Talk:Quantum potential

Untitled

The paper Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing links quantum potential with the cosmological constant (and maybe with the initial exponential expansion of the baby universe, if I understand). Maybe the article should be updated to take a note of this analysis, but I'm not sure if the analysis is correct or whether it is significant or reliable. Absinthia Stacy (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zitterbewegung

A derviation of a quantum potential has been demonstrated from purely classical Maxwell’s electrodynamics and published recently in a high impact factor journal (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-020-05928-5). I am the author of the paper, and therefore I am not the person allowed to upload the reference, since a COI is at stake. But perhaps, if someone finds it interesting, he could introduce a section entitled “Zitterbewegung” with something similar to this:

It has been recently demonstrated that charged extended particles can experience self-oscillatory dynamics as a result of classical electrodynamic self-interactions \cite{}. This trembling motion has a frequency that is closely related to the zitterbewegung frequency appearing in Dirac's equation. The mechanism producing these fluctuations arises because some parts of an accelerated charged corpuscle emit electromagnetic perturbations that can affect another part of the body, producing self-forces. Using the Liénard-Wiechert potential as solutions to Maxwell's equations with sources, a self-potential can be analytically derived, presenting the same constants appearing in the quantum potential. This contribution to self-energy can produce a symmetry breaking of the Lorentz group, triggering the self-oscillations from small perturbations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvaro12Lopez (talk • contribs) 12:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explain the equation

It would be nice to explain what all the variables (such as R) mean in the equation. 192.38.90.165 (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of secondary references.

This article is full of primary references and almost no reviews by authors outside of the Bohm community. This makes the selection of topics and the point of view suspect. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It also cites a heap of arXiv preprints, not all of which seem to have made it through peer review. I don't think this is a subject where citing unreviewed preprints is a good idea. They can be good convenience links, like when a subject-matter expert spells out something uncontroversial about an established topic, but here, they're inflating the apparent interest in a niche area. XOR'easter (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]