to announce the names of London streets, districts or Tube stations, and the winner is the first one to name Mornington Crescent, and the winning move may not be made until the players have taken a certain number of turns, sometimes wittering about non-existent rules such as whether 'diagonals are wild' as they go along. Barry once said 'Fairlop', which is on that weird loop of the Central Line, and the game ended because no one could think of a way out of it, in fact Humph invited listeners to write in with possible solutions, but in recent shows Fairlop has been cited as a move without any problems at all, because basically there aren't any rules. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition, have a look at this short paper by two mathematicians, a professor and his student son. https://plus.maths.org/content/how-win-mornington-crescent They try to impose game theory and Bayesian probability on to Mornington Crescent, but they know nothing about it and they fall into a variant of the Murdoch-Bayley Canard, ascribing rules to the game which it clearly does not possess. They think that players can only name Tube stations -- current, active ones -- and that repeats are not allowed, and therefore they suggest that no game can ever exceed 270 turns, that being the number of current active stations on the Underground. (Except that two of those stations, completely unconnected, with no interchange, share the same name -- Edgware Road -- a factor not taken into account. It is noteworthy that, in actual play, when a player names Edgware Road, he -- it's usually 'he', I'm afraid -- is never asked whether he means the road itself, the Bakerloo station or the District, Circle and Hammersmith & City station, because it doesn't make any difference. Which it would if the 'rules' imagined by idiots applied.) In fact repeats are allowed. And players are not restricted to Tube stations and can name any London street, square or district. 'Crouch End' is a valid move, but it's not a Tube station -- the area is served by Highgate Tube -- and it's not even a street name; there's a Crouch End Hill and of course Crouch End Broadway, but there's no actual street called Crouch End, just the district, and yet Crouch End is a valid move. The whole game-theory approach based on a theoretical maximum 270 moves is false, as would be obvious to anyone who has the slightest familiarity with the game as it is actually played, but intellectuals gonna intellectual, I guess. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The West Ham Shunt rule states that if you find a long, pointless discussion of 150 lines or more on any media, you are instantly qualified to call ‘Mornington Crescent’.

Mornington Crescent! I win! 213.205.241.17 (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

intro
To be encyclopedic, the article must say early on that MC is a spoof.
 * It does. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Origins
I have a memory that an episode of the Goodies had a prototype of Mornington Crescent - two of the Goodies (Graham & Bill, I vaguely remember) were playing a meaningless game and Tim wanted to join in. Apepper (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What relevance does this have to the article? You would need a reliable source that makes the link between the two games otherwise it is irrelevant. Robynthehode (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Tube Map Picture?
Why is that picture of the tube map used? Isn't the modern diagram Harry Beck thing better because it is universally known as the tube map of london, rather that is a bit less well known. JacobTheRox (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Mornington Crescent (game)


text:
Talk:Interpretations of quantum mechanics

Localism: Copenhagen vs Ensemble
Guys, I'm not an expert at all, but I'm looking at that Comparison Box, where under "Localism," it lists Ensemble as No, and Copenhagen as Yes, and that seems backwards to me. Niels Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation is explicitly non-local. The Copenhagen interpretation is that when a laboratory device observes part of an entangled state, There's a wave function collapse where the other pieces of the entangled function now have new distributions. That's the essence of non-localism. By contrast, the Ensemble interpretation is local. That's the essence of the theory, why Einstein developed it, because he strongly clung to localism. The Ensemble Interpretation does away with this whole business of entangled wave functions that change instantly faster than the speed of light; it's heavily influenced by classical mechanics. There's only one particle in the Ensemble Interpretation. The wave fuctions are statistical averages, not properties of one particle. Am I wrong? 2601:645:8201:E3E0:134:23C6:EC8A:40C4 (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Jason Catlin
 * "Copenhagen" means many things to many people; some variants describe themselves as "local" and others don't. XOR'easter (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So why don't we replace "Copenhagen" in the comparison with eg "von Neumann" or any other definite model. It seems really pointless to compare to something no one agrees is a thing. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It might be interesting to try making table rows for "Bohr", "Heisenberg", "Omnès", "Zeilinger", etc. Well, having a table at all is kind of silly when so many of the entries have to be heavily qualified with footnotes, but it might be worth trying. XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of stochastic mechanics
Hi XOR'easter, I'm having trouble understanding your removal of the section on stochastic mechanics – It seems to me that everything in the comparison table should have a section written about it. I also don't see why it's listing at minority interpretations of quantum mechanics warrants its removal, effectively all (bar a couple) of the sections on interpretations have a corresponding listing over at that page, so I'm not sure what you mean here. Is there some other reason for the removal? Volteer1 (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Nelsonian stochastic interpretation is so obscure it's not even asked about in surveys of which interpretations physicists prefer. Per WP:UNDUE, it doesn't really fit in a big-picture overview of quantum interpretations. XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes a little more sense. All good. Volteer1 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the topic has returned and the description is opaque. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Re-removed. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Non-interpretations?
Does Quantum Darwinism actually belong on this list? In other words, it's a research program and a methodology, but is it an interpretation of quantum mechanics? Or is it mathematics that can be applied in an interpretation-neutral way? My own inclination would be the latter, but are there actual secondary sources on this? (Sometimes Zurek writes as though he is advancing a new "existential" interpretation, and sometimes he praises the virtues of being interpretation-neutral.) Perhaps both Quantum Darwinism and objective-collapse theories should be moved to another section, called "Related concepts" or something like that. Quantum Darwinism arguably isn't an interpretation by itself, and objective-collapse theories are attempts to answer the kinds of questions that interpretations also try to answer but by replacing quantum mechanics with a different theory. XOR'easter (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

 * I agree that "objective-collapse" is not an interpretation but a alternative theory and should be distinguished from true interpretations; I also agree that quantum darwinism is not an interpretation but a mechanism; some say it's incorporated in Zurek's Existential Interpretation of quantum mechanics Sánchez-Cañizares: Classicality First: Why Zurek’s Existential Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Implies Copenhagen, but don't know more about that. There was a discussion at Physics Stack Exchange a while ago on whether QD is an interpretation. --Qcomp (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I've moved those two subsections into a new section all their own. XOR'easter (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

New Interpretation
Wikiwau (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Not notable: too new, no reviews, insecure web site. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To be a little blunt about it: Wikipedia is not the place for everything that claims to be an interpretation of quantum mechanics. See WP:UNDUE and WP:SECONDARY. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree --ChetvornoTALK 18:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources for "Nature" section?
The meta-analysis in the "Nature" section seems like an essay and essentially has no references. Any ideas what the source might be? Seems like the ideas are probably in the Sources refs. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 * It seems to have originally been added back in 2011. XOR'easter (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, confirms my guess. The section which follows it "challenges" is likely WP:SYNTH. To me it reads like a "List of Things I Do Not Understand". I think the Nature section is savable; I see no value in the "Challenges" list. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This ref suggested by @XOR'easter on Talk:Bell's theorem would provide a good secondary source for the "Nature" section:
 * Cabello, Adán. "Interpretations of quantum theory: A map of madness." What is quantum information (2017): 138-144.
 * Johnjbarton (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Many Worlds and local dynamics
I might be missing the point here, but given that Many Worlds posits that astronomically-remote events can fragment my local reality, how is it classed as a "yes" for local dynamics in the table? Are there some flavours of Many Worlds that do and some that don't? If so, then a more subtle entry in the table is needed. P LUMBAGO 14:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

 * The entire column (or table) is nonsense. "Local dynamics" links to principle of locality which attempts to describe "locality" as applied in physics. But "local dynamics" presumably means (based on table entries) whether the interpretation can be bounded sensibly. So the famous Heisenberg cut is exactly a bound on the dynamics: under normal QM interpretations analysis stops at the cut. Many Worlds says "yes, stops at every interaction" and then "no, the entire universe for all times is always involved". A similar quibble-based "analysis" applies to every entry. That's because there is no definition of "local dynamics" given or can be given.
 * The entire table has this problem. Every single row is exactly indistinguishable from every other row on any objective criteria. So the table has to be based on subjective criteria which, by nature, are subject to endless and fruitless debate. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Many Worlds does not posit that astronomically-remote events can fragment your local reality. Splitting is strictly local, as any physical process. There is no controversy about Many-Worlds having local dynamics, see the discussion in Talk:Bell_test and the many sources cited there. Tercer (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that at least some physicists view MWI in this way. But I'm no physicist, so am likely completely wrong. So I'll leave as is, although I note the comment from Johnjbarton about wider issues with this table. (As an off-piste question merely to satisfy my own curiosity, what form does a locally-branching universe take given that multiple outcomes from (say) an event on Earth eventually reach the Andromeda Galaxy. Do systems in Andromeda branch when they come into contact with arriving "signals" from these multiple branches (locally that is; i.e. at light speed)? If there's a good source you could point me at, that'd be great - thanks!) P LUMBAGO 10:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well you could look at the discussion I linked and the sources cited there to convince you that this is not a controversial point.
 * Off the top of my had I can recommend you the book "The Emergent Multiverse" by David Wallace, he talks about the locality of branching there. But the answer to your question is yes, systems in Andromeda branch when they come into contact with the signals.
 * Just note that this doesn't happen necessarily at light speed, this is just an upper bound. The precise speed will depend on which interaction is transmitting the decoherence, which may be photons, or sound, or collisions of air molecules, or gravitational waves, etc. It may also be nothing at all, in a Wigner's friend type of experiment. By assumption decoherence doesn't reach Wigner, so he never branches. Tercer (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Brilliant - thanks Tercer. P LUMBAGO 09:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Tercer (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


text:
Scotland Yard (board game)

Scotland Yard is a board game in which a team of players controlling different detectives cooperate to track down a player controlling a criminal as they move around a board representing the streets of London. It was first published in 1983. It is named after Scotland Yard which is the headquarters of London's Metropolitan Police Service in real-life. Scotland Yard is an asymmetric board game, during which the detective players cooperatively solve a variant of the pursuit–evasion problem. The game is published by Ravensburger in most of Europe and Canada and by Milton Bradley in the United States. It received the Spiel des Jahres (Game of the Year) award in 1983 -the same year that it was published.

Gameplay
One player controls 'Mr. X': a criminal whose location is only revealed periodically throughout gameplay. The other players each control at least one detective, all of which are always present on the board. In the Milton Bradley version, there are always five detectives on the board, so with less than six players, one player can control two or three detectives.

Setup
Each player draws one (or more) starting card(s) to determine the starting locations of each piece; the detectives place their tokens at the locations they drew, but Mr. X, who draws first, does not. The locations on the cards are spaced far enough apart to ensure that Mr. X cannot be caught in the first round of play. There are a total of 199 spaces ("stations") on the board.

Movement
Movement is governed by exchanging transportation tokens ("tickets"), which allow passage between spaces according to the following modes:
 * Taxis, which allow the player to move only one space per use but can be used on most spaces in the game to move in all directions.
 * Buses, which are available throughout most of the board and allow longer-distance travel but only if the player is located at a bus station.
 * The Underground, which allows quick, long-distance travel between stations that are distant from each other and can therefore be used to move towards Mr. X if they turn out to be far away.
 * Ferries, which only Mr. X can use with a black ticket, allow them to follow routes along the River Thames between Greenwich and Whitehall.

Each detective begins with a finite mix of taxi, bus, and underground tickets. Mr. X starts with the remaining transport tickets; however, once each transport ticket is used by a detective, it is turned over to Mr. X, effectively giving that player an unlimited amount of transport tokens.

From any given space, movement is possible along a line matching the mode of transportation (taxi, bus, or underground) to the closest adjacent space for that mode. For example, consider movement from space #74. The possible movements from this space are:
 * Taxi to 58, 73, 75, or 92 (closest taxi stop spaces connected by a solid yellow taxi line)
 * Bus to 58 or 94 (closest bus stop spaces connected by a solid green bus line)
 * Underground to 46 (sole closest underground stop space connected by a broken red underground line)

Mr. X also has a supply of black tickets that are valid for any mode of transport available from the current location of Mr. X. These tickets can also be used to move between the ferry stops on the River Thames, joined by black lines; Mr. X is the only one who can travel in this manner. In addition, the player assuming the role of Mr. X is given several double-move tokens, which allows them to make two moves in a single turn.

A space may be occupied by only one (visible) pawn at a time, so if an adjacent space is already occupied, the pawn may not be moved there. However, if the closest space for a bus or underground trip lies beyond an occupied adjacent space, that space may be bypassed.

Mr. X's movements are documented through a "travel log" with paper inserts, divided into slots that are covered by used tickets; for each move that Mr. X makes, they write down their destination secretly and then cover it with the ticket they have used to reach it, thus providing the detectives with clues as to their whereabouts. The first number written down is not the starting space; rather, it is the first destination using the ticket displayed. If a double move is used, Mr. X must log both moves, use two transportation tickets, and surrender one of the double move tickets. Mr. X moves first on every turn, after which the detectives move in any order.

At five specific times during the game, Mr. X has to reveal their current position. The windows on the travel log for these moves are shaped differently to remind the player to do so. Detectives may take this opportunity to refine their search and, if possible, plan ways to encircle them based on where they are and the next few moves they make.

Objective
The detectives win the game if any of them lands on Mr. X's current location, or if it becomes impossible for Mr. X to move without landing on a detective. Mr. X wins by avoiding capture until all detectives can no longer move because they have either exhausted their ticket supplies or reached positions from which they cannot move because they have no usable tickets.

Equipment
The game was updated with slightly different rules and equipment in 2013. The 2013 Ravensburger and 1985 Milton Bradley editions vary slightly in the number of transportation tickets, double-move, and starting position cards included, as noted. In the Milton Bradley version, there are 18 starting position cards, shared by both the detectives and Mr. X. In the 2013 edition, the 29 start cards are split into two separate pools, one for Mr. X and another for the detectives.

Movement is changed when there are fewer players; rather than all the visible pawns being detectives, one or two may be designated "bobbies", wearing a circular ring and moving freely without using tickets; they are moved by consensus by the detective players.

As published by Ravensburger in 2013, it contains:
 * 1 game board (a map of Central London)
 * 6 colored playing pieces
 * 130 transportation tickets
 * 1 label sheet
 * 29 start cards
 * 3 double-move tokens
 * 1 travel log and paper inserts
 * 1 storage tray to be used to store tickets, start cards and playing pieces

The main game board also varies slightly between the Milton Bradley (1985) and Ravensburger editions. The primary difference between these is in the numbering of the stations: five stations are numbered differently, with 108 missing from the Milton Bradley boards and 200 missing from the Ravensburger boards. Aside from the numbering differences, some of the routes have been revised since the initial publication; for instance, stations 198 and 199 are connected by a bus line in earlier boards, which is changed to a taxi line, and the taxi line between stations 13 and 14 in early boards  was later removed.

Alternative versions
The game has been adapted to take place on maps of different cities. Scotland Yard Tokyo, also distributed by Ravensburger is set on the streets of Tokyo; the major difference is game aesthetics. Scotland Yard: Swiss Edition uses the same gameplay and is set in Switzerland, with the addition of more boat routes and ski areas available only to Mr. X.

NY Chase is a version based on New York City. In this version, detectives do not hand their used tokens over, and they have access to roadblocks and a helicopter, tilting the game more in favour of those playing as detectives.

A faster travel version called Die Jagd Nach Mister X exists that functions quite differently. In this version, Mr. X's location is only hidden when a black travel token is used, and the game is essentially an open chase around London. Evasion is accomplished with black tokens and using the fastest travel to distant locations. In this version, each player takes turns as Mr. X, and points collected (in the form of the detectives' used travel tokens) determine the overall winner.

Alternative rules
In 1986 Alain Munoz and Serge Laget posted an article in the French magazine Jeux & Stratégie suggesting alternative rules to balance and expand the game.

Spanish company Cefa published Alerta Roja (Red Alert) in 1986, which is generally a remake of Scotland Yard with minor variations to the rules and a different theme (secret agents chase a nuclear terrorist though the sewers of a futuristic city).

Beginners
Ravensburger has published rules designed to introduce new players to the game. In the "beginners version", Mr. X starts on space 82, and the detectives start on 41, 46, and/or 124, with 142 added if four detectives are playing. The number of turns is reduced to 13, underground tickets are not used, and Mr. X is limited to one concealed-move ticket and one double-move ticket.

Adaptations
The game was first adapted for the Nintendo Game Boy in 1990, and then as Scotland Yard Interactive for the Philips CD-I in 1993. It was adapted for Windows by Cryo Interactive in 1998, for the Nintendo DS by Sproing Interactive in 2008, as well as for iPhone (2012) and Android (2015) by Ravensburger Digital.

Reception
Games included Scotland Yard in its top 100 games of 1986, calling it "a suspenseful chase through the streets of London in this game of deduction and bluff." The reviewer noted "Trapping Mr. X requires logic and teamwork; eluding the detectives takes sneakiness and an occasional risky move by Mr. X." A review from Lautapeliopas praised the game's accessibility and functionality, but said the playing as detectives is less engaging.

Reviews

 * Jeux & Stratégie #21
 * 1983 Games 100
 * Family Games: The 100 Best

title: Scotland Yard (board game)


text:
AD 888

Year 888 (DCCCLXXXVIII) was a leap year starting on Monday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar.

Europe

 * January 13 – Emperor Charles III (the Fat) dies at Neidingen, after having suffered repeat bouts of an illness that may have been epilepsy. The Frankish Empire is split again, and falls apart into separate kingdoms. Count Odo, the hero of the Siege of Paris, is elected king of the West Frankish Kingdom, and crowned at Compiègne by Walter, archbishop of Sens. Other Frankish noblemen support the 8-year-old Charles the Simple (the posthumous son of the late king Louis the Stammerer).
 * October – Alan I (the Great), count of Vannes, and his rival Judicael, unite their forces to defeat the Vikings at Questembert (or 889). Judicael is killed, in a notable victory for the Bretons, with 15,000 Vikings crushed, some few 400 escaping to their ships. In command of a 'united' Breton force, Alan is able to drive the Vikings back to the Loire River. Alan becomes sole ruler of Brittany, and over the Frankish counties of Rennes, Nantes, Coutances and Avranches.
 * October – Battle of Milazzo: the Aghlabids score a crushing victory over a Byzantine fleet off Sicily.
 * Winter – King Arnulf of Carinthia leads an East Frankish expedition into Italy, after he is recognized as overlord of France and Burgundy. Arnulf descends with an army over the Brenner Pass, and meets King Berengar I at a peace conference at Trento. Berengar grants him two counties in the Val d'Adige (Northern Italy), and does homage to Arnulf as overlord. In turn, Arnulf confirms Berengar as king of Lombardia, and returns to Germany.

 * Lord Æthelred II of the Mercians is struck down with a debilitating illness. His wife, Princess Æthelflæd (a daughter of Alfred the Great) of Wessex, joins him as joint ruler of Mercia (approximate date).

Al-Andalus

 * Al-Mundhir, Moorish emir of Córdoba, dies after a two-year reign (possibly murdered by his brother Abdullah ibn Muhammad al-Umawi, who succeeds him as ruler of the Emirate of Córdoba).

China

 * April 20 – Emperor Xi Zong (Li Xuan) dies of illness at Chang'an, after a 14-year reign. He is succeeded by his 21-year-old brother Zhao Zong, as ruler of the Tang Dynasty.

Religion

 * Shaftesbury Abbey is founded by King Alfred the Great in Dorset. He installs his daughter Æthelgifu as first abbess (approximate date).

Births

 * October 20 – Zhu Youzhen, emperor of Later Liang (d. 923)
 * Liu Xu, chancellor of Later Tang and Later Jin (d. 947)
 * Vratislaus I, duke of Bohemia (approximate date)
 * Zhu Yougui, emperor of Later Liang (approximate date)

Deaths

 * January 13 – Charles the Fat, Frankish emperor (b. 839)
 * April 20 – Xi Zong, emperor of the Tang Dynasty (b. 862)
 * June 11 – Rimbert, archbishop of Bremen (b. 830)
 * June 30 – Æthelred, archbishop of Canterbury
 * Áed mac Conchobair, king of Connacht (Ireland)
 * Æthelswith, Anglo-Saxon queen
 * Al-Mundhir, Muslim emir of Córdoba
 * Cerball mac Dúnlainge, king of Osraige (Ireland)
 * Ingelger, founder of the House of Anjou
 * Judicael, duke of Brittany (or 889)
 * Le Yanzhen, Chinese warlord
 * Nasra of Tao-Klarjeti, Georgian prince
 * Sichfrith mac Ímair, king of Dublin
 * Tetbert, Frankish nobleman
 * Zhang Gui, Chinese warlord
 * Zhou Bao, Chinese general (b. 814)

title: AD 888