Interpreting Bohm-like quantum potentials in "Computing quantum waves exactly from classical action"
Abstract
Comment on arXiv:2605.02621 [23] and arXiv:2606.05197 [24]: In contrast to his earlier comment [23] on rspa.2025.0413 [12] and answered in arXiv:2605.20443 [11], the same author of [24] does not seem to dispute any longer that the use in [12] of tools from Feynman's [5] namely - the kernel approach, which computes a wave starting at a given initial position or momentum, and is a key element in [12] to ensure that the Bohm-like quantum potential vanishes. This is directly verified in all examples of [12] as well as in the Pauli, Dirac and Maxwell derivations from classical action. This approach is very different from the standard Bohm-Madelung potential on the overall wave, as illustrated in detail in [11] for the two-slit experiment. - for the harmonic oscillator, the kernel computation directly from a Taylor series expansion, which does not involve any circularity. His second post [24] now - criticizes the use in [12], [11] of Duru and Kleinert's time-independent eigenwave equivalence of the original and the time-scaled Schrödinger equations [4], confusing this standard result with a multivariable chain rule in the time-dependent kernel computation from action in [12]. - claims that "The mathematical framework presented by the authors remains identical to the well-established semiclassical Van Vleck propagator [sic]" which requires that the "Hamiltonian is at most quadratic in position and momentum [sic]". This confuses a quadratic action in the vector case with a harmonic propagated density based on the Laplacian of the action (with harmonicity always fulfilled e.g., for holomorphic complex functions [10]. In addition, it ignores the extension of a real position to a complex or quaternion position or spin, the key result on multi-valued action branches (which enables a classical derivation of quantum randomness) and the quantization of classical action in [12].
Versions
Related
- From sparse quantum-computing data to atomistic simulation with universal machine-learning interatomic potentials
- A hidden bottleneck in classical and quantum linear reservoir computing
- SIESTA-QCOMP: Bridging Classical and Quantum Computing for Strongly Correlated Systems
- Trinetra.Q: Statistical and Behavioral Detection of Attacks on the Quantum-Error-Correction Layer and Classical Control Stack of Quantum Computing Systems
- Benchmarking machine-learning interatomic potentials using classical force fields
BibTeX
@misc{lohmiller2026interpreting,
title = {{Interpreting Bohm-like quantum potentials in "Computing quantum waves exactly from classical action"}},
author = {Winfried Lohmiller and Jean-Jacques Slotine},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2605.20443},
eprint = {2605.20443},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.20443},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Interpreting Bohm-like quantum potentials in "Computing quantum waves exactly from classical action"
AU - Winfried Lohmiller
AU - Jean-Jacques Slotine
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/20
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2605.20443
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.20443
AB - Comment on arXiv:2605.02621 [23] and arXiv:2606.05197 [24]: In contrast to his earlier comment [23] on rspa.2025.0413 [12] and answered in arXiv:2605.20443 [11], the same author of [24] does not seem to dispute any longer that the use in [12] of tools from Feynman's [5] namely - the kernel approach, which computes a wave starting at a given initial position or momentum, and is a key element in [12] to ensure that the Bohm-like quantum potential vanishes. This is directly verified in all examples of [12] as well as in the Pauli, Dirac and Maxwell derivations from classical action. This approach is very different from the standard Bohm-Madelung potential on the overall wave, as illustrated in detail in [11] for the two-slit experiment. - for the harmonic oscillator, the kernel computation directly from a Taylor series expansion, which does not involve any circularity. His second post [24] now - criticizes the use in [12], [11] of Duru and Kleinert's time-independent eigenwave equivalence of the original and the time-scaled Schrödinger equations [4], confusing this standard result with a multivariable chain rule in the time-dependent kernel computation from action in [12]. - claims that "The mathematical framework presented by the authors remains identical to the well-established semiclassical Van Vleck propagator [sic]" which requires that the "Hamiltonian is at most quadratic in position and momentum [sic]". This confuses a quadratic action in the vector case with a harmonic propagated density based on the Laplacian of the action (with harmonicity always fulfilled e.g., for holomorphic complex functions [10]. In addition, it ignores the extension of a real position to a complex or quaternion position or spin, the key result on multi-valued action branches (which enables a classical derivation of quantum randomness) and the quantization of classical action in [12].
ER -