Quantum Gravity Without Metric Quantization: From Hidden Variables to Hidden Spacetime Curvatures

Mohamed Hatifi

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 86 references

Quantum Gravity Without Metric Quantization: From Hidden Variables to Hidden Spacetime Curvatures

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A covariant de Broglie-Bohm guidance equation in curved spacetime lets Bohmian trajectories carry hidden curvature, removing the need to quantize the metric.

desk verdict A genuine covariant guidance equation, but the Born-rule deviations are an artifact of dividing by n=2|ψ1ψ2| instead of the Dirac density ρ; the central quantitative claim does not hold as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08421 v1 pith:KDS44SSK submitted 2025-02-12 gr-qc quant-ph

Mohamed Hatifi This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcquant-ph

keywords BohmianmechanicsdeBroglie-BohmtheoryquantumgravitycurvedspacetimeguidanceequationBornrulenon-equilibriumZitterbewegung

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that Bohmian mechanics can be made fully covariant in curved spacetime, starting from the Dirac Lagrangian, and that this amended theory supplies a deterministic route to quantum gravity that avoids metric quantization. The central move is to read the probability current as a Bohmian velocity field with density $n = 2|\psi_1\psi_2|$ and to let the resulting trajectories source spacetime curvature, so that a gravitational potential measurement uncovers a pre-existing trajectory rather than collapsing a superposition of geometries. If this is right, quantum interference in curved backgrounds becomes curvature-dependent while intrinsic effects such as Zitterbewegung stay invariant, and gravitational inhomogeneity can push ensembles away from the Born rule. A reader should care because it offers a concrete, testable alternative to the observer-centric picture of quantum gravity and predicts cosmological quantum non-equilibrium.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the covariant guidance equation $u^{\mu} = j^{\mu}/n$ with $n = 2|\psi_1\psi_2|$, expressing the Bohmian velocity as the ratio of the conserved Dirac current to its magnitude; together with the amplitude-phase decomposition of the spinor and the reinterpreted stress-energy tensor (Eq. 26), it converts the wavefunction's phase gradients into deterministic trajectories that source curvature.

What would settle it

Re-run the cigar-soliton simulation with the velocity field $u^{\mu} = j^{\mu}/(\psi^{\dagger}\psi)$ while keeping everything else fixed, and check whether the trajectory histograms continue to deviate from $\rho(x,t)$; if they relax back to the wavefunction density, the central non-equilibrium claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from a symmetrized Dirac Lagrangian in curved spacetime, the paper rewrites each spinor component as amplitude and phase and derives a generalized guidance equation $m\cos(S_-) u^{\mu} = -\frac{1}{2}(\nabla^{\mu} S_+ + \epsilon^{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\nu} S_-)$, with $u^{\mu} = j^{\mu}/n$ the ratio of the conserved Dirac current to its magnitude $n = 2|\psi_1\psi_2|$. It then treats this velocity field as the physical velocity of a deterministic ensemble, so that Einstein's equations become equations in which the stress-energy tensor is built from Bohmian trajectory data (Eq. 26) rather than from a quantized metric. In this picture the metric is always definite, and the apparent quantum indeterminacy of geometry is replaced by a statistical ensemble of hidden curvatures constrained by Heisenberg uncertainty. Numerical integrations in Robertson-Walker and cigar soliton spacetimes show curvature-sensitive interference, curvature-invariant Zitterbewegung, and an accumulation of trajectories near the horizon-like region $x=0$ that the paper interprets as gravity-induced quantum non-equilibrium.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the physical velocity of the ensemble is $u^{\mu} = j^{\mu}/n$ with $n = 2|\psi_1\psi_2|$, not the usual $j^{\mu}/(\psi^{\dagger}\psi)$; if the standard ratio is the correct one, the predicted gravity-induced Born-rule violation disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The metric stays classical and definite at all times; metric superposition is replaced by a statistical ensemble of hidden curvatures constrained by Heisenberg uncertainty.
Measuring the gravitational potential at a point reveals a pre-existing Bohmian trajectory and its associated curvature, rather than collapsing a wavefunction.
Quantum interference is reshaped by expansion, contraction, and localized curvature, while Zitterbewegung keeps its Compton frequency in all backgrounds.
In inhomogeneous spacetimes such as the cigar soliton, the trajectory ensemble can deviate from the Born-rule density near the horizon-like region, predicting gravity-induced quantum non-equilibrium.
The formalism suggests that curvature-induced modifications of quantum probability currents could be probed in analog gravity platforms such as trapped ions, superconducting circuits, and graphene.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper does not draw this conclusion explicitly, but the entire Born-rule-violation prediction hinges on the velocity choice $u^{\mu}=j^{\mu}/n$; replacing it with $u^{\mu}=j^{\mu}/(\psi^{\dagger}\psi)$ would restore equilibrium and erase the claimed effect.
A natural next step the author leaves open is to compute two-point correlations of the effective hidden-curvature field and compare them with predictions from metric-superposition quantum gravity, which would distinguish the two pictures observationally.
The freezing of trajectories near the horizon-like region offers a concrete mechanism for seeding primordial inhomogeneities in cosmology, though the paper does not quantify the resulting power spectrum.
An analog-gravity experiment that varies an effective inhomogeneous metric could test the paper's central dichotomy: curvature-sensitive interference alongside curvature-invariant Zitterbewegung.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper does contain a genuinely new mathematical object: the covariant guidance equation (16) for Dirac fields in curved spacetime, which is a legitimate extension of the author's flat-spacetime result (Ref. 70). Applying it to the Robertson–Walker and cigar soliton metrics is a concrete, nontrivial step. The observation that Zitterbewegung persists unchanged while interference is curvature-sensitive is a nice numerical finding, if it holds up. The 'hidden curvature' picture—replacing metric superposition by a statistical ensemble of curvatures—is coherent as a proposal, though it remains a suggestion rather than a derived result.

The load-bearing flaw is the velocity choice. The paper defines u^μ = j^μ / n with n = √(j_μ j^μ) = 2|ψ1ψ2|. For the Dirac current in (1+1)D, j^0 = ρ = ψ†ψ, the standard Born density on a t = const slice, and the continuity equation ∇_μ j^μ = 0 means that evolving trajectories with u^μ = j^μ / ρ preserves ρ along the flow. No Born-rule deviations appear. By dividing by n instead, the paper evolves the ensemble under a flow that does not preserve ρ, so the histograms in Fig. 5 show exactly the expected mismatch. Calling that 'gravity-induced quantum non-equilibrium' is misleading. The paper offers no independent argument for why n, rather than ρ, is the physical density of the hidden-variable ensemble.

Other soft spots are real but less severe. The step from the Lagrangian (14) to the set (15) and the guidance equation (16) is sketched, not shown; the stress tensor (26) is stated without derivation; the extension to 3+1 dimensions is asserted, not demonstrated. The numerical data are 'available upon request,' which is weak for a paper whose main quantitative claim rests on 20,000-trajectory simulations. These are fixable with more detail.

This paper is for researchers in pilot-wave theory and quantum gravity interpretations who want a concrete attempt at a covariant de Broglie–Bohm dynamics. The math is checkable, the program is coherent, and the flaw we identified is exactly the kind of thing peer review should catch. Send it to review, but with a clear instruction that the central non-equilibrium claim needs either a physical argument for n or withdrawal. I would not cite it in the meantime.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a covariant de Broglie-Bohm formulation for Dirac particles in curved spacetime. Starting from a Dirac Lagrangian in (1+1) dimensions, it introduces a polar decomposition of the spinor and derives a guidance equation u^mu = j^mu / n with n = sqrt(j_mu j^mu) = 2|psi1 psi2|. The framework is applied numerically to a Robertson-Walker metric and to the cigar soliton metric, with claims that quantum interference is curvature-sensitive while Zitterbewegung is curvature-invariant, and that inhomogeneous spacetimes produce deviations from the Born rule. The paper further suggests that the stress-energy tensor can be re-expressed in terms of Bohmian trajectories, replacing metric quantization by a statistical ensemble of hidden curvatures.

Significance. If the derivation were sound, this would be an ambitious contribution to deterministic approaches to quantum gravity, with a concrete and in principle falsifiable prediction of gravity-induced quantum non-equilibrium. The numerical illustrations for two distinct spacetimes and the attempt to connect Bohmian trajectories to the Einstein equations are interesting. However, the central physical prediction rests on a nonstandard choice of density in the velocity field, and several load-bearing equations are asserted without derivation. As it stands, the manuscript does not support its strongest claims.

major comments (5)

[§2, Eqs. (15)–(16); §3, Fig. 5] The velocity field is defined as u^mu = j^mu / n with n = sqrt(j_mu j^mu) = 2|psi1 psi2|. This is a nonstandard choice: the conserved Dirac current has j^0 = psi-dagger psi = rho, so the standard equilibrium-preserving flow is u^mu = j^mu / rho, which satisfies nabla_mu(rho u^mu)=0. With u^mu = j^mu / n, only nabla_mu(n u^mu)=0 holds, and nabla_mu(rho u^mu) is generically nonzero. The simulations nevertheless initialize trajectories from rho(x,0) and compare histograms with rho(x,t); the deviations shown in Fig. 5(c–f) are therefore the expected consequence of evolving a rho-initialized ensemble under a non-rho-preserving flow, not a gravitational effect. No independent argument is given for why n, rather than rho, is the physical density of the hidden-variable ensemble, and this choice is the load-bearing assumption behind the claimed gravity-induced quantum non-equilibrium.
[§2, Eqs. (14)–(16)] The passage from the Lagrangian in Eq. (14) to the system of equations in Eq. (15), and then to the generalized guidance equation Eq. (16), is asserted rather than derived. The text says 'applying Noether's theorem for each variable,' but the equations displayed are equations of motion/constraints, and no Euler-Lagrange computation is shown. In particular, the appearance of m cos(S_-) and the Levi-Civita coupling in curved spacetime needs a detailed derivation. Since Eq. (16) is the central 'fully covariant generalization,' this is a load-bearing gap.
[Towards a Unified Framework, Eq. (26)] The stress-energy tensor in Eq. (26) is stated without derivation, and no proof is provided that it equals the conventional Dirac stress-energy tensor in Eq. (25). The identification of the first term as the classical energy-momentum of the Bohmian ensemble and the second as quantum corrections is therefore unsupported. This identity is essential to the paper's claim of a trajectory-based route to quantum gravity without metric quantization.
[Methods and §2] The generalization to 3+1 dimensions is not demonstrated. The polar decomposition in Eq. (13), the definition n = 2|psi1 psi2|, and the two-component spinor structure are specific to (1+1) dimensions. A four-component Dirac spinor requires a different parametrization, and the statement in the Methods that 'the core principles governing our approach remain unchanged' is an assertion, not a derivation. Thus the central equation (16) is only established, at best, in (1+1) dimensions.
[§3, Fig. 5; §4, Fig. 4] The numerical results are not quantitatively supported. The histograms in Fig. 5(c–f) are compared visually with rho(x,t), but no statistical measure of deviation, no error bars, and no check that the deviation exceeds finite-sampling noise are provided. The Zitterbewegung invariance claim in Fig. 4 is based on a frequency average over 30 periods but no uncertainty estimate is given. In addition, the parameter values (a0, k, sigma_x, m), the discretization scheme, and convergence tests are not stated, so the simulations cannot be reproduced from the manuscript.

minor comments (5)

[Methods, Eq. (9)] Equation (9) is ambiguous: the derivative term should be written with the derivative acting on the full spinor expression, e.g. (i/2) gamma^a (1/sqrt(-g)) partial_mu(sqrt(-g) e^mu_a) Psi; as printed, the action of the derivative is unclear.
[§3, text and Fig. 6 caption] The null-geodesic condition is written as dx/dt = -tanh(x) in the main text but as dx/dt = tanh(x) in the caption of Fig. 6; the sign convention should be made consistent.
[Eqs. (13) and (19)] The initial state in Eq. (19) is expressed as a Gaussian superposition, but the relation to the amplitude-phase parametrization in Eq. (13) is not explained, and no values are given for a0, k, sigma_x, or m. This makes Figures 2–6 non-reproducible.
[§2, Fig. 2] The term 'Talbot carpet' is used for the interference pattern generated by the Gaussian superposition in Eq. (19), but no Talbot-type spatial periodicity or revival is shown or quantified; the terminology is not justified by the presented results.
[Data availability] The data availability statement says data are available from the authors upon request, but no code or data files are provided; for a numerical paper, this limits verifiability and would benefit from a public repository.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Born-rule violations are built into the nonstandard velocity choice u^μ = j^μ/n, not derived from curvature.

self definitional [Section 2, after Eqs. (15)–(16): definition of the velocity field u^μ = j^μ/n.]
"where n = pjµjµ = 2|ψ1||ψ2| represents the magnitude of the current jµ ... Following this perspective 56, 57, 70, 81–83, we define the velocity field uµ as the ratio of its current to its density uµ = jµ/n."

With γ0 = σ1, j0 = ψ†ψ = ρ, so the standard equilibrium-preserving flow is u^μ = j^μ/ρ: the continuity equation ∇_μ j^μ = 0 then guarantees that an ensemble of density ρ remains distributed as ρ. The paper instead sets u^μ = j^μ/n with n = 2|ψ1ψ2|, so ∇_μ(ρ u^μ) = ∇_μ((ρ/n) j^μ) is not zero in general. The later 'breakdown of quantum equilibrium' is therefore the expected mismatch between a ρ-initialized ensemble and a flow defined not to preserve ρ; the deviation is contained in the definition of the velocity field, not derived from spacetime curvature.
fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Figure 5(c–f) and following text: cigar-soliton histograms and 'gravity-induced' Born-rule deviations.]
"To make these histograms, we solved (16) for 20 000 trajectories initially selected along the distribution ρ(x, 0) ... we observe that while the quantum wavefunction avoids the singularity, the ensemble of Bohmian trajectories accumulates disproportionately near x = 0 , leading to potential deviations from the Born-rule distribution ρ(x, t) in that region. This deviation emerges as a purely quantum-gravitational effect, absent in Minkowski spacetime."

The numerics initialize the ensemble with ρ but evolve it with equation (16), i.e. with u^μ = j^μ/n. The transported density obeys ∇_μ(ρ u^μ) = ∇_μ((ρ/n) j^μ), which differs from zero whenever ρ/n varies along the flow. For the superposed Gaussian state used here, ρ/n is not constant, so P(x,t) ≠ ρ(x,t) is mathematically forced by the chosen velocity. The same continuity structure exists in Minkowski spacetime; the attribution of the mismatch to 'quantum-gravitational' effects is an interpretation of the arbitrary density n, not a prediction extracted from the metric.

1 more flagged steps

renaming known result [Unified Framework, Eqs. (25)–(26): reexpression of the Dirac stress–energy tensor.]
"For example, for a spin–1/2 field, the conventional symmetric stress–energy tensor T μν = ... can be reexpressed within our framework as T μν = √−g (m n cos(S−) uμuν + 1/2 (ϵμα jα ∇νS− + ϵνα jα ∇μS−))."

Equation (26) is obtained by substituting the polar decomposition (13) and the definitions n = √(jμjμ), u^μ = j^μ/n into the standard stress tensor (25). It contains no new degrees of freedom and no new dynamical equation. Presenting this as Einstein's equations acquiring a new interpretation relabels the standard Dirac energy–momentum content as 'constructed from the Bohmian guidance equation'; the novelty is terminological rather than derivational.

full rationale

The central circular step is explicit: the paper defines the Bohmian velocity as u^μ = j^μ/n, where n = √(jμjμ) = 2|ψ1ψ2|, instead of the equilibrium-preserving u^μ = j^μ/ρ with ρ = ψ†ψ. Since the Dirac current obeys ∇_μ j^μ = 0, an ensemble initialized at ρ is stationary under the standard velocity, but not under the paper's velocity. The claimed 'gravity-induced quantum non-equilibrium' is therefore not a consequence of the curved metric; it is the algebraic consequence of replacing ρ by n in the velocity definition. The numerical histograms in the cigar-soliton section initialize from ρ and evolve under u = j/n, so the observed P ≠ ρ is forced by construction. The self-citation to the author's earlier flat-spacetime work (Ref. [70]) is not itself the main defect: the current paper states the definition directly, but the definition is an unargued choice, and the paper's headline prediction reduces to that choice. The stress–energy reexpression in Eq. (26) is a further relabeling of known content, though it is less central. Other components—the curved-space Dirac equation, the Lagrangian rewriting, and the trajectory numerics—are legitimate given the assumptions, but the non-equilibrium prediction and the associated quantum-gravity claim are not independent of the input velocity definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on two ad hoc choices: the non-standard velocity definition and the asserted stress tensor. The paper also assumes the (1+1)D results extend to 3+1 dimensions without proof. The new interpretive entity, hidden curvature, has no independent evidence.

free parameters (4)

a0 = chosen in simulations (exact values not reported)
Initial scale factor in a(t)=a0 t^k, chosen by hand to test sensitivity.
k = k=1, 0, -1
Power-law exponent in the scale factor, chosen to represent expanding, flat, and contracting universes.
sigma_x = not specified
Width of the Gaussian packets in the initial wavefunction (19), chosen for the Talbot carpet state.
m = increased to isolate Zitterbewegung
Particle mass, used as a parameter to tune the Compton frequency (Fig. 4).

assumptions (4)

standard math Dirac equation in curved spacetime with spinor covariant derivative, as given in Eqs. (2)-(9).
The paper starts from the standard Dirac equation in curved spacetime; this is a well-established background.
domain assumption The polar decomposition (13) and the resulting Lagrangian (14) are valid in curved spacetime.
The paper does not show the full derivation from the Dirac Lagrangian to Eq. (14); it assumes the same steps as in flat spacetime hold with covariant derivatives.
ad hoc to paper The physical velocity is u^mu = j^mu/n with n = 2|psi1 psi2|.
This definition is introduced without justification and is the basis for the claimed Born-rule deviations.
ad hoc to paper The stress-energy tensor in Eq. (26) correctly represents the energy-momentum of the Bohmian ensemble.
It is merely stated, not derived, and its physical validity is not established.

invented entities (1)

Hidden spacetime curvature
purpose: Replaces metric superposition with an ensemble of definite curvatures, one per Bohmian trajectory.
No observable or falsifiable signature is derived; it is an interpretive concept.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Gravity Without Metric Quantization: From Hidden Variables to Hidden Spacetime Curvatures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KDS44SSK

@misc{pith2026250208421,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Gravity Without Metric Quantization: From Hidden Variables to Hidden Spacetime Curvatures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KDS44SSK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08421}
}

read the original abstract

Bohmian mechanics offers a deterministic alternative to conventional quantum theory through well-defined particle trajectories. While successful in nonrelativistic contexts, its extension to curved spacetime-and hence quantum gravity-remains unresolved. Here, we develop a covariant extension of Bohmian mechanics in curved spacetime that removes the need for metric quantization. From a Lagrangian formulation, we derive a generalized guidance equation in which Bohmian trajectories generate hidden curvature, replacing metric superposition with a statistical ensemble constrained by Heisenberg uncertainty, offering a novel perspective on quantum gravity. Consequently, in our approach, measuring the gravitational potential at a point unveils a pre-existing trajectory and its associated curvature-a departure from the observer-centric paradigm of standard quantum mechanics-providing an alternative in which gravitational effects emerge from deterministic quantum trajectories rather than wavefunction collapse. Numerical simulations in Robertson-Walker and cigar soliton spacetimes reveal that while quantum interference is curvature-sensitive, Zitterbewegung remains invariant, distinguishing fundamental quantum effects. Moreover, deviations from the Born rule in inhomogeneous spacetimes are observed and suggest gravity-induced quantum non-equilibrium. This new approach has far-reaching implications for the role of determinism and potential observational signatures of quantum non-equilibrium in cosmology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08421 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Illustration of a Bohmian trajectory in curved spacetime near a black hole. The grid represents the curvature of spacetime, described by the metric tensor g µν, highlighting the warping effect induced by the black hole’s gravitational field. The blue line depicts the deterministic Bohmian trajectory, guided by the pilot wave Ψ(x, t) through a generalized guidance equation u µ . This schematic visualization emphasiz… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Bohmian Trajectories in Robertson–Walker Spacetime. Panels (a–c) show numerical solutions for the relativistic quantum probability density, ρ(x, t), in three background geometries characterized by the scale factor a(t) = a0t k : (a) an expanding universe (k = 1); (b) flat Minkowski spacetime (k = 0); and (c) a contracting universe (k = −1). The deformation of ρ(x, t) captures the modulation of quantum interference… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Influence of the Scale Factor on Bohmian Trajectories in Robertson-Walker Spacetime. We show a single relativistic Bohmian trajectory x(t) in the Robertson-Walker metric with different values a0 of the scale factor a(t) = a0t k for: (a) an expanding universe (k = 1) and (b) a contracting universe (k = −1). The trajectory is initialized identically in all cases. A reference trajectory in flat spacetime is included f… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Zitterbewegung in curved spacetime. Evolution of the spatial component of the Bohmian velocity v(t)/c for a single trajectory in: (a) an expanding universe (k = 1) and (b) a contracting universe (k = −1), for different values of the scale factor a0. To isolate the Zitt…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Bohmian Dynamics in a Cigar Soliton Spacetime. (a) A three-dimensional plot of the quantum probability density, ρ(x, t) = ψ †ψ, highlighting a pronounced modulation near x = 0. (b) Selected Bohmian trajectories (solid lines) are superimposed on a color map of ρ(x, t), …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Freezing of Bohmian trajectories near the horizon-like region in the cigar soliton metric. The panels show the evolution of a single de Broglie-Bohm trajectory x(t), its velocity v(t), and the function tanh(x(t)). The function tanh(x(t)) is plotted as a reference since…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

[1]

& Dodelson, S

Hu, W. & Dodelson, S. Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 40, 171–216 (2002)

2002
[2]

Hawking, S. W. Particle creation by black holes. Communications in Mathematical Physics 43, 199–220 (1975)

1975
[3]

Mermin, N. D. Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory.Physics Today 38, 38–47 (1985)

1985
[4]

Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics

Schlosshauer, M. Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics 76, 1267–1305 (2005)

2005
[5]

& Peter, P

Martin, J., Vennin, V . & Peter, P. Cosmological inflation and the quantum measurement prob- lem. Physical Review D 86, 103524 (2012)

2012
[6]

On the Quantum Measurement Problem

Brukner, C. On the Quantum Measurement Problem. In Bertlmann, R. & Zeilinger, A. (eds.) Quantum [Un]Speakables II: Half a Century of Bell’s Theorem , 95–117 (Springer Interna- tional Publishing, Cham, 2017)

2017
[7]

Generalized quantum mechanics

Mielnik, B. Generalized quantum mechanics. Communications in Mathematical Physics 37, 221–256 (1974)

work page 1974
[8]

Belenchia, A. et al. Quantum superposition of massive objects and the quantization of gravity. Physical Review D 98, 126009 (2018). 29

work page 2018

Show all 86 references

[9]

Holographic formulation of quantum general relativity

Smolin, L. Holographic formulation of quantum general relativity. Physical Review D 61, 084007 (2000)

2000
[10]

MacDowell, S. W. & Mansouri, F. Unified Geometric Theory of Gravity and Supergravity. Physical Review Letters 38, 739–742 (1977)

1977
[11]

Bose, S. et al. Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity. Physical Review Letters 119, 240401 (2017)

2017
[12]

& Vedral, V

Marletto, C. & Vedral, V . Gravitationally induced entanglement between two massive particles is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity. Physical review letters 119, 240–402 (2017)

2017
[13]

& Sorkin, R

Dowker, F., Henson, J. & Sorkin, R. Quantum gravity phenomenology, Lorentz invariance and discreteness. Modern Physics Letters A 19, No.24, 1829–1840 (2004)

2004
[14]

On the Gravitization of Quantum Mechanics 1: Quantum State Reduction

Penrose, R. On the Gravitization of Quantum Mechanics 1: Quantum State Reduction. Foun- dations of Physics 44, 557–575 (2014)

2014
[15]

On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction

Penrose, R. On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction. General Relativity and Gravitation 28, 581–600 (1996)

1996
[16]

Gravitation and quantum-mechanical localization of macro-objects

Di ´osi, L. Gravitation and quantum-mechanical localization of macro-objects. Physics Letters A 105, 199–202 (1984)

1984
[17]

Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuations

Di ´osi, L. Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuations. Physical Review A: Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics40, 1165–1174 (1989). 30

1989
[18]

Jones, K. R. W. Newtonian quantum gravity. Australian Journal of Physics 48, 1055–1081 (1995)

1995
[19]

& Durt, T

Hatifi, M. & Durt, T. Revealing self-gravity in a Stern-Gerlach Humpty-Dumpty experiment (2020). arXiv:2006.07420

2020 arXiv
[20]

General Relativity and the Divergence Problem in Quantum Field Theory

Deser, S. General Relativity and the Divergence Problem in Quantum Field Theory. Reviews of Modern Physics 29, 417–423 (1957)

1957
[21]

Hawking, S. W. Quantum gravity and path integrals. Physical Review D 18, 1747–1753 (1978)

1978
[22]

Quantum mechanics of the gravitational field

Teitelboim, C. Quantum mechanics of the gravitational field. Physical Review D 25, 3159– 3179 (1982)

1982
[23]

Birrell, N. D. & Davies, P. C. W. Quantum Fields in Curved Space (Cambridge University Press, 1984)

1984
[24]

& Stein, U

Haag, R., Narnhofer, H. & Stein, U. On quantum field theory in gravitational background. Communications in Mathematical Physics 94, 219–238 (1984)

1984
[25]

Hall, L. J. & Nomura, Y . Gauge coupling unification from unified theories in higher dimen- sions. Physical Review D 65, 125012 (2002)

2002
[26]

& Reuter, M

Niedermaier, M. & Reuter, M. The Asymptotic Safety Scenario in Quantum Gravity. Living Reviews in Relativity 9, 5 (2006). 31

2006
[27]

& Vaidman, L

Aharonov, Y ., Anandan, J. & Vaidman, L. Meaning of the wave function. Physical Review A 47, 4616–4626 (1993)

1993
[28]

& Zangh`ı, N

D ¨urr, D., Goldstein, S. & Zangh`ı, N. Quantum physics without quantum philosophy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 26, 137–149 (1995)

1995
[29]

Wave Function Ontology

Monton, B. Wave Function Ontology. Synthese. An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science 130, 265–277 (2002)

2002
[30]

& D ¨urr, D

Esfeld, M., Lazarovici, D., Hubert, M. & D ¨urr, D. The Ontology of Bohmian Mechanics. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65, 773–796 (2014)

2014
[31]

Ringbauer, M. et al. Measurements on the reality of the wavefunction. Nature Physics 11, 249–254 (2015)

2015
[32]

& Willox, R

Colin, S., Durt, T. & Willox, R. L. de Broglie’s double solution program: 90 years later. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie42, 19 (2017)

2017
[33]

& Valentini, A

Bacciagaluppi, G. & Valentini, A. Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 1 edn

1927
[34]

& Rosen, N

Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. & Rosen, N. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical review 47, 777 (1935)

1935
[35]

Recherches Sur La Th´eorie Des Quanta

De Broglie, L. Recherches Sur La Th´eorie Des Quanta. Ph.D. thesis, Migration-universit ´e en cours d’affectation (1924). 32

1924
[36]

La m ´ecanique ondulatoire et la structure atomique de la matiere et du rayon- nement

de Broglie, L. La m ´ecanique ondulatoire et la structure atomique de la matiere et du rayon- nement. Journal de Physique et le Radium 8, 225–241 (1927)

1927
[37]

The wave nature of the electron

De Broglie, L. The wave nature of the electron. Nobel lecture 12, 244–56 (1929)

1929
[38]

A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of “Hidden” Variables

Bohm, D. A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of “Hidden” Variables. I. Physical Review 85, 166–179 (1952)

1952
[39]

A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of “Hidden” Variables

Bohm, D. A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of “Hidden” Variables. II. Physical Review 85, 180–193 (1952)

1952
[40]

& Vigier, J.-P

Bohm, D. & Vigier, J.-P. Model of the causal interpretation of quantum theory in terms of a fluid with irregular fluctuations. Physical Review 96, 208 (1954)

1954
[41]

Signal locality, uncertainty and the subquantum H-theorem

Valentini, A. Signal locality, uncertainty and the subquantum H-theorem. II. Physics Letters A 158, 1–8 (1991)

1991
[42]

On the Pilot-Wave Theory of Classical, Quantum and Subquantum Physics

Valentini, A. On the Pilot-Wave Theory of Classical, Quantum and Subquantum Physics. (Ph.D. thesis, SISSA, 1992)

1992
[43]

& Westman, H

Valentini, A. & Westman, H. Dynamical origin of quantum probabilities. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 461, 253–272 (2005)

2005
[44]

D., Russell, N

Towler, M. D., Russell, N. J. & Valentini, A. Time scales for dynamical relaxation to the Born rule. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 468, 990–1013 (2012). 33

2012
[45]

Relaxation to quantum equilibrium for Dirac fermions in the de Broglie–Bohm pilot- wave theory

Colin, S. Relaxation to quantum equilibrium for Dirac fermions in the de Broglie–Bohm pilot- wave theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 468, 1116–1135 (2012)

2012
[46]

& Valentini, A

Abraham, E., Colin, S. & Valentini, A. Long-time relaxation in pilot-wave theory. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 395306 (2014)

2014
[47]

Underwood, N. G. & Valentini, A. Quantum field theory of relic nonequilibrium systems. Physical Review D: Particles and Fields92, 063531 (2015)

2015
[48]

& Wiseman, H

Colin, S. & Wiseman, H. M. The zig-zag road to reality. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 44, 345304 (2011)

2011
[49]

& Durt, T

Hatifi, M., Lopez-Fortin, C. & Durt, T. De Broglie’s double solution: Limitations of the self-gravity approach. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie43, 63 (2018)

2018
[50]

& Durt, T

Hatifi, M., Willox, R., Colin, S. & Durt, T. Bouncing oil droplets, de broglie’s quantum thermostat, and convergence to equilibrium. Entropy. An International and Interdisciplinary Journal of Entropy and Information Studies 20, 780 (2018)

2018
[51]

Beyond Pilot Wave Dynamics : Non-linearity and Non-Equilibrium in Quantum Mechanics

Hatifi, M. Beyond Pilot Wave Dynamics : Non-linearity and Non-Equilibrium in Quantum Mechanics. Ph.D. thesis, Ph.D thesis, Ecole Centrale Marseille (2019)

2019
[52]

& Durt, T

Hatifi, M., Willox, R. & Durt, T. Convergence to Quantum Equilibrium: Deterministic vs Stochastic Pilot Wave Dynamics. In Castro, P., Bush, J. W. M. & Croca, J. (eds.)Advances in {pilot} {wave} {theory}: {From} {experiments} to {foundations}, 91–117 (Springer Inter- national P...

2024
[53]

On the Pilot-Wave Theory of Classical, Quantum and Subquantum Physics

Valentini, A. On the Pilot-Wave Theory of Classical, Quantum and Subquantum Physics. Ph.D. thesis, SISSA (1992)

1992
[54]

& Struyve, W

Colin, S. & Struyve, W. Quantum non-equilibrium and relaxation to quantum equilibrium for a class of de Broglie-Bohm-type theories. New Journal of Physics 12, 043008 (2010)

2010
[55]

Sanz, ´A. S. & Miret-Art ´es, S. A Trajectory Description of Quantum Processes. II. Applica- tions: A Bohmian Perspective, vol. 831 of Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2014)

2014
[56]

Comments on an Article of Takabayasi conserning the Formulation of Quantum Mechanics with Classical Pictures

Bohm, D. Comments on an Article of Takabayasi conserning the Formulation of Quantum Mechanics with Classical Pictures. Progress of Theoretical Physics9, 273–287 (1953)

1953
[57]

Relativistic Hydrodynamics of the Dirac Matter

Takabayasi, T. Relativistic Hydrodynamics of the Dirac Matter. Part I. General Theory*. Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 4, 1–80 (1957)

1957
[58]

& Zangh `ı, N

D ¨urr, D., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R. & Zangh `ı, N. Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory. Physical Review Letters 93, 090402 (2004)

2004
[59]

Bohmian Particle Trajectories in Relativistic Bosonic Quantum Field Theory

Nikoli ´c, H. Bohmian Particle Trajectories in Relativistic Bosonic Quantum Field Theory. Foundations of Physics Letters 17, 363–380 (2004)

2004
[60]

Bohmian Particle Trajectories in Relativistic Fermionic Quantum Field Theory

Nikoli ´c, H. Bohmian Particle Trajectories in Relativistic Fermionic Quantum Field Theory. Foundations of Physics Letters 18, 123–138 (2005)

2005
[61]

Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and the Bohmian Interpretation

Nikoli ´c, H. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and the Bohmian Interpretation. Foundations of Physics Letters 18, 549–561 (2005). 35

2005
[62]

& Struyve, W

Colin, S. & Struyve, W. A Dirac sea pilot-wave model for quantum field theory. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 40, 7309 (2007)

2007
[63]

& Simon, C

Braverman, B. & Simon, C. Proposal to Observe the Nonlocality of Bohmian Trajectories with Entangled Photons. Physical Review Letters 110, 060406 (2013)

2013
[64]

& Zangh `ı, N

D ¨urr, D., Goldstein, S., Norsen, T., Struyve, W. & Zangh `ı, N. Can Bohmian mechanics be made relativistic? Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer- ing Sciences 470, 20130699 (2014)

2014
[65]

Generalized guidance equation for peaked quantum solitons and effective gravity

Durt, T. Generalized guidance equation for peaked quantum solitons and effective gravity. EPL (Europhysics Letters) 114, 10004 (2016)

2016
[66]

On Bohmian Mechanics, Particle Creation, and Relativistic Space-Time: Happy 100th Birthday, David Bohm! Entropy

Tumulka, R. On Bohmian Mechanics, Particle Creation, and Relativistic Space-Time: Happy 100th Birthday, David Bohm! Entropy. An International and Interdisciplinary Journal of Entropy and Information Studies 20, 462 (2018)

2018
[67]

Relativistic QFT from a Bohmian Perspective: A Proof of Concept

Nikoli ´c, H. Relativistic QFT from a Bohmian Perspective: A Proof of Concept. Foundations of Physics 52, 80 (2022)

2022
[68]

Foo, J., Asmodelle, E., Lund, A. P. & Ralph, T. C. Relativistic Bohmian trajectories of photons via weak measurements. Nature Communications 13, 4002 (2022)

2022
[69]

De Broglie–Bohm Formulation of Dirac Fields

Fabbri, L. De Broglie–Bohm Formulation of Dirac Fields. Foundations of Physics 52, 116 (2022). 36

2022
[70]

Relativistic Bohmian mechanics revisited: A covariant reformulation for spin-1/2 particles

Hatifi, M. Relativistic Bohmian mechanics revisited: A covariant reformulation for spin-1/2 particles. Physics Letters A 518, 129680 (2024)

2024
[71]

Mann, R. B. The simplest black holes. Foundations of Physics Letters 4, 425–449 (1991)

1991
[72]

& Roychoudhury, R

Sinha, A. & Roychoudhury, R. Dirac equation in (1+1)-dimensional curved space-time. In- ternational Journal of Theoretical Physics 33, 1511–1522 (1994)

1994
[73]

& McLenaghan, R

Carter, B. & McLenaghan, R. G. Generalized total angular momentum operator for the Dirac equation in curved space-time. Physical Review D 19, 1093–1097 (1979)

1979
[74]

Barut, A. O. & Duru, I. H. Exact solutions of the Dirac equation in spatially flat Robertson- Walker space-times. Physical Review D 36, 3705–3711 (1987)

1987
[75]

& Klein, D

Collas, P. & Klein, D. The Dirac Equation in Curved Spacetime: A Guide for Calculations . SpringerBriefs in Physics (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019)

2019
[76]

Stewart, J. M. Perturbations of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmological models. Classical and Quantum Gravity 7, 1169 (1990)

1990
[77]

A., Lyth, D

Wands, D., Malik, K. A., Lyth, D. H. & Liddle, A. R. New approach to the evolution of cosmological perturbations on large scales. Physical Review D 62, 043527 (2000)

2000
[78]

String theory and black holes

Witten, E. String theory and black holes. Physical Review D 44, 314–324 (1991)

1991
[79]

& Suneeta, V

Lambert, C. & Suneeta, V . Stability analysis of the Witten black hole (cigar soliton) under world-sheet renormalization group flow. Physical Review D 86, 084041 (2012). 37

2012
[80]

Lower dimensional gravity

Jackiw, R. Lower dimensional gravity. Nuclear Physics B 252, 343–356 (1985)

1985
[81]

Remarks on the Formulation of Quantum Mechanics with Classical Pictures and on Relations between Linear Scalar Fields and Hydrodynamical Fields

Takabayasi, T. Remarks on the Formulation of Quantum Mechanics with Classical Pictures and on Relations between Linear Scalar Fields and Hydrodynamical Fields. Progress of The- oretical Physics 9, 187–222 (1953)

1953
[82]

Inequivalence between the Schr ¨odinger equation and the Madelung hydrody- namic equations

Wallstrom, T. Inequivalence between the Schr ¨odinger equation and the Madelung hydrody- namic equations. Physical Review A: Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics49, 1613 (1994)

1994
[83]

& Brachet, M

Hatifi, M., Di Molfetta, G., Debbasch, F. & Brachet, M. Quantum walk hydrodynamics. Scientific Reports 9, 2989 (2019)

2019
[84]

Inflationary cosmology as a probe of primordial quantum mechanics

Valentini, A. Inflationary cosmology as a probe of primordial quantum mechanics. Physical Review D: Particles and Fields82, 063513 (2010)

2010
[85]

& Fabris, J

Pinto-Neto, N. & Fabris, J. C. Quantum cosmology from the de Broglie–Bohm perspective. Classical and Quantum Gravity 30, 143001 (2013)

2013
[86]

& Valentini, A

Colin, S. & Valentini, A. Robust predictions for the large-scale cosmological power deficit from primordial quantum nonequilibrium. International Journal of Modern Physics D 25, 1650068 (2016). 38

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

& Dodelson, S

Hu, W. & Dodelson, S. Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 40, 171–216 (2002)

2002

[2] [2]

Hawking, S. W. Particle creation by black holes. Communications in Mathematical Physics 43, 199–220 (1975)

1975

[3] [3]

Mermin, N. D. Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory.Physics Today 38, 38–47 (1985)

1985

[4] [4]

Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics

Schlosshauer, M. Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics 76, 1267–1305 (2005)

2005

[5] [5]

& Peter, P

Martin, J., Vennin, V . & Peter, P. Cosmological inflation and the quantum measurement prob- lem. Physical Review D 86, 103524 (2012)

2012

[6] [6]

On the Quantum Measurement Problem

Brukner, C. On the Quantum Measurement Problem. In Bertlmann, R. & Zeilinger, A. (eds.) Quantum [Un]Speakables II: Half a Century of Bell’s Theorem , 95–117 (Springer Interna- tional Publishing, Cham, 2017)

2017

[7] [7]

Generalized quantum mechanics

Mielnik, B. Generalized quantum mechanics. Communications in Mathematical Physics 37, 221–256 (1974)

work page 1974

[8] [8]

Belenchia, A. et al. Quantum superposition of massive objects and the quantization of gravity. Physical Review D 98, 126009 (2018). 29

work page 2018