aiqbench analysis
This technical note rigorously defends a specific derivation of quantum propagators by demonstrating that Bohm-like quantum potential terms vanish along stationary action paths, thereby validating the space-independence of propagated density. The analysis confirms consistency across standard models like the double-slit experiment and relativistic extensions while distinguishing this approach from Madelung solutions where such potentials persist.
Interpreting Bohm-like quantum potentials in "Computing quantum waves exactly from classical action"
arXiv:2605.20443v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The recent posting arXiv:2605.02621 [14], commenting on the article rspa.2025.0413 [7], argues that the proof of Lemma 3.1 in [7] is missing the spatial derivative of the density, which would lead to a Bohm-like quantum potential. This technical note shows why the propagated density is independent of space in the Feynman propagator construction of Lemma 3.1. This is done by extending the proof of Lemma 3.1 explicitly with Bohm-like quantum potential terms along the stationary action paths, and then showing that these terms are exactly zero. In [7], this property can also be verified directly on most examples (double slit, Aharonov-Bohm, potential well, harmonic oscillator, tunneling, EPR, QED), as well as in the derivations of the Pauli, Dirac, and Maxwell equations. For more general nonlinear actions, a time rescaling may be required to guarantee this space independence along stationary paths. In the hydrogen atom example, this time rescaling can be computed in closed form. In contrast to the general wave of the Madelung solution [9] Lemma 3.1 of [7] is defined first for a propagator, and a general wave is then constructed in a second step. Recall that a propagator is a specific quantum wave, which is initialized at $t=0$ with a Dirac impulse at a given initial position or momentum. In turn, a general wave is constructed in a second step by superposing a distribution of initial conditions using the propagator. This key difference is why the Bohm-like quantum potential terms disappear in the construction [7] (specifically, in the first step) while the Bohm potential in the Madelung analysis does not. This fundamental difference is also consistent with the fact that the wave construction in [7] extends naturally to relativistic contexts, while Bohmian non-locality notoriously prevents such extensions. Keywords - Response to arXiv:2605.02621, in relation to rspa.2025.0413
Abstract:The recent posting arXiv:2605.02621 [14], commenting on the article rspa.2025.0413 [7], argues that the proof of Lemma 3.1 in [7] is missing the spatial derivative of the density, which would lead to a Bohm-like quantum potential. This technical note shows why the propagated density is independent of space in the Feynman propagator construction of Lemma 3.1. This is done by extending the proof of Lemma 3.1 explicitly with Bohm-like quantum potential terms along the stationary action paths, and then showing that these terms are exactly zero. In [7], this property can also be verified directly on most examples (double slit, Aharonov-Bohm, potential well, harmonic oscillator, tunneling, EPR, QED), as well as in the derivations of the Pauli, Dirac, and Maxwell equations. For more general nonlinear actions, a time rescaling may be required to guarantee this space independence along stationary paths. In the hydrogen atom example, this time rescaling can be computed in closed form. In contrast to the general wave of the Madelung solution [9] Lemma 3.1 of [7] is defined first for a propagator, and a general wave is then constructed in a second step. Recall that a propagator is a specific quantum wave, which is initialized at $t=0$ with a Dirac impulse at a given initial position or momentum. In turn, a general wave is constructed in a second step by superposing a distribution of initial conditions using the propagator. This key difference is why the Bohm-like quantum potential terms disappear in the construction [7] (specifically, in the first step) while the Bohm potential in the Madelung analysis does not. This fundamental difference is also consistent with the fact that the wave construction in [7] extends naturally to relativistic contexts, while Bohmian non-locality notoriously prevents such extensions. Keywords - Response to arXiv:2605.02621, in relation to rspa.2025.0413
Response to arXiv:2605.02621 , in relation to rspa.2025.0413
arXiv:2605.20443 [quant-ph]
(or arXiv:2605.20443v3 [quant-ph] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2025.0413 DOI(s) linking to related resources
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 320 words
Related coverage

David Bohm and Bohmian Mechanics
Quantum Zeitgeist · Jun 14, 2026
Interpreting Bohm-like quantum potentials in "Computing quantum waves exactly from classical action"
arXiv · Sep 22, 2026

Effect before cause : Understanding quantum retrocausality
sott.net · Aug 1, 2026

Quantum equation simulates fluid flow with Schrödinger insights
Quantum Zeitgeist · Aug 12, 2026